Just the truth - I know it hurts those with big egos. But what can you do right?
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.
Looking at your flickr feed after a few years, it is clear that you have improved as much as I have. . 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.
I like to challenge people who make claims like yours is to give 1 example that bests Kwalsh's landscape or BobbyTan's shots made with M4/3. I mean produce a photo that has better color and acutance than the results from these two exceptional photographers. Don't matter what it is of.
Because I sincerely believe that who is behind the viewfinder is much more important than the gear. And the differences are not as big as you claim - read the other reply from Jorgen. Sounds more realistic than your claim.
I'll be waiting for your examples. Should be easy since you see the difference.
You have obviously not understood a word of what I have written. Over and out, I have better things to do than argue with people that don't understand that we have different wants and needs, and that small differences can be enough reason to prefer one system over an other.
I sure have. And what you have written in your last post is how it should have been written. Not in your usual condescending style. If m4/3 is good enough gear for nat geo, surely it is good enough. And I am saying that if you make a claim like yours about color etc... the least you can do is produce an example for all of to learn from, because unless you are not keeping those special examples on your Flickr feed, your snaps look like it could have been taken with any camera. Isn't interesting that the replies either completely ignore the request, or you are called an idiot when one is asked to provide proof? I understand that there are people out there who have a need to feel special and or superior to others, but in your case at least hide your pictures from the rest of us. Because between looking at your snaps and the claims you make you have zero credibility. But Ltd say you are right and I'm wrong and I really just don t understand it. I asked you to provide at least one example so that at least I can learn something new. What was your response to that? That you are out of here. I thank you for that.
Apr 08, 2017 at 11:52 AM
Previous versions of savingspaces's message #13992284 « Question about portraits with M4/3 »
. 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.