In the beginning the context of those previous discussions was based on your incorrect assertions that Olympus were cheating their ISO.
Can you please quote where I said Olympus was cheating in their ISO? Where did I say such thing?
The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.
Around that time you were using DxO noise data based on their interpretation of ISO.
Let's start from the beginning here because I am not sure what the beginning is. I started to look at DXo way WAY before this. And examination of what I did with the e-620 pre-dates this post.
Also back when M5 was released prior to the release of the long coming DxO data you assured everyone that your take on M5 was that the sensor was no better than GX1. I argued against that and predicted a 12.4 stop DR, as it happened when the data was released DxO measured it as 12.3. If I was asked, I would say you seem to have a penchant for trashing Olympus in particular masked with faint praise.
That is a big mischaracterization of what I have historically done and as such a complete half truth. You keep bringing this up and I am glad you do because it proves a major point- I was very wrong about the DR about the E-M5, but I also fully admitted it, corrected myself when the evidence (still pre-dxo) was presented in RAW files which I examined with draw. If anything that just proves more than anything that I am interested in truth, not in making things up- which was very often the case in other situations where the "camera doing better or as good as" didn't come true (particularly the E-5).
None of the people that were trying to correct me came pretty much with virtually any more valid arguments than when the same story happened with the E-5 or even previous camera. And that includes you. So yes, this time I was wrong, while the people who would usually blindly expect a great performance for anything new Olympus, were more (most) by chance right than wrong. That still doesn't mean they were logical at all in it.
In the meant time I have at times admitted when I have been incorrect. I can't say the same for you. Since imagine you are human well.. .but ok, let's focus on other things.
At the end of the day its a simple proposition, I just dont think DxO always matches reality, but then really what does. So I am happy to take the case whenever it appears. Take the case of 6D vs M1. On the 'equivalent basis m1 flattens 6D, but in reality 6D is one of the cleanest performing FF out there, certainly more than a shake better than D800. Yet D800 was pronounced the king of DxO, so go figure..
I have to say in general DXo has corroborated with what I have found with all the cameras I have had the use of. So I cannot agree with you though that doesn't mean Dxo is going to be perfect. But yes, I do not think the EM1 sensor will put with the D800.
again this is only true when one disregards equivalent settings but this is common. People like to have this both ways, they like to say the higher ISO is cleaner, and they have the benefit of lower ISO DR.
No, with even with the equivalence, I see the resolution difference is being disregarded. This would more than make up for any other lingering differences. Of course the FF will give you the other option not available in m4/3rds. But like I said- pros and cons. m4/3rds is far lighter, I would certainly pick m43/rds for my personal use over FF.
If they ever operated both a m43rds and a FF body they would realise a few things, that raising ISO to hold shutter speed is a common issue and generally negates any performance advantage while retaining operational disadvantages. FF can go shallower, but I can run slower with any lens. Some FF has resolution advantages, OTOH web and print resolutions are crushed by the medium but FF still carry a burden with edges and corners
Not sure if you refer to the lens performances but that depends on the lens. It's not like m4/3rds as a standard performs like good old 4/3rds.
of all the FF SLRs D800 is the diffraction monster. Even Nikon material shows the thing is in trouble due to softening at f/11 and that users are better off with better quality lenses, they even provide a list. Stopping down is one thing it can do, but at a severe penalty. This isnt to say there arent better value FF propositions out there, but then for some reason DxO nuts always seem to drag D800 out as proof of their assertions. Yet here it is in all its 'equivalent' glory.
Even with the diffraction you still have more resolution to downsample from.
shifted those 2 stops east, whos right on sensor performance of these two cameras?
The actual target D800 should match is the grey plot on its right, it falls well short of that, i.e. it is 'behind' the curve
For the case of the two stops in the DR case, yes, I think you made a good case. That's of course only if you shoot with the same DOF. For many shots separating just 1 stop DOF things aren't that clear, let alone in the other categories and let alone if you do not need to shoot 2 stops closer. And not to be misleading: yes, the D800 will still beat the Em1 hands down at shooting a landscape in a high contrast situation, so the DR advantage in a lot of shots is still quite real.
I didnt buy M1 based on assumptions like these, I bought it to advance m43 kit I already operate and to continue using 43rds lenses. I picked pretty early that review sites were using poor RAW conversions so kept examining jpegs at mid/high ISO for detail and heavy NR effects and found myself happy with the ISO 1600 regime.
Certainly one has to buy according to needs and wants, but I was never against that point. My point is what seems to be this "complex" if you will of some to prove at all costs that 4/3rds, m4/3rds is just as good as APS-C or even FF. There are tradeoffs for every single one of them. Like I said, I would never buy myself a D800 or carry one even if I had the cash. That doesn't mean I need to think for example that the K-5 or Fuji matches it.
So, you can say what you want *now that finally* there's a reasonably good sensor in m4/3rds with the advent of the Em-5 and Panasonic's GX7's, but the whole of this conversation in its context dates back to a time when that was not even the case (and it's not even now,t here are still tradeoffs but the balance is pretty reasonable, imho). IN the days of the E-5 many things were said that were simply not true, that camera was quite lacking vs competitors at the time it came out in the sensor department.
Along the way Ive had a few surprises that made me realise how far cameras have come and what the practical and operational divides actually are.
For the most part they are not what people think, and certainly not what is argued about.
IMO C&N are rolling out of APSC for all but base options. Sony have recognised this and have been quick to adjust. If not the next generation then the generation after, mirrorless will obliterate any perceived advantage of SLR formats irrespective of size.
Mirrorless and processing are the future.
Well, but there are ASPC mirror less and FF mirror less. If your proposition is that mirror less cameras are the future, yes, I can most likely agree with that. That's a different point though.
- Ricardo