I dunno... What's 'enough quality'? Hell, I took my Canon Powershot G3 and took some pics with it and loved it FWIW... and I think that in 2020 (if shutter and God allows) I'll shoot with my 5D.
I guess m43 and NEX have those actual strenghts and weaknesses widely discussed elsewhere, NEX if you're gonna shoot alt, m43 for the entire system... but even so that 12-50 looks crappy @ tele... that and the small EVF are serious drawbacks for me for now.
Sensor technology has some hard constraints imposed on it by good old physics. Pixel density is effectively limited by diffraction. Sensitivity (ISO/noise) is limited by the necessity to catch at least a few photons in a sensel. There are graphs of what's theoretically possible given perfect hardware and the current sensors are already getting close. I don't think there's that much headroom left.
KaaX, you misquoted me and left out the full sentence of what I wrote: sensor technology is always improving and at a much greater rate than new lens designs (at least the lenses that matter to me) When given in the context above it would appear that I am saying that sensor tech is improving at a greater rate than "any" new lens design, but that is not what I said I said at a rate for a new lens design "that matters to me". These beautiful primes and fantastic zooms don't come out everyday. My point was this, MFT will improve their sensors faster than Sony or Fuji can get a lineup of lenses "that matter to me", so while the MFT sensors may be inferior now, the lens lineup more than makes up for that unless you're constantly looking for the utmost in high ISO, which if that is the case then I'll go to my D700 or possibly a D800 if I can get past my issues with that body. In regard to your comment about "I don't think there's that much headroom left" well, only time will tell, I've had to eat my words numerous times about how "slow" I thought digital sensors would advance and now look at the likes of the D4 or 1D X...
I think I'm in the middle on that part of it. Like KaaX says sensors are and actually have been for a couple of years now, bumping up against physics. And Nex is no better really. It's the same for what it is as an APS-C. Of course Nex owners might wish it were different but...
Lenses topped out 30 years ago already and all that's happening today is mostly just wheel reinvention. I have 30 and 40 year old lenses that kick ass on the very best Nex and µ4/3 lenses - especially from about 20mm on up! And the very best zooms of today for those platforms pale in comparison to zooms now selling for $75 but are only a few grams heavier. This I've proven to myself extensively. Makers are even having to cheat by devising in-camera "fixes" for their poor lens designs. Besides some anti-reflection & ghost coating technologies used on some upper end pro lenses nothing much has changed or as in the case of many µ4/3 and Nex offerings, has only gotten worse. In fact it may be so for larger platforms too. The New versions (Like ZF and ZE etc) of the Zeiss 100 are also worse than the 30 year old AEG C/Y version as just one example.
Sensors up against a hardened wall, lenses not really improving or only getting worse, what does all this mean? I have no idea personally but I kinda think it might be an indication of a impending and inevitable change in direction. On the sensor side I could see oversampling per exposure or multi-exposure being used for noise cancellation, focus racking, dynamic range expansion, even SFX and etc. On the lens side of things I dunno but I know there are higher quality optical systems in existence than any camera manufacturer ever thought to use. Some systems employ laser quality glass, trapped gasses, and the motors and gears we use today is pretty old-school - even if they've seen a speed increase.
For me the topic of new sensor and lens tech is just about dead. Until some radical new sensor technology is introduced or a new way of using the existing tech is devised, pretty much all I need to know is it's size and pixel density. And the same kinda goes for lenses too; until something pretty bold comes along, except for some new UUWA offerings, the ancient set of lenses I already have competes and compares favorably with what's being designed today - unless I wish to spend thousands and thousands for very small improvements in only a few fairly unimportant areas.
I fully expect to be lambasted now that I've impaled the god of eternal upgrades and thrown his carcass upon the alter. But that's pretty much for the most part, where I'm at on this.
Fear not however for his resurrection may come of camera bodies, ergonomics, features, and system options - which are of course a different story than sensor and lens IQ. To bring it all back to the topic at hand this to me is where the OM-D fits in! Olympus couldn't have gotten it nor their timing, more right on!
Bifurcator wrote:
You and I both said however that it's not useful to consider it in the way they're thinking. While I still generally think so, I suppose it does help to clarify a few of the formula variables - which is always good. I like clarity of thought at least as much as I like clarity of lenses.
My way of thinking is this:
Say I have a FF camera with a 150 mm f/4 lens and a u43 camera with a 75 mm f/2 lens. I intend to use the FF camera at base ISO for maximum image quality, so I choose that system to take with me.
Then, I encounter a situation where I need a certain shutter speed. I then adjust the ISO to get the shutter speed I want.
Are you saying that in this situation, it would have been better to bring the u43 camera and the 75 mm f/2 lens instead of adjusting the ISO on the camera I already have with me?
alundeb wrote:
Are you saying that in this situation, it would have been better to bring the u43 camera and the 75 mm f/2 lens instead of adjusting the ISO on the camera I already have with me?
Do you think I'm saying that? And if so why? What parts of my (whole) post did you not read or not understand?
How can I remark on an irrelevant hypothetical with different ISOs, changed lenses, undefined sensors, altered apertures, and stuff which seem to disregard all of the variables I mentioned that make it flawed? I can't say anything to that without this going around in circles forever. How about you? Is whatever difference you're imagining in your particular hypothetical there, worth $6,000 extra?
carstenw wrote:
At the same ISO, yes, of course. And that is my interest.
You say: "4/3 has an advantage because there are fast f2 lenses that allows me to shoot at 1/250 f2 at ISO 200. That's great, because I can use ISO 200!"
