Frogfish
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II? | |
raminolta wrote:
IMO, you are wrong on some of your arguments. You have not indicated any source for your data (dynamic range of different cameras) but let's assume they are correct. You think monitors maps dynamic range of photos in a one to one fashion onto their screen . So by your logic, one would need a 15 stop monitor to show a photo with 15 stops of dynamic range. This cannot be farther from truth.
Example: Let's assume the camera has 15 stops of dynamic range and the monitor can show up to 10 stops of dynamic range. If the details in the details in the highlights and shadows are preserved in the file, one can see them on that monitor through proper tone mapping (correct post-processing in the software). So the details are not lost just because the monitor has a limited DR range.
Well that's not exactly true. The final exported image (usually a jpg) has a reduced dynamic range compared to the original RAW file because it has been processed to fit a standard display. The information that was once spread across 14+ stops of a camera's sensor is now compressed into the 10 stops of a typical monitor. It's compressed and for that to happen information is lost to ensure it fits within the new parameters.
Next: you are making the same mistake regarding print and resolution. I have a 42mp camera (A7r iii) and a 24" wide printer. Still, sometimes, I have noticed that sometimes if I up-scale the resolution of the image in the software before printing, it would make an observable difference in the output print. Off course, this greatly depends on the scene and the details. If this is a photo of a scene with lots of small details like trees with leaves, ground with many tiny details (sand and stone pieces, etc.), up-scaling the image before printing can make a noticeable difference. I have seen this with my own eyes. Of course, it also depends at what distance you are watching the print. If you are so far away, you may not see a difference. But the difference can be noticeable even at reasonable viewing distances without putting your nose into the print.
No mistake. I'm not sure what errors you are making or what software you are using but I actually posted samples here on FM of before/after (of actual prints used in an exhibition in Shanghai) so please go and find them. Even viewing at 200% there was no discernible difference. Upscaling software is superb nowadays.
I would also add that if you can perceive a difference at 200% - it won't matter if viewed at the correct distance for the print size. I don't care about people who stick their nose to the print and say - I can see a difference! They are irrelevant.
Noise. I used to have a m43 camera which I liked its compactness and look, but ended up selling it because the image quality wasn't satisfying to me. While I can reduce noise in the software, I still prefer to have a cleaner image to begin with.
Oh come on - you say I didn't quote sources (the manufacturers themselves) for my quotes yet you don't even say what model you are using ! I gave a link to work from a BTS music video shot at 12,800 - 25,600, there is clearly some detail loss (smoothing) but again after post processing the images look clean and engaging. You are giving a personal opinion whilst I gave you facts, if you want to go in another direction then good for you - we are adults we get to make our own choices!
For me I'm saying I'll go to the shops in my Ford and you want to go in your Ferrari. You'll get there first but we both get there and park in the same spot.
System size and weight: To some extent I agree but it depends on the lens, camera model etc. M43 does not automatically guarantee weight and size reduction over the Sony FF system. With A7c r or A7c ii and some compact lenses, the Sony system can approach or even match a similar m43 system regarding the overall weight and size of the load that one wants to carry.
Sorry but I'm calling BS on this one ! If you want to use Sonys smallest camera fine, then compared to the OM5ii (418g - only using new cameras otherwise there are lighter!) the Sony is more or less the same at 424g however :
As far as lenses are concerned I will go by aperture size (with an aperture of f1.8 for both as light collection is the same on any sensor, not by area, and very low DoF irrelevant for most work) so 1 WA 10mm f2 Laowa, 3 WR primes (17mm, 25mm and the non-WR 45mm) plus the full IPX53 WR 12-45/4 Pro zoom:-
Laowa 10mm : 125g (I guess the Viltrox 20/2.8 at 157g, so a stop slower).
OM 17mm : 120g (Sony 280g)
OM 25mm : 135g (Sony 186g)
OM 45mm : 116g (Sony 85mm 371g)
OM 12-45/4 : 254g (Sony 24-70/4 424g, heavier with less reach)
We won't even get into size because the Sonys are all much bigger. Image quality mostly a push bar the superb OM 12-45 & Laowa 10mm. And again I'll stress the IPX53 weather sealing of 3 of the OM lenses.
OM total of camera + 4 lenses : 1,268g and the Sony line up is virtually 50% heavier at 1,842g
Sony has nothing that comes close to that (I have been with Sony since the original A7 and A7r - of which I had both) not even using 3rd party manufacturers. We'll ignore the 28-60 variable aperture as it's crap - I couldn't wait to sell it (and it's variable).
|
