I recently came back to m4/3 after exploring Sony FF and Fuji for few years and even though I reallly like the move I somehow feel like something is missing when it comes to portraits. I spent a lot of time yesterday going though the pictures that I have taken with Fuji and Sony and compared them to E-M1 MK II and for some reason Olympus pictures lack the pop/shine/look that both Fuji and Sony images have.
I don't know if it is the lack of micro-contrast or thinner DOF or combination of both. Or maybe it is the lack of tonality/DR in smaller sensor.
Lens that I have used are 12-100 F4, Nocticron, Leica 24/1,4 and even 17.5 0.95.
Does anyone else have similar experience or am I just going insane?
I've moved from Olympus μ43 to FF, but every time I look through my old stuff, I think to myself: Some of my favorite images came from my E-M5. Was this worth it?
Most of the time, I think "yes", but occasionally, I'm still not sure.
I'd be curious to see the portraits you're not sure about.
Part of the reason that I moved to m4/3 was because I didn't feel like I was making full use of A7rII and expensive lenses. In general, I don't feels like I lost anything with the move but it's only in portraits where I feel something is missing.
Only way to tell is to do a side-by-side test between the 3 systems. I have found the Sony AWB to be significant less reliable or more erratic compared to Olympus.
When I was using Panasonic a lot of it came down to figuring out how to edit photos from a different sensor. I'm going through the same thing now that I have moved from APS-C to full frame. Probably not helpful, but give it some time (I'm not sure what the timeframe for you has been).
I was all in m4/3, but made the decision to do both systems recently, particularly for portraiture.
I was using the Nocticron, which is an amazing lens, but still found that I preferred full frame photos for most portraits. I do think it does have to do with the tonality, but also, for my purposes, the integrity of the image when being pushed or pulled. The m43 images simply fall apart quicker.
So I'm rocking a Pen-F with 15, 45 and 75mm lenses for my lightweight kit, and A7rII with 55mm and 85mm for my portrait kit. (Notice the lack of focal length over lap.) I haven't decided which kit to outfit for wide-angle yet.
I sold my E-M1 II, 12-100 and the Nocticron, which was difficult. The E-M1 II + 12-100 was amazing for video. Unfortunately, right now, I had to choose between the E-M1 for video and the A7rII for photos.
For photography, I prefer the Pen-F to the E-M1 II. I find the viewfinder more comfortable, with better color, and also find the smaller focus point size better for accuracy. But then, I don't shoot much that requires C-AF. Of course, I wish every mirrorless camera had that E-M1 II battery....but I digress, your question was about portraiture, and I do find the "full frame advantage" to be a real thing there.
ajamils wrote:
Does anyone else have similar experience or am I just going insane?
I can relate. I think it comes down to the sensor. I used the PL 25/1.4 when I had an Oly E-M10ii. I LOVE the rendering of that lens. I made some really nice photos with that combo. However, I agree there is something "lacking" in the output compared to that of larger sensors IMO. Personally, I don't really care, as content, emotion, light, color etc. is more important to me than technical superiority. But I agree there is a difference, and it's IMO quite visible, so no, you're not insane
mortyb wrote:
I can relate. I think it comes down to the sensor. I used the PL 25/1.4 when I had an Oly E-M10ii. I LOVE the rendering of that lens. I made some really nice photos with that combo. However, I agree there is something "lacking" in the output compared to that of larger sensors IMO. Personally, I don't really care, as content, emotion, light, color etc. is more important to me than technical superiority. But I agree there is a difference, and it's IMO quite visible, so no, you're not insane
Good to know that I'm not insane
*** Photo removed because it was derailing the original question ****
Maybe I'm missing something... but what is horrible about this? Focus might be off, though how off is hard to tell given the size of the image and her expression (can't see her eyes). Her mouth/face is blurry in a way that looks like defocus.
Given the lighting, expression, and where the plane of focus is, I'm not sure how different it would be if this was taken with a Sony FE or Fuji camera.
arduluth wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something... but what is horrible about this? Focus might be off, though how off is hard to tell given the size of the image and her expression (can't see her eyes). Her mouth/face is blurry in a way that looks like defocus.
Given the lighting, expression, and where the plane of focus is, I'm not sure how different it would be if this was taken with a Sony FE or Fuji camera.
Ya, it is difficult to judge the picture at that size. Unfortunately, this was the larges that FM was allowing me to upload. The issue with the pictures is that everything is a mush. There is no sharpness and it looks it has a very heavy NR done to it, which was not the case at all. This is a OOC jpeg with NR set to low.
This pictures is not representative of the issue that I mentioned in the OP. This was just something I posted regarding the 25/f1.4 lens.
Part of the hair and part of the headband is crisp, lots of detail, at least at this size. Sounds like a focus issue, which could be user error or some other issue.
