Jorgen Udvang
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #4 · Question about portraits with M4/3 | |
Makten wrote:
Well, the truth is that smaller formats struggle with less collected light at the same exposure. Which means the manufacturers want to even things out, by weakening the CFA. This gives lower noise, but also less true colors because of greater overlap between R, G and B.
That's a fact. Physics. You just can't get the same low noise AND the same color accuracy between different sensor sizes.
Now, I'm happy for you if you like the MFT format. I really, really wanted to like it. I loved the lenses and the handling of the cameras. But I'm very picky about IQ, and mostly colors and acutance, not resolution.
Also, we're obviously shooting different things. Take a minute to compare our Flickr stuff. Your conclusion is not the same as mine, and that's fine. We have different goals and different cravings.  ...Show more →
With all due respect, here's why your comparison doesn't hold for real life photography:
When I changed from Nikon D810 to Panasonic GX8 a year or so ago, it was mainly to save money and to save weight and bulk. I expected the image quality to be worse. The D810 is capable of some amazing image quality, particularly at low ISO.
For practical reasons, I use a combination of zoom lenses an one or two primes, but for this example, I'll only talk about the zooms that would cover my day-to-day use.
To get full advantage of the D810 image quality, I would need to use a 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Those are great lenses, but there's a big downside; they're very big and very heavy. The total setup weighs 3,600 grams or thereabouts. I could save half a kilogram using the 70-200 f/4, but then I have to compensate using higher ISO in low light, taking away some of the full frame advantage.
In reality I used the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4, bringing the weight down to 1,600 grams. The 24-120mm, like most of its brothers and sisters, is a fine lens, but the 5x zoom range takes its toll. There's less micro contrast and more CA to mention a couple, and although CA is easy to correct in post, that too lowers the image quality.
So after a short stint with an E-M1 and some of the best Zuiko lenses, the 40-150mm f/2.8 among them, I decided to go all small with the GX8 plus 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8, giving me the same range as the big, heavy Nikon combo, but a 2 stop theoretical light gathering disadvantage.The combo weighs in at 1,200 grams. Adding a second body for backup and to avoid changing lenses would bring the weight up to 1,700 grams, roughly the weight of the small Nikon combo.
To start with the image quality, I can safely say that I have never shot with zoom lenses that are better than these two. Colours, contrast, distortion, detail rendering... you name it. It's all great. Post processing is quick and easy. There's simply not much to correct. Sharpness is on par with most primes I've tried, bokeh is just the way I like it, soft and beautiful with excellent transitions between in focus and out of focus areas.
Then there's the small sensor and its lack of light gathering properties. It's true of course. However, with dual IS, I gain at least one stop back compared to Nikon's VR for stationary subjects, and compared to the already inferior 24-120mm, I'm on level with light gathering and way ahead when it comes to total image quality except for DR in contrasty scenes. However, even DR is much better than expected, and many "lost" highlights and deep shadows can be recovered in ACR, even with the GX8.
The end result for me is that the image quality compared with the full frame Nikon gear that I actually brought with me is at least as high using the Panasonic. When I add to that the advantages of articulated LCD, tilting EVF, 4K video and ergonomics that in many areas better those of Nikon, the choice is very easy. I simply take better photos with the Panasonic, technically because of the excellent lenses and artistically because the camera is easier to handle and much less intrusive.
If I want even better subject isolation/shallow DOF, there are countless f/0.95 and f/1.2 lenses available in m4/3 mount. In addition, I can use full frame or APS-C lenses with a Speed Booster. I recently bought a Samyang 135mm f/2 in F-mount to use partly on my F6 and partly with the GX8 with or without a Speed Booster. For around $500 plus the booster that gives me 270mm (eqv.) reach at f/2 or 192mm (eqv.) at f/1.4. The closest to that I can come with a Nikkor is the $5,000 200mm f/2 at four times the weight or the above mentioned 70-200. Yes, it's an apples to bananas comparison, but you'll struggle to see that in the images.
There are no equivalents, and all systems are different, as are photographers' needs. However, as technology improves, we are reaching a point where it hardly matters what we shoot with as long as we choose the best lenses available for each system. For me, the quality of what I currently use far exceeds my needs. If I have an urge to carry something big and bulky, there are a couple of GX680 bodies with lenses to match in my dry cabinets. Those 8x6 cm negatives do make a difference and make the comparison between m4/3 and "full frame" seem rather mundane.
|
At the end of the day, a camera that is more fun to shoot with beats a little extra IQ ... to me anyway. 
. We are both still snapshot shooters. With that said, all I can do is laugh at that you think somehow you are superior to others as far as quality is concerned. Of course you have every right to feel any way you want to , but I would focus on trying to produce winner shots, because no matter how "perfect" colors maybe in a particular shot, a snap is a snap no matter what gear was used. Content, light, impact etc... what makes a winning shot. Not to mention, that if you were to compare your FF gear against MF, the MF is superior. So my question is this: why not use medium format? Surly the "differences" you claim between M4//3 and FF is also there between FF and MF.