Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.5 #3 · Question about portraits with M4/3 | |
I don't think anyone is asserting that you can't take amazing images with m4/3 gear. I shoot with Micro 4/3 (though not as much any more), Fuji APS-C and Sony FF, and I have gotten amazing images with each system, and crap images with each system. They all are certainly capable of professional work and beautiful image quality.
That said, the discussion isn't viewing m4/3 as an inferior system, but is noting something in the image quality, and there is a difference in image quality. It's not huge, and it's far less than most people would have you believe, but if you don't think there are image quality differences between m4/3 and something like the A7r II, then you'd be flat out wrong.
Now, does that mean that Sony FF is a 'better' system than m4/3? No. It is going to be better for a lot of people, while Micro 4/3 will be better for a lot of people.
There are shots that you get simply because you have a camera on you, and with m4/3, that's a lot easier to do for casual shooting due to the small size of both bodies and lenses. The IBIS is utterly phenomenal, so if you want to handheld static scenes, m4/3 can enable shooting without a tripod in situations where other systems can't, and the lens selection on m4/3 is outstanding.
That said, there is a slight difference in the tonal rolloff of m4/3 files, and the reason you don't see examples posted is because it's really a hard thing to show in single frame images. There is also a connection with dynamic range, as when things are stressed is where the transitions happen a bit more abruptly with m4/3.
Again, these are not large differences, but they are there.
When the light is right and the exposure requires less pushing and pulling, the results out of a m4/3 image will look every bit as wonderful as an image out of APS-C or FF, especially at web size. This is why you see tons of images from every system with amazing image quality. However, it's the challenging situations where the differences start to show. For instance, I did a portrait shoot on Saturday, and in one setup, I didn't fill the left side of the model's face enough during the shoot. If I had done that with m4/3, I'd be pretty well stuck with that lighting setup, because the amount of shadow pushing I'd have needed would have resulted in a somewhat blotchy mess, or with far too much noise for a studio type portrait. My A7 II file, however, I could push till the cows came home, and the result was a successful image. In some cases it's not that extreme, but it is something you start to notice after processing thousands of files from each of these cameras. It doesn't mean you can't make an amazing image with a smaller sensor, just that the latitude decreases, and in doing what I want with the image, I can do a bit more (and therefore sometimes get closer to my actual vision) with Fuji or FF Sony.
Again, there are things that m4/3 can do that the others can't: like hand hold a 24mm equivalent lens at night and capture a solid exposure of the city with proper depth of field. I've done that with m4/3, and with FF, it requires stopping down too far and raising ISO too high in most cases.
For macro, the ability to have a lightweight, easy to steady rig that can get twice as close for a 1:1 macro image, makes m4/3 my preferred rig for macro shooting. Ditto for long lens work. And, with the excellent portrait glass, it can also be used for great portraiture and great landscape work too.
But, I'll tell you that there's no way my m4/3 cameras would have allowed me to do this shot, without an HDR bracket:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2017/sunrise_driftwood.jpg
That shot would have clipped in the brightest parts, or been unrecoverable in the shadows without major noise on m4/3. There is a LOT of pushing and pulling of this single exposure. BUT...of course, I could have shot an HDR with m4/3 and gotten a similar image.
At the end of the day, it's most important to use what YOU value in a camera system. If that's compact size with an outstanding small lens lineup and tremendous IBIS, then that's the system you should shoot. The image quality differences are there, but they also generally don't make a big difference as to the final image. How you enjoy the camera, and how it works for you is a far bigger concern in my eye...it's why in my reviews I don't discuss image quality until the 4th page...it's just not the most important consideration for me, though it is, of course important.
|
