mortyb wrote:
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.
Except that the picture was a bad example and nothing to compare it to. Using a small p&s camera can produce a better looking shot than that picture. Bobby is not my friend, but just like every other good photographer, their shots will pop no matter the gear. Another example is ming thein. Visit his Flickr feed and look at his results. All his pictures pop, regardless of the size of the sensor.
Or are you saying that the example that was posted above is typical of m4/3?
No one is saying you can't make great photos with m4/3. I know very well of Ming Thein, not personally thrilled with his style, but that's me. Robin Wong really makes the m4/3 system sing IMO. Same goes for Maxim Guselnikov (who later switched to Nikon and D750). My point is simply that I can relate to OP in that there's something lacking in tonality/clarity and often pop in m4/3 files compared to Fuji and Sony (and CaNikon FF).
mortyb wrote:
No one is saying you can't make great photos with m4/3. I know very well of Ming Thein, not personally thrilled with his style, but that's me. Robin Wong really makes the m4/3 system sing IMO. Same goes for Maxim Guselnikov (who later switched to Nikon and D750). My point is simply that I can relate to OP in that there's something lacking in tonality/clarity and often pop in m4/3 files compared to Fuji and Sony.
So than, wouldn't it be the photographer and not the gear? Or are you saying that every shot taken with FF will pop that no smaller sensor can touch? Because I could link you to FF shots that do not pop until the cows come home.
And what I am saying is, that if Maxim can make M4/3 shots pop, but I can't, is that the camera or the photographer?
There are also those who left FF for Medium Format because MF is clearly superior to FF. Does that mean that FF is not good enough?
There are plenty of pros using M4/3, including portraiture. How is that possible?
With that said, I understand what you are saying, along with the OP. But he can do much better with the gear he is using now.
Here is an actual side by side comparo - I am sure you have seen it.
Jman13 wrote:
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.
Good to hear from an expert that confirms that I am not losing my mind .
Savingspaces,
i am not sure why you are so hung up on the picture I posted earlier. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I posted it for completely different reasons.
Anyway, back to the original question. I NEVER said that m4/3 cannot produce excellent results. I know it can and that is why I have owned many m4/3 cameras throughout the years (GH1, GH2, GH3, E-M5, E-M1, GX-8, E-M1 Mark II).
With excellent lenses m4/3 can product great results which are sharp and have great quality but my concern is that it when compared directly with Fuji and Sony files (pictures taken by me), I feel something is missing. For a lack of better word, there is a certain "magic" in Sony and Fuji pictures that m4/3 lacks. Before you say that you can you achieve it by PP, I would politely disagree
It is something that is really hard to qualify, and I don't even know if it's super apparent in final images when you get everything right. I notice it when working on the images more often, as I go through them. It's really a small difference, especially more recently. I looked through my people images on my website, and I know which were taken with which camera, and frankly, they all look good...and there are m4/3 pictures there that show great tonality and APS-C and FF ones that don't, depending on conditions and lighting, but it's just an overall trend I can notice after seeing thousands of images frome these cameras.
It's not just the size, though. I actually went through a lot of old portraits from my old DSLRs, and most of my Olympus files now look better than what I got out of my 1D II and 1Ds II.
ajamils wrote:
Good to hear from an expert that confirms that I am not losing my mind .
Savingspaces,
i am not sure why you are so hung up on the picture I posted earlier. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I posted it for completely different reasons.
Anyway, back to the original question. I NEVER said that m4/3 cannot produce excellent results. I know it can and that is why I have owned many m4/3 cameras throughout the years (GH1, GH2, GH3, E-M5, E-M1, GX-8, E-M1 Mark II).
With excellent lenses m4/3 can product great results which are sharp and have great quality but my concern is that it when compared directly with Fuji and Sony files (pictures taken by me), I feel something is missing. For a lack of better word, there is a certain "magic" in Sony and Fuji pictures that m4/3 lacks. Before you say that you can you achieve it by PP, I would politely disagree ...Show more →
post the examples please. are you a jpeg shooter?
I am also not hung up on anything but if you post a picture like that and complain, heck i would complain as well, but I'd complain about me.
WOW .... the portrait test is very telling (the Sony is bloody awful!) ... but I already know that Sony's AWB sucks (very inconsistent) compared to Olympus. FWIW ... Sony's battery and auto-cleaning sensor sucks big time compared to Olympus! In the 5 years that I have used Olympus m43 cameras I have not had to manually clean the sensor even once. But I did rinse off dust on my E-M1 and 12-40 PRO lens under a running tap ... twice! And I would do it again if I had to - but you gotta make sure that you have a weather-sealed lens attached to your E-M1 or E-M1.2!
savingspaces wrote:
Here is an actual side by side comparo - I am sure you have seen it.
ajamils wrote:
Good to hear from an expert that confirms that I am not losing my mind .
Savingspaces,
i am not sure why you are so hung up on the picture I posted earlier. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I posted it for completely different reasons.
