#FULL FRAME SENSOR SIZE VERSUS FOUR THIRDS FULL#
I did a series of RAW test shots of sea lions in my area using a pro level 70-200mm lens and an APS-C camera, the D300, and a full frame camera, the D3. There is also a qualitative aspect to smaller sensors that can markedly affect image quality and the larger the print the more noticeable the difference will be.
A landscape picture will enlarge better than a closeup of the plumage of a colorful bird for example. It depends upon the noise level in the raw file and it depends on the subject material. These observations are limited to prints made on one high quality grade of Canon Lustre paper (can't remember which my printer uses), I suspect the difference would be less noticeable on fine art matt textured papers and canvas (its certainly the case up to A3+) Otherwise they neither care nor do they seem to have the ability to notice such subtle differences The "General Public" on the other hand seem to prefer the colours that I get from the Olympus compared to those of the canon (both processed from RAW files using LR) the main comment being that the Olympus colours are "More Natural". Its something to do with the "openness" of the image (smoother transitions in the fine detail?) but get them to step back to normal viewing distance and they struggle to pick out which is which when hung on the wall So I can say with all honesty that even my G10 is a more flexible photographic tool than my old full frame film SLR loaded with Ektachrome (ISO 64) and the f/2.8 zoom I had on it most of the time.įrom my own experience (I sell images up to 30" x 20" via our local gallery and craft fairs) comparing prints from a canon 5Dmk2 and the EM-5 some photographers are confident they can spot the difference in print quality (on close inspection)
#FULL FRAME SENSOR SIZE VERSUS FOUR THIRDS ISO#
I did the same in film days: if you pushed ISO 400 (or rather, ASA 400 back then) film above 800 then you REALLY got grain. I'm still happy, even though I avoid going above ISO 800 if I can. I have an f/1.4 normal lens, something I didn't have for the film SLR. The G10 is so much better, very mild chroma noise reduction at ISO 400, in ACR, yields a perfectly smooth image. I suppose I should want to upgrade, but I remember what film grain looked like in ISO-400 film. And although that new DSLR might in some circumstance have less noise or shallower depth of field than the GX7, in general I think both cameras can do very well with almost any scene you are likely to encounter including dim room light. But it certainly is a fact that the latest Nikon full frame camera has a 16MP sensor, same as the GX7. This is partly a camera thing and partly a lens thing.smooth, natural tonality & high resolution from the camera/sensor and (IMO the key ingredient) crisp but not clinical imagery from the lenses.ģ5mm negative size is factor of two larger than necessary. Note: my friend Bruce can pick out the Pentax prints from the others with ease, even at distance.
But neither my printer nor my wall are equipped for that.
No doubt the Pentax would pull away from the others, at least spatially and with certain kinds of subject matter, at larger print sizes. At normal viewing distances prints from all the cameras look much the same. Up close the Pentax prints have finer spatial detail too, as you'd expect. With the Pentax shadow tones have finer gradation than with the others. Each camera has its own tonal palette, which I try to preserve in post (Lightroom mainly). I've made quite a few 15x20" prints from pics taken with it, Oly's E-M1 & E-M5, Panasonic's GX7 and Fuji's X-E1 (mostly 14x21" to preserve the 2:3 aspect ratio). I don't have a D800(e) but I do have a Pentax 645D.
0 kommentar(er)
