but pretty pointless for the test except that it proved to me that non geeks just don't care and just look at the picture That was back then with what is now old kit but I expect the same to be pretty much true these days too as every system has moved on.
Wedding togs, astro photographers and those who shoot birds in flight at midnight may have different criteria.
Cheers for that,most interestingI think trying it with little pictures posted here is going to be pretty difficult. On screen and in print at home maybe easier
Back when I had my Canon DSLR's I tried comparison shots between my MFT Panny G1 and APS-C Canon 20D and FF 5D and believe it or not it was even a close call with the 5D in anything but the extremes of ISO and DoF. In fact in difficult lighting such as harsh light and shadow it was easier for me to get the shot first time with the G1. More on that later. I tried on screen and printed shots and the people I roped in were mostly baffled. The last time I tried I was showing G1 and 5D shots printed to fill an A4 sheet and the person I'd roped in saw the first shot and excitedly exclaimed "I want this picture" (I can't remember which camera took it) which was nice for me as I took the shot
I've done more recent comparisons just for myself with my Sony A7 and MFT G7 and GX7 and I can see differences but I'm not sure they matter except at the extremes of ISO, dynamic range, noise and pixel peeping.
I took these shots whilst standing in the same spot, one with the FF A7 and 35mm f2.8 at f8 one with the MFT GX7 and 17mm f1.8 at f4. They're both ok. The framing is different and one is 3:2 and the other 4:3 but maybe these things don't matter. If I zoom in to 100% the A7 shot is sharper but in a whole image I don't think it matters.
The following are the kind of shot that convinced me that my time with a FF DSLR was nearing its end. They were taken with my old Panasonic G1 and an old manual focus lens. They may not look exciting but the point was a harsh light test and the light was very harsh and even though the G1 lacks dynamic range compared to the 5D it was still easy to get a usable shot first time by keeping an eye on the histogram and knowing how far to push it and still protect the highlights and be able to boost the shadows a bit post capture. With the DSLR I'd probably have had to take more than one shot to make sure I'd got one which would protect the highlights and allow me to boost the shadows. I know this is a slightly different topic to image quality and telling a FF DSLR shot from a smaller format shot but they do show a scenario in which having in view aids helps to get the shot.
I'm a bit of a believer in starting at the end and working backwards and by that I mean considering the final output be it either on screen or in print and then working out how to get it. I rarely print these days and the biggest I've ever printed is A3 and most of my pictures are viewed on screen and zapped off around the world electronically 2,000 pixels wide. So that's my criteria, shots need to look good on screen and be occasionally printed. I've seen pictures I've emailed off 2,000 pixels wide printed, framed and on someones wall and they look fine.
So, all this has convinced me that mostly for me image quality is pretty much not something to worry too much about at low to even quite high ISO settings. Keeping the crop factor in mind helps, for eg. if I shoot FF at f8 I shoot MFT at f4, ETTR may help and processing each shot for best effect helps too but mostly I don't worry too much
Since when's the GX7 been a p&s?
i have to say i disagree with that. there is nothing in it that shows one camera to be that much higher end than another. yes there are differences but that could be down the in camera jpg processing algorithms and settings.
Just viewed the comparison shots on photobucket and it's really difficult to tell which one's which. Some parts of the image look better on the GX7 pic, some on the A7 pic. The only thing I would say is that the GX7 shot could do with a slight contrast boost, so I saved them, put them in LR and added contrast and now I can't tell a difference. Granted they are only small files so I can't pixel peep, but that's the point of these examples
Yes I think this is the bigger difference the ability to use under more difficult conditions
Sorry, my shots? Yes the GX7 shot could do with a boost and I could have used more sharpening if I wanted to pixel peep and be impressed. Both shots could be improved with processing but for screen viewing I think they're fine even though as you can possibly see the light wasn't great on the day anywayJust viewed the comparison shots on photobucket and it's really difficult to tell which one's which. Some parts of the image look better on the GX7 pic, some on the A7 pic. The only thing I would say is that the GX7 shot could do with a slight contrast boost, so I saved them, put them in LR and added contrast and now I can't tell a difference. Granted they are only small files so I can't pixel peep, but that's the point of these examples
Sorry, my shots? Yes the GX7 shot could do with a boost and I could have used more sharpening if I wanted to pixel peep and be impressed. Both shots could be improved with processing but for screen viewing I think they're fine even though as you can possibly see the light wasn't great on the day anyway
The Sony 35mm f2.8 is imo a very good lens, the Oly 17mm f1.8 is by comparison a bit ordinary but maybe only as the Sony lens is so good.
Thinking about this I'm reminded of the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 I owned, that's a really good lens and sharper than the Oly 17mm and would have made for a much sharper shot for this comparison.
I'm not convinced that DR is so much dependant on sensor size so much these days. Just look at the Nikon APS-C's such as the D7200, has better DR than most (if not all) current Canon FF and some current Nikon FF.
Not per se as there'll always be a difference if you look hard enough. However I find forums, especially TP do affect the images. For example my images are always oversharpened on here, but the original files aren't.
Can't comment on them all obviously but the D7200 is very impressive, very very flexible files in post.
My pictures usually look quite a bit worse than on my pc. I've pretty much given up posting 100% crops to show sharpness as on the forum they often look pants. Regardless of those pictures of Staithes I have many MFT shots that are in all honesty indistinguishable from my Canon APS-C or FF shots or even my Sony A7 shots once they're all mixed up together either on screen or in print.
one of the worst cameras I've ever had is a Medion compact but in it too can take a nice picture. I have one which I cropped and printed to fill an A4 sheet and it looks very nice indeed and unless I look at it through a magnifying glass I have no complaints at all
DXO measures engineering dynamic range. This measure doesn't correct for COC and uses a beginning value where signal is equal to noise floor (which isn't really enough to be clearly separated). Net result is DXO's engineering DR is typically 4-5 stops greater than the practical "photographic DR."
test him Greg