Anyway, back to the original question. I NEVER said that m4/3 cannot produce excellent results. I know it can and that is why I have owned many m4/3 cameras throughout the years (GH1, GH2, GH3, E-M5, E-M1, GX-8, E-M1 Mark II).
With excellent lenses m4/3 can product great results which are sharp and have great quality but my concern is that it when compared directly with Fuji and Sony files (pictures taken by me), I feel something is missing. For a lack of better word, there is a certain "magic" in Sony and Fuji pictures that m4/3 lacks. Before you say that you can you achieve it by PP, I would politely disagree ...Show more →
PS: - I am not leaving M4/3 any time soon, and since other people don't use my money to purchase their gear, I really don't care what others use. I really don't. Personally, I am just a hack, so I will not be producing any winners any time I don't think - and I am alway open to learn. That is why I asked for examples - don't even have to be the same shots. One each of your favorite shot from sony/fuji and another Oly shot that has no pop.
bobbytan wrote:
WOW .... the portrait test is very telling (the Sony is bloody awful!) ... but I already know that Sony's AWB sucks (very inconsistent) compared to Olympus. FWIW ... Sony's battery and auto-cleaning sensor sucks big time compared to Olympus! In the 5 years that I have used Olympus m43 cameras I have not had to manually clean the sensor even once. But I did rinse off dust on my E-M1 and 12-40 PRO lens under a running tap ... twice! And I would do it again if I had to - but you gotta make sure that you have a weather-sealed lens attached to your E-M1 or E-M1.2!
Again, controlled lighting with strobes solves the tonality divide.
Also, all this stuff is kind of arbitrary unless we're talking about specific bodies/sensors.
The E-M1II has better color depth (i.e. tonality) than the Nikon D700, which was a mainstay for wedding photographers for a lonnnngggg time.
And today, the difference in color depth between the E-M1 and the Nikon D750, is *less* than the difference in color depth between the D750 and the Sony A7rII.
Like I said: Arbitrary.
It's not the gear. It's the photographer.
(as for the stevehuffcomparison--nobody should be using the default color profile on any Sony body)
I moved away from m4/3 and went back to apsc and then FF (still have apsc and FF).
My use was during the earlier GF1, G3 period, when lens options were fewer (and some good ones were as expensive as larger formats).
Todays sensors are probably better too.
I found apsc the better middle ground.
The working distance just did not feel right.
A 45/1.8 meant that I had to stand rather far for a simple head to waist shot, and I did not get the sort of shallow DOF 'look' I wanted for the nearer/easier working distances I am accustomed to.
On a "50mm" equivalent (20mm, 25mm m4/3 lens), with the same framing compared to a 50mm FF lens (or 35mm apsc one), I just felt that the distortion came in too much even with correction.
There is certainly less of the shallow DOF "look", where a larger FOV with an in focus subject gives a spatial relation, creating this impression.
In comparison, the 50mm on FF does almost everything for me.
The DOF control, the "good" working distance, reasonable level of distortion.
For landscapes, the file broke up much earlier in processing.
Apr 05, 2017 at 03:45 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
My wife shot with an EM5 and then and EM1 for about 2 years. She loved the system and I shot with her camera from time to time. It is a very nice system. Here are the pros from my point of view. It is a compact and has a full range of native lenses that work well with it. I love the 4 X 3 aspect ratio, which is especially nice for portraits as I crop most portraits to 4 X 5 and almost never crop to a skinnier rectangle than 4 X 3. So, there is less cropping with m4/3rds. The basic systems of the camera work well. The AF works well. The AWB works well. The weather sealing is excellent. A good photographer like Bobby will have little trouble producing excellent results with this system.
That said the smaller sensor does have some drawbacks compared to larger sensors that are noticeable at times. APS-C sensors to a very small extent (especially if you crop to 4 X 3 or squarer) and FF 35mm sensors to a larger but still not all that big of extent will have more dynamic range and better performance at higher ISOs. There are also lenses for FF 35mm that allow a shallower depth of field than those available for m4/3rds if that matters to you. I also think that it is easier to get FF 35mm lenses that are high in microcontrast, which is something I like and which is missing in a number of otherwise excellent m4/3rds lenses.
For portraits, specifically, the shallow depth of field and higher microcontrast of some FF 35mm lenses when used well can contribute to what some people call "pop" in portraits. For example, my favourite FF 35mm lens for portraits of kids is my Zeiss ZF 35 f/1.4. This has shallower depth of field and better microcontrast than any lens with a similar field of view for m4/3rds. It is also huge--that said my Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 does almost as well for portraits and is not huge and has even better microcontrast. I find the bokeh advantage of the ZF to outweigh the microcontrast advantage of the ZM.