We say: "But that is not an advantage, even if you would have used a slower f4 lens on full frame, you could crank up the ISO. 1/250 f4 at ISO 800 will capture as many photons and hence give you the same amount of noise"
Can we agree on this so far? But then comes the part where you confuse me big time:
You say: "But that does not matter to me, because my interest is the ISO number. I want to shoot at ISO 200!"
Are you always shooting in M mode and use the ISO value to determine shutter speed etc? In that case, I could see a point because you don't need to re-calculate values that you know work for you.
I'm not trying to be rude, I honestly want to understand how you think here because it does not comply with logic as I know it.
Bifurcator wrote:
How about you? Is whatever difference you're imagining in your particular hypothetical there, worth $6,000 extra?
The price difference between a Canon 5DII + 70-200 F4 and a GX1 + 75 mm F2 is not even in the same ballpark as the price difference you mention. And then I have invested in the more expensive camera and can start adding cheap slow lenses.
To answer your question: When I discuss high resolution FF cameras on the Canon board, I am adviced to go to Medium format, at an additional cost of $15.000.
carstenw wrote:
At the same ISO, yes, of course. And that is my interest.
JonasY wrote:
You say: "4/3 has an advantage because there are fast f2 lenses that allows me to shoot at 1/250 f2 at ISO 200. That's great, because I can use ISO 200!"
We say: "But that is not an advantage, even if you would have used a slower f4 lens on full frame, you could crank up the ISO. 1/250 f4 at ISO 800 will capture as many photons and hence give you the same amount of noise"
Can we agree on this so far?
No! No way!
What two sensors are we talking about? Age? Tech?
What supporting (body) sensor electronics are we talking about?
What are their perspective resolutions?
What two lenses are we talking about? And their price?
What were the price differences between the two cameras?
How good are each of the hypothetical users at NR?
What are the images intended for - web? print? pixel-peeping geekery?
If print then how big? If web then display device and scaling amount?
How much does each of the respective users care about a little noise?
What kind of photography is it? Sports? Pro? Hobby? Flower shots?
All these things actually figure and/or matter in determining an overall advantage. And slanting even a few of those in one direction or the other skews the "advantage factor" considerably. It's absolutely not just a simple math equation! Thinking that it is will deliver up a flawed result.
Bifurcator wrote:
What two sensors are we talking about? Age? Tech?
What supporting (body) sensor electronics are we talking about?
What are their perspective resolutions?
What two lenses are we talking about? And their price?
What were the price differences between the two cameras?
How good are each of the hypothetical users at NR?
What are the images intended for - web? print? pixel-peeping geekery?
If print then how big? If web then display device and scaling amount?
How much does each of the respective users care about a little noise?
What kind of photography is it? Sports? Pro? Hobby? Flower shots?
All these things actually figure and/or matter in determining an overall advantage. And slanting even a few of those in one direction or the other skews the "advantage factor" considerably. It's absolutely not just a simple math equation! Thinking that it is will deliver up a flawed result.
JonasY wrote:
... I.e, do you [still] believe that you would be better of hand holding a 75/2 lens on 4/3 than 150/4 on ff in terms of shutter speeds? (of course excluding all other factors as size, weight and IS). ...
You'll have roughly the same when using a 75/2 on m4/3 as using 150/4 an FF, you're correct! ....and that's the beauty of it, you will get roughly the same quality using equipment 2-3 times lighter and 3-10 times cheaper. Micro 4/3 is about portability and the trade-off is you loose ability to shoot with extremely thin DOF and 1-2 stops of high ISO performace depending on what you choose for reference.
For me the it looks like the E-M5 could be a dream hiking/traveling camera and still function perfectly with most I'd think of using it for. The sad thing is that there's always someone to tell you what you have or what you like is not good enough.
All that has been discussed here in the last few pages is actually quite obvious, it's easier to make a clean image from larger sensor. ...it's needless discussion, it's forum noise!
Just think of two nature photographers, shooting birds. One has a 1D Mark III body and the other has the spankling new 1Dx. Both are shooting with the same lens: 500mm f/4 L IS. The first one still has an f/4 lens right? ...or is it suddenly an f/8 since the other guy has a newer camera with two stops better ISO performance?? ( now I'm adding noise!! )
Yakim Peled wrote:
If only this 12-50 would be 2.8-4 and not 3.5-6.3 I could be tempted.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I do wish there were a m43 zoom lens with a decent aperture, but for this lens it will be landscape/nature/travel tool for me, so I prefer the lower weight to the bigger glass. Still baffling that each manufacturer has no less than 3 normal zooms each and they all have slow, variable apertures... Seems like a real opportunity for Olympus or Panasonic, to produce a lens that would cause many more potential users to take a look at the system.
JonasY wrote:
Thanks your answer. That cleared up things a bit.
Sure. I know you were asking carstenw tho so maybe he'll say something different.
alundeb wrote:
Yes, those factors can skew the results considerably. But in both directions with reference to the equivalence equation.
No, not always in both directions, no. For example I doubt we'll see an µ4/3 camera ever costing more than a FF. Smaller sensor cameras are released at much higher frequencies so the sensor tech is almost always likely to be newer. I don't think FF will match µ4/3 in pixel density (or at least not for long) thus resolution/area will be higher on µ4/3 as well. etc. Also some of those things actually disqualify that magic equation! It's just a mistake to use it and think it's actually meaningful in practice. It's fine for grasping a concept but that's about where it begins and ends.
But that's pretty much for the most part, where I'm at on this. 
To bring it all back to the topic at hand this to me is where the OM-D fits in! Olympus couldn't have gotten it nor their timing, more right on!
