* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #860 / Revived #080 on 2024 10 09 *

link

DanHasLeftForum
Members 3611 posts

Oct. 15, 2024, 11:45 p.m. Oct. 15, 2024, 11:45 p.m.
link

@Kumsal has written:

Everyone will know which camera is good for their purposes.

That is exactly the point I have been making.

For Bryan to say that for everyone m43 should be the best for moving and/or distant wildlife is plain and simply laughable.

Personally, I have no reason to use smaller than aps-c for any kind of photography.

The fact that some people prefer m43 is fine. That is their choice just like I make my choices.
link

DanHasLeftForum
Members 3611 posts

Oct. 15, 2024, 11:50 p.m. Oct. 15, 2024, 11:50 p.m.
link

@Kumsal has written:

Starting tomorrow, you could share your wildlife shots with your FF camera with us and I'll share my photos taken with a Lumix G9 here.

How do you propose anyone could verify which canera was used to take any photos you post given that exif data can be faked very quickly and easily?
link

xpatUSA
Members 173 posts

Oct. 16, 2024, 12:30 a.m. Oct. 16, 2024, 12:30 a.m.
link

@DanHasLeftForum has written:

@Bryan has written:

@Bryan has written:

It is interesting to note that a lot of the passionate birders mostly use m43 OM 1s as they are the best camera for moving and or distant wildlife.

I cant say that the DPR Big Year birding challenges are a definitive sample. However I think I could fairly say that they are very much a representative sample.

If you consider all the photos of birds on the www, the number of photos of birds in the DPR challenges is minuscule and therefore definitely not definitive or representative.

Statistically incorrect.

Take for example 70% of a sample of a mere 50 in favor of something.

At 95% confidence level and a population of 200, the margin of error is +/- 11.03%

population of 2000 it's +/- 12.55%

population of 2000000 it's +/- 12.7%

Therefore, your claim is false.

see www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm before responding, please.
link

MikeFewster
Members 1243 posts

Oct. 16, 2024, 1:27 a.m. Oct. 16, 2024, 1:27 a.m.
link

@MikeFewster has written:

@Bryan has written:

@DanHasLeftForum has written:

@Bryan has written:

@Bryan has written:

It is interesting to note that a lot of the passionate birders mostly use m43 OM 1s as they are the best camera for moving and or distant wildlife.

I cant say that the DPR Big Year birding challenges are a definitive sample. However I think I could fairly say that they are very much a representative sample.

If you consider all the photos of birds on the www, the number of photos of birds in the DPR challenges is minuscule and therefore definitely not definitive or representative.

I still have no reason to use smaller than aps-c for birding or any other genre.

Re-visit statistics. Out of millions of voters, a correctly structured sample of 1000 can be representative. It doesn't matter how many photos of birds exist on the www. What matters in this case is that repetitive samples correlate. The larger the number of samples, the higher the correlation.

It's not that one can't get good wildlife shots with a larger sensor. It's what gives the best chance of good shots in a dynamic, challenging environment.

If you owned a FF camera, you would poo-poo everything with a smaller sensor including APS-C. You don't so you poo-poo everything smaller than what you have.

For me the proof is in the pudding. Where are all these birding photos you speak of?