But at a narrower field of view m4/3rds does better. The Panny/Leica 42.5 f/1.2 has quite decent shallow depth of field and very good microcontrast. It is a fantastic lens very much in the league of my Zeiss Loxia 85 f/2.4. They actually have a fairly similar rendering to my eye with more than enough shallow depth of field in almost all circumstances and very good to excellent microcontrast. Both lenses can produce very good "pop" in my view and have very nice bokeh. Incidentally they are also similar in size and weight. Now if you want great performance and a shallower depth of field that is possible with FF 35mm lenses, but I find for my work that is not needed very often and either getting closer to the subject of better yet selecting a background further away is typically a better strategy if possible.
So, I don't think you can say something as general as m4/3rds has less pop in portraits than FF 35mm. I think you can get pop in m4/3rds portraits and m4/3rds with a good camera and especially a lens like the Panny/Leica 42.5 f/1.2 or the Oly 75 f/1.8 can regularly produce portraits with pop. That said with FF 35mm you do gain some added ability to get pop in more portraits in more situations. It has some advantages at wider field of views. It has some advantages in dimmer conditions (and harsher lighting conditions) in natural light--although a portrait photographer should know how to use flash and using flash well in difficult lighting situations is almost certainly more important than the format of the camera. Most people who shoot events and portraits will likely drift toward FF 35mm, but m4/3rds is a very capable system and it will be the choice of some and they will be able to get shots with plenty of "pop" if they have the ability to get these shots with whatever system they use.
I notice the differences more in difficult lighting conditions. In good light, any system can yield outstanding images, and well taken, exposed and processed portraits will be nearly indistinguishable between systems.
However, when the light is less perfect, or has a color cast, or requires bringing up the shadows a bit...this is where I tend to notice the transitions, as they just don't retain that smooth feeling that the larger formats can. Again...it's subtle, and you can certainly make amazing portraits (or any type of shot) with m4/3 in nearly any situation.
Steve Spencer wrote:
My wife shot with an EM5 and then and EM1 for about 2 years. She loved the system and I shot with her camera from time to time. It is a very nice system. Here are the pros from my point of view. It is a compact and has a full range of native lenses that work well with it. I love the 4 X 3 aspect ratio, which is especially nice for portraits as I crop most portraits to 4 X 5 and almost never crop to a skinnier rectangle than 4 X 3. So, there is less cropping with m4/3rds. The basic systems of the camera work well. The AF works well. The AWB works well. The weather sealing is excellent. A good photographer like Bobby will have little trouble producing excellent results with this system.
That said the smaller sensor does have some drawbacks compared to larger sensors that are noticeable at times. APS-C sensors to a very small extent (especially if you crop to 4 X 3 or squarer) and FF 35mm sensors to a larger but still not all that big of extent will have more dynamic range and better performance at higher ISOs. There are also lenses for FF 35mm that allow a shallower depth of field than those available for m4/3rds if that matters to you. I also think that it is easier to get FF 35mm lenses that are high in microcontrast, which is something I like and which is missing in a number of otherwise excellent m4/3rds lenses.
For portraits, specifically, the shallow depth of field and higher microcontrast of some FF 35mm lenses when used well can contribute to what some people call "pop" in portraits. For example, my favourite FF 35mm lens for portraits of kids is my Zeiss ZF 35 f/1.4. This has shallower depth of field and better microcontrast than any lens with a similar field of view for m4/3rds. It is also huge--that said my Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 does almost as well for portraits and is not huge and has even better microcontrast. I find the bokeh advantage of the ZF to outweigh the microcontrast advantage of the ZM.
But at a narrower field of view m4/3rds does better. The Panny/Leica 42.5 f/1.2 has quite decent shallow depth of field and very good microcontrast. It is a fantastic lens very much in the league of my Zeiss Loxia 85 f/2.4. They actually have a fairly similar rendering to my eye with more than enough shallow depth of field in almost all circumstances and very good to excellent microcontrast. Both lenses can produce very good "pop" in my view and have very nice bokeh. Incidentally they are also similar in size and weight. Now if you want great performance and a shallower depth of field that is possible with FF 35mm lenses, but I find for my work that is not needed very often and either getting closer to the subject of better yet selecting a background further away is typically a better strategy if possible.
So, I don't think you can say something as general as m4/3rds has less pop in portraits than FF 35mm. I think you can get pop in m4/3rds portraits and m4/3rds with a good camera and especially a lens like the Panny/Leica 42.5 f/1.2 or the Oly 75 f/1.8 can regularly produce portraits with pop. That said with FF 35mm you do gain some added ability to get pop in more portraits in more situations. It has some advantages at wider field of views. It has some advantages in dimmer conditions (and harsher lighting conditions) in natural light--although a portrait photographer should know how to use flash and using flash well in difficult lighting situations is almost certainly more important than the format of the camera. Most people who shoot events and portraits will likely drift toward FF 35mm, but m4/3rds is a very capable system and it will be the choice of some and they will be able to get shots with plenty of "pop" if they have the ability to get these shots with whatever system they use....Show more →
I have toyed around with Lightroom and Photoshop and just could not obtain that amazing Olympus skin tone and colors, as well as the amazing fine details.
. 