So some people think m4/3 'trounces' full-frame from the Sony A7 and A7r do they?

I guess I must be more mature and sophisticated than many who write on the internet. I have no problem with using a smaller sensor system without the need to justify that by attempting to talk it up it into something it's not. There was this astonishing remark that the Olympus E-M1 'trounces' the Sony A7 and A7r in terms of image quality that is so far off the mark the writer gives every indication of writing under the influence of hallucinogenic pharmaceuticals. This goes with lots of other exaggerated claims for the E-M1 being the camera of the year, the best camera currently available and other fanboy nonsense.

I've got nothing against the E-M1. I'm sure it's a fine camera, not for me because of several important omissions, but one of the best mirrorless offerings ever that's for sure. But anyone who's looked at image samples from it can clearly see that it suffers from the usual m4/3 deficiencies, low pixel count compared to the best of the competition, poor high ISO performance, luminance noise present even at base ISO and without very careful processing, restricted dynamic range. Plus when compared to samples from the Sony A7 and A7r, which exhibit none of the above it's not the E-M1 that 'trounces' it's competitors but rather the reverse. And anyone who argues that the m4/3 camera is superior in image quality to the Sony FE's is either a deluded fanboy with an eye test overdue, a fool or has a financial incentive to promote that point of view. And as I said in a previous post, go check out some samples, there's plenty about.
I did my own comparison between the A7r and GH3 in the following post - - which contains raw and jpg. files for download at full resolution, so you can make your own assessment.

So why does this matter? Well accuracy, honesty and responsible writing are obviously 'good things', as is giving people proper information instead of prejudicial opinion. But for me one of the important reasons why it matters, is that internet writers who have some kind of following, owe it to their audiences to aim for the truth and an honest approach, otherwise what on earth is the point of doing it in the first place? Plus the rest of us who do strive to write with integrity and with the absence of financially motivated and publicity seeking polemic and self-interest, get lumped together with those who have set up home in the cesspit of neanderthal macho posturing based on nothing more than a misguided belief in their own importance and influence.

Now if a m4/3 alternative is what you want as your primary camera then that's fine. And if you think that you can use it for all and every purpose including high-end demanding professional use, then don't let me stop you. Personally if I'm pitching for a well-paid magazine or advertising commission with my A7r and I see my competition turning up with E-M1's (assuming we all have the same ability to do the job) then I'm certainly going to be counting my chickens. Because that's the whole point of the Sony's. No compromise image quality in a small light mirrorless package. 

And as I indicated at the top of this post, I can cope with the fact that my GH3 will never give me the same image quality as my A7r, but then neither will my Fuji X's either and I fully intend to keep using all of them. I may have all sorts of reasons to use other cameras than my Sony's, even something as simple and uncomplicated as I feel like a change. 

Unfortunately that 'This is what I choose, so it must be the best, because I make the best choices' attitude applies to many. Almost 100% males of a certain age it has to be said and many from the same geographical location also. However, as I said, those of us who are more sophisticated and are able to work as photographers without resorting to 'brand boasting' are pretty secure in what we can do and what we can use. And since I sell between 15-20,000 images a year, make a decent income and have my total stock picture sales closing in on the $1,000,000 mark, I'm singularly unimpressed by any other photographic writers supposed credentials. 

But I realise that's not the case for many. Many who look around for purchasing guidance on the internet don't always have the experience and confidence to make informed decisions and if those of us who feel the need to share our thoughts with others don't write responsibly and are aware of who might read what we spew out, then we need to think very carefully about what we are doing. And that should include the ability to hold back from unsubstantiated knee-jerk opinions that serve no purpose other than to confuse and annoy.

For example, I've made it plain that I think the styling of the Nikon Df is a 'dogs dinner'. That 'Disney Castle' knobfest just isn't for me. However, it's pretty obvious even to anyone who is a brain cell challenged dimwit that it will turn out pretty amazing images, particularly at high ISO's. With the sensor from the D4 inside what, in my opinion, is a somewhat 'frivolous' body, it couldn't fail to do just that. So not for me, but I see no need to attempt to dismiss it in terms of it's picture creating abilities, because if I did that would be dishonest. And I'm not inclined to rubbish the E-M1 either. If it had an OLED viewfinder and better video options then I'd probably have one myself. And no it doesn't produce files that are even close to the quality that my A7r produces, but I'd enjoy using it anyway and in certain circumstances it would be the perfect camera for the job.

Ultimately though I'm probably swimming against the current. I have no confidence that measured, open-minded, cliche and agenda free internet commentary will prevail. There's just too much Rockwell style posturing out there and it seems to be getting worse. Eventually I imagine, I'll just get so sick of it, I'll give up, shut down this blog and return to just being a photographer. But in the meantime I'll keep tilting at windmills until my energy wanes and attempting to restore as much integrity into internet photography blogging as I can. Now that doesn't mean that I'm turning into Julie Andrews, but I'll do my best to stick with an honest approach come what may.  

OK so finally before I move on to something else, some examples of just how m4/3 'trounces' the A7r (or not)

As I said - 'a deluded fanboy with an eye test overdue, a fool or has a financial incentive to promote that point of view'


All original material on this blog is © Soundimageplus

N.B. to see more on the cameras and lenses featured in this post click on the relevant labels (tags and keywords) at the bottom of this post.

For comment and discussion join the Soundimageplus Blog Readers Group at Google+