[Winder]

The only area where M4/3 falls behind is for available light photography where you will have greater need to recover shadows and shoot at high ISO. This is an issue for many cameras including just about all Canon APS-C cameras. Even some FF bodies like the new EOS R really start to fall apart at 1600 ISO. Skin tones on the new EOS R don't hold up well past 800 ISO. I would shoot Olympus M4/3 over any Canon APS-C body for this reason. The Sony sensor used by Olympus is simply better than the Canon sensor and the difference between 1.7 and 2.0 crop is negligible for most people printing at 8x10.

[mee]

sure. if size is irrelevant. but sadly it usually isn't.

Yes, size matters. That's the point I'm making. In that, you the user, finds the sweet spot that you feel works for your use case.


Yet, if size didn't matter, we'd all likely be wielding tiny 1/1.7th inch sized sensor based cameras with tiny, light weight lenses if IQ was the same from point and shoot to medium format. There is no replacement for displacement. In the camera world or the car world. That's physics.

[wibbly]

Except there is a direct replacement for displacement. All the car companies are doing it.

[Rondec]

I don't think that's what we'red discussing... but this from the OP:



Even at base ISO, I can't see the smaller format accomplishing that, or even surpassing the stills from the XT-2...

I quite like the images I see from the newer M43 cameras, I'm sure it's enough to satisfy most people's needs... even if it doesn't "surpass" the current APS-C offerings.

New cameras now are kind of like having a supercharged V12 engined car for our daily commutes. They all pretty much do more than we need...

You are right. I think a lot of people compare jpegs and Olympus does have a really good jpeg engine. That said, if you shoot RAW and push you images much, you do benefit from a larger sensor, even if you don't shoot really high iso.

[BigMackCam]

You are right. I think a lot of people compare jpegs and Olympus does have a really good jpeg engine. That said, if you shoot RAW and push you images much, you do benefit from a larger sensor, even if you don't shoot really high iso.

Pentax has come a long way with JPEG processing, but it's still far from class-leading in terms of JPEG image quality... at any ISO, but especially high ISO. That's not to say the cameras don't produce "good" JPEG files. They do. But compared to what's possible by post-processing the raw files, there's really no comparison. The same is true, incidentally, for high ISO files processed through Pentax DCU, in my opinion.... at least, so far as K-3 / K-3II files are concerned (K-1 and K-1II may be different, though I doubt it)...

[mee]

Except there is a direct replacement for displacement. All the car companies are doing it.

You can slap a tiny turbo on a small displacement motor and theoretically make power equivalent to a larger naturally aspirated motor. Yet you can slap a tiny turbo on a larger displacement motor and theoretically make even more power than the tiny turbo'd tiny displacement motor. The base displacement is still in favor of more power. Bigger is better in that regard.

[wibbly]

You can increase the volumetric capacity of a motor with boost. It replaces displacement. Just pointing out the flaw in the statement.

[mee]

You can increase the volumetric capacity of a motor with boost. It replaces displacement. Just pointing out the flaw in the statement.

No, pressurizing the air in a combustion chamber doesn't make the combustion chamber larger any more than sucking in your belly doesn't increase the size of your pants. 4 liters is 4 liters regardless.

Yes, you can theoretically cram more air into the chamber without changing the size of the chamber.


Yet, as I'm saying, you can do that to any sized chamber and reap the benefits (in theory). So while one can make a small motor with boost perform like a larger motor without boost, one can also make that larger motor perform like an even larger motor with the inclusion of a boost 'modifier'. It scales upward so there isn't any flaw in the statement.

The same applies to image sensors..

[wibbly]

Volumetrically, you can make a 2L consome and combust the same amount of air and fuel as a 4L by pressurizing the intake charge. So yes, boost will make a smaller engine act like a much larger one. Replacing increased displacement with boost has many more merits beyond simply acting like a larger engine volumetrically. It has nothing to do with sucking in your gut.


You are again twisting it around to suit yourself. You can replace displacement with boost. The fallacy of the original statement is obvious.


Arguing that you can supe up anything isn't really an argument at all, since it's incredibly obvious there is a point of diminishing returns. Do you have the largest engine available? The largest sensor available?

Don't even answer that.

[mee]

Volumetrically, you can make a 2L consome and combust the same amount of air and fuel as a 4L by pressurizing the intake charge. So yes, boost will make a smaller engine act like a much larger one. Replacing increased displacement with boost has many more merits beyond simply acting like a larger engine volumetrically. It has nothing to do with sucking in your gut.


You are again twisting it around to suit yourself. You can replace displacement with boost. The fallacy of the original statement is obvious.


Arguing that you can supe up anything isn't really an argument at all, since it's incredibly obvious there is a point of diminishing returns. Do you have the largest engine available? The largest sensor available?

Don't even answer that.

It is the basis of the discussion entirely... the KEY part you're missing on the phrase is it scales. Their isn't a point of diminishing returns to power... the bigger the motor the more potential. That's physics.

It is why 18 wheelers/lorries have motors the size of small hatchbacks, diesel locomotives have engines bigger than that, and cargo ships engines even bigger than that!


Yet I don't NEED an 8liter v10 so I don't have an 8 liter v10 in my car... as I said before here in this thread "In that, you the user, finds the sweet spot that you feel works for your use case."

[awscreo]

I can see plenty of difference between my 16mp mft raws (3 years worth of images) and my 36mp ff raws. For my preferred field, dynamic range, tonal accuracy and increased resolution, as well as undeniably cleaner files even at base iso make much more difference than higher af speed, and other advantages of the mft system. I like the system, if I had enough spare budget to sustain two systems, I might consider it again for a lighter kit, but not in that position right now)

[wibbly]

BOOST replaces displacement...


That is the ONLY topic here.


You are just running it off in a direction that suits your agenda.

There is a point of diminishing returns due to practicality. You cannot put a marine engine in your hatch back can you now.


I'm off, you are just trying to sway this in a different direction to push a point that is not relevant to the original statement.

[Rondec]

Just as an explanation, you don't have to go very high in iso to see a drop in dynamic range.

With a K-1 I can take this:



and bump the shadows and get this (at iso 500):



I do this sort of thing a lot with landscape images. Clearly there are a lot of options -- shooting multiple images and blending them, but I prefer to shoot single images and tweak them as best I can. Smaller sensors, even stellar ones like the one in the K5 weren't as amenable to this sort of thing, particularly when you got even a bit over base iso.

[mee]

BOOST replaces displacement...


That is the ONLY topic here.


You are just running it off in a direction that suits your agenda.

There is a point of diminishing returns due to practicality. You cannot put a marine engine in your hatch back can you now.


I'm off, you are just trying to sway this in a different direction to push a point that is not relevant to the original statement.

Boost doesn't replace displacement. The phrase is not speaking in terms of practicality, that is your own addition to it to suit your own agenda.


Size matters. The point I'm making also does matter because IQ out of m4/3 can't equal the IQ out of say a 645Z, otherwise no one would buy a pricey and ginormous 645Z or Hassleblad Medium Format kit. Obviously, the Medium Format has better quality and the resolution can scale higher amongst other aspects.


This doesn't consider size, weight, price, just sheer quality of the image and you may not need the extra resolution or light gaining ability. Nor does the phrase 'no replacement for displacement' consider those aspects.. it is simply saying that size matters. End of story.

[wibbly]

So a boosted 2 litre that moves the same amount of fuel and air and produces the same horsepower and torque as a naturally aspirated 4 litre has not found a replacement for displacement?

Really?


Also feel free to understand that nothing I have said has anything to do with image sensors. You are taking this in a direction it was never steered.