I would not be satisfied at all with this image. I really can't see that any portion is in sharp focus. That said, I don't see any reason to attribute the result to m43. Not only that but I use the PL 25 mm lens on an Oly EM5.ii with excellent results. It is a great lens! I use it for candid and available light photos in restaurants or indoor locations with excellent results. So, back to the image example and ask why is the result so unsatisfactory? f1.4 @ 1/160 sec means the light must have been rather dim. Some of the problem must be technique. Shooting at f1.4, you have to nail focus. In this case I would be focusing on the eyes, waiting for them to be open and not squinting. Probably want to set aperture to f2-f3 or so, to allow the face to be in better focus. Maybe use a burst instead of single frame capture. I might be tempted to increase the iso to get a little higher shutter speed if you expect movement. And I always shoot raw, allowing me to control the amount of noise reduction after capture.
ajamils wrote:
Ya, it is difficult to judge the picture at that size. Unfortunately, this was the larges that FM was allowing me to upload. The issue with the pictures is that everything is a mush. There is no sharpness and it looks it has a very heavy NR done to it, which was not the case at all. This is a OOC jpeg with NR set to low.
This pictures is not representative of the issue that I mentioned in the OP. This was just something I posted regarding the 25/f1.4 lens.
I say this confidence, that with what is available as far as cameras/lenses, when someone complains about "gear" I know that it is the person behind the camera, the size of the sensor is not an issue - let me point 2 things out for you.
1 - look at the portrait shots from BobbyTan. THAT is what m4/3 is capable of. So if he can produce those results, the sensor in M4/3 cameras are not the issue.
2 - a few years ago, Ming Thein had a showing in one of the local galleries in his home town. He had on display photos made with 3 different cameras: EM1, D7200, and D810 - except that Ming tricked the audience by printing really big from the EM-1 the shots from the 2 Nikon were smaller but same size.
The visitors knew about the 3 cameras, but the pictures were not labeled. Ming would overhear people admiring the superiority of the D810 due to all the detail in those large photos. Not realizing that they were looking at shots from the EM1.
I am not saying that a bigger sensor is not better, but I think we see what we WANT to see.
As far as your example, unfortunately technically it is really bad. I am guessing that she is your child, so I would never suggest to delete it, but if I took something like that (landscape for example) I'd trash it. Your gear is capable of MUCH MUCH better.
I have removed the picture because it took the thread into completely different direction.
My original question about based on the tonality, 3D pop of pictures that I see in my Sony and Fuji pictures but not in m4/3. If it was due to me being a horrible photographer then it should have happened on all formats not only m4/3 . Maybe other formats are more forgiving than m4/3? If anything, I think it is the other way around. More defects will show up in 42 mpx FF sensor than 20 mpx m4/3 sensor (with incredible IBIS)
ajamils wrote:
I have removed the picture because it took the thread into completely different direction.
My original question about based on the tonality, 3D pop of pictures that I see in my Sony and Fuji pictures but not in m4/3. If it was due to me being a horrible photographer then it should have happened on all formats not only m4/3 . Maybe other formats are more forgiving than m4/3? If anything, I think it is the other way around. More defects will show up in 42 mpx FF sensor than 20 mpx m4/3 sensor (with incredible IBIS)
No one said that you are a terrible photographer. However your example had a number of issues that had nothing to do with gear. Do you have examples of each format? I'll say it again, look at Bobby's examples. Compare the shot you posted to his. You will see that it isn't the gear. I can direct you to another forum that is mostly dslr based and my goodness - you will not believe some of the results coming from FF gear. If it truly was the gear, I could pick up a FF setup and take better pictures than Bobby for example wouldn't I? We both know that that is not the case. So let's see some comparisons if you have them.
My intention was not to hurt your feelings, so I apologize, but if I ever post an out of focus shot and I blame my gear, please do me a favor and point out the obvious will you?
savingspaces wrote:
If it truly was the gear, I could pick up a FF setup and take better pictures than Bobby for example wouldn't I? We both know that that is not the case.
This is flawed logic IMO, and not relevant to the OP's issue - which is a lack of tonality and pop from pictures shot with m4/3 that he sees in his Sony and Fuji pictures. There is a difference in technical output between a m4/3 sensor and a FF sensor. If your friend Bobby made the exact same shot with both m4/3 and FF systems, the FF file would most probably show better tonality and pop - which is what the OP is describing.
I noticed it too, and it's eventually what drove me to Fuji and Sony. Now, I don't see a huge difference in tonality between my A7 II and Fuji X-T20 (or X-T1/E2 before that), but I did see it from m4/3. It's very, very subtle. I took many great portraits with m4/3, including some of my all-time favorites, but there is a difference between how the tones transition on Fuji and FF.