Bryan may well be correct. The micro 4/3 cameras have a particular feature that has made them popular with photographers of wild life of all forms. The latest OM cameras have built on this and argue that they are staking out this segment of the market.
The micro 4/3 cameras are about more than just sensor size. They are about the balance of the whole package. When m4/3 was created, there was a reason. FF and APS-C formats were based on the old 35mm movie film. Using this film made sense because it was widely available an alternative to the larger roll and sheet fil film formats used at that time. And so we had the development of 35mm cameras. The dimensions were based on film availability.
When digital arrived, camera makers wanted the new tech to be picked up by owners who already had expensive collections of lenses. The sensor size was based on the proportions of 35mm film and gave rise to APS-C and then FF.
Olympus and Panasonic went back to the drawing board. They suggested that there was no need to be tied to film proportions that were now irrelevant. Images formed by lenses are circular. Oly and Panasonic suggested that different proportions could in fact better utilize the circular shape of images and this would result in less loss of the image edges that occurs when circular images are cropped to give straight edges on the rectangular frames and that this would also mean smaller lenses could be used for much the same image quality. That was the origin of the micro 4/3 format. Oly and Panasonic separately developed cameras using the calculated format and they agreed on a common mount so the lenses could be shared between the cameras.
The point for wild life photographers is that considerably smaller lenses can be used and if you are out chasing wild life, this is a real plus. The next advantage was developed by Oly. Oly specialized in still photography while Panasonic has more emphasis on video. Oly therefore was more interested in stabilization via Ibis while Panasonic tended to in lens stabilization. The smaller mass of the Oly lenses gives them a big advantage in IBIS where the senor is rapidly moved. I haven't looked for a while but it used to be the case that Oly IBIS was easily the best in the business. The extra stabilization compensates for the better performing sensors in later models from competitors.
It is probably true that the sensor development (and that has to be done by the big sensor makers like Sony, and can't be done by the smaller camera makers) has not kept up with the sensor improvements on the mainstream formats. Sensor development is expensive and you have to sell a lot of them to cover the costs. Even so, m4/3, especially Olympus, has a lot more going for it as a birding system than is apparent from thinking only about the sensor size. Consider the size of the whole camera/lens package to be carried hiking into inaccessible places. Consider the image stabilization they have on the tele lenses. It's a formidable package for that purpose and the advantages of that package is widely understood by those who specialize in such things.
A couple of further thoughts. Not sure on the following. I think it was Oly who first came up with on sensor points to read AF rather than the older and nowhere near as effective contrast based system. Sony bought into Oly at that time and then came up with something similar. Pinched? Possibly, I don't know, but the AF of Oly at that time was the best around and would have been a selling point to wild life enthusiasts.
Finally, I'm not a micro4/3 user, I'm in the Sony camp and have been for many years. I have watched micro4/3 and Oly in particular with considerable admiration over that time. If I was primarily a wild life shooter, especially if I hunted my shots in the wild, I probably would have settled on the Olympus micro 4/3 system.
Another thought occurs. One of the photographic world's acknowledged master printers is/was a bloke in the USA called Ctein. Not sure if it is still available but he wrote quite a bit about the micro4/3 system and the maths of why it worked so well. If I get some time I'll try to track it down.

Sorry, I made an error in the statement and rather than just change by edit, I'll explain. What I said was "The smaller mass of the Oly lenses gives them a big advantage in IBIS where the senor is rapidly moved. " I should have said "The smaller mass of the Oly sensors gives them a big advantage in IBIS where the sensor is rapidly moved."
IBIS has nothing to do with the lenses. IBIS was originally developed by Konica-Minolta and Sony took it up when they were gifted the Minolta camera and lens division. Olympus pushed the development further.
link

DanHasLeftForum
Members 3611 posts

Oct. 16, 2024, 3:09 a.m. Oct. 16, 2024, 3:09 a.m.
link

@xpatUSA has written:

@DanHasLeftForum has written:

@Bryan has written:

@Bryan has written:

It is interesting to note that a lot of the passionate birders mostly use m43 OM 1s as they are the best camera for moving and or distant wildlife.

I cant say that the DPR Big Year birding challenges are a definitive sample. However I think I could fairly say that they are very much a representative sample.

If you consider all the photos of birds on the www, the number of photos of birds in the DPR challenges is minuscule and therefore definitely not definitive or representative.

Statistically incorrect.

Take for example 70% of a sample of a mere 50 in favor of something.

At 95% confidence level and a population of 200, the margin of error is +/- 11.03%

population of 2000 it's +/- 12.55%

population of 2000000 it's +/- 12.7%

Therefore, your claim is false.

see www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm before responding, please.

The point I am making is that the number of bird photos posted in the dpreview challenges is minuscule compared to the total number of photos of birds on the www.
link

davidwien
Foundation 1437 posts

Oct. 16, 2024, 6:06 a.m. Oct. 16, 2024, 6:06 a.m.
link

@DanHasLeftForum has written:

@Kumsal has written:

Starting tomorrow, you could share your wildlife shots with your FF camera with us and I'll share my photos taken with a Lumix G9 here.

How do you propose anyone could verify which canera was used to take any photos you post given that exif data can be faked very quickly and easily?

Only despicable cheats fake EXIF data!
link

DanHasLeftForum
Members 3611 posts

Oct. 16, 2024, 6:18 a.m. Oct. 16, 2024, 6:18 a.m.
link

@davidwien has written:

@DanHasLeftForum has written:

@Kumsal has written:

Starting tomorrow, you could share your wildlife shots with your FF camera with us and I'll share my photos taken with a Lumix G9 here.

How do you propose anyone could verify which canera was used to take any photos you post given that exif data can be faked very quickly and easily?

Only despicable cheats fake EXIF data!

If you look through the DPReview Challenge Discussion Forum you will see plenty of discussion where challenge entrants have falsified the Date Taken field in order to meet date restrictions in specific challenges.

In any case, it can also be done accidentally in Photoshop Elements and I assume Photoshop, when you have stacked multiple photos to create a composite.

The exif data in the output image will be the exif from the image at the bottom of the layer stack.