Should we trust social media influencers repeating full-frame sales lines while reviewing Olympus and OM System cameras? Why do they always say "FF cameras capture more light?" Shouldn't we reject any form of light not included in the exposure formula? Why would full-frame advocates reject the idea of using the exposure mix to saturate the sensor? Isn't the sensor's operating efficiency a function of the exposure mix, or did "capture more light" replace techniques like ETTR (saturating the sensor)? Folks, guess what camera and lens I used for the included photos as we discuss full-frame sales lines.
Have you ever wondered why Olympus sold a promising imaging business?
PS. Also, ask why?...if you didn't know it's possible to manage your sensor's efficiency.
The lovely town of Meersburg at Bodensee. This is a handheld image with an aperture of f6.3 and no focus stacking.
The included photos reflect the "digital" MFT sensor from Olympus and the TruePic imaging process embedded in Workspace. I converted and edited the included images in OM Workspace. The TruePic image processor and Workspace let us verify and adjust our camera settings with our PCs.
Which camera and lens did I use?
Hint:- Consider only MFT lenses receiving predominantly negative feedback on social media. Did you notice how social media influencers recommend larger pro lenses like the M.Zuiko 12-100mm f4 for travel photography? Why not something like the 12-45mm f4 and 40-150mm f4 Pro combo?
I love the 4/3rds aspect ratio. I used it for both the landscape and portrait versions...
Considering that Olympus sold the imaging business to OM System (JIP) in January 2021, why would FF advocates deem it necessary to continue pushing the "capture more light" line in 2026? One of the reasons marketers introduced the "bigger is better" line was the physical size of full-frame DSLRs and lenses. Competitors needed a commercial answer for the success Olympus had with their innovative designs and the size and weight benefit of the E-M5 and E-M1 from 2013. The reason for continuing the "capture more light" campaign in 2026 could be as simple as the commercial success of the OM-1 and OM-3, customer segmentation, and targeted applications for the OM-1, OM-3, and OM-5. We could also say that the 2-stop MFT advantage played a critical role in this growing segment.
I love the consistent image quality and Olympus (Kodak) colors I get from this lens and Workspace combo.
The capture-more-light theory is critical to FF advocates because it supports the premise of less noise and more dynamic range, which are theoretically linked to the sensor's designed saturation level. The exposure formula has 4 exposure variables (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and avg. scene luminance). Three of them directly control the light reaching the sensor. That's why we saturate sensors with the exposure mix. The capture-more-light campaign suggests that sensor size and pixels capture photons, which explains saturating FF sensors with the capture-more-light effect. The theoretical link between noise and dynamic range is reflected light exposing or saturating the sensor. A subtle difference but critical because "capture more light" is not listed as a variable in the exposure formula.
PS. Experienced photographers manage the sensor's efficiency (dynamic range and image noise) with the exposure mix...
Full-frame sales lines include a shallower depth-of-field (DOF) and the premise of full-frame cameras offering less noise with more dynamic range. Depth of field is an optical characteristic linked to the sensor's image circle, whereas noise and dynamic range are 2 of many technical characteristics linked to the sensor's design criteria, manufacturing, and the materials used to manufacture sensors. Think of gold-plated connectors in high-end sound systems versus more cost-effective options.
Instead of exploring digital photography, marketers doubled down on "bigger is better" with programs like astroturfing and repetition. As the MFT focal length (reach) and DOF advantage became a reality, a shallow DOF surfaced for portrait and wildlife photos. The "capture more light" affect emulates a saturated sensor with more dynamic range and less noise. Why not accept basic digital photography principles like having an exposure formula and the exposure mix to saturate the sensor?
PS. It is best to view the photos in this article on a large display like the iMac 27"
We have tremendous control with the Monochrome profile function of the Pen F, EP-7, OM-3, and Workspace.
There would have been no need for this article if it weren't for the constant "bigger is better" noise on MFT photography forums and YouTubers reviewing and discussing Olympus and OM System cameras. All photographers will benefit from more appropriate information about digital cameras.
I used different picture modes and iEnhance options for my Workspace raw conversions for this article...
I used exposure, iEnhanced options, and tonal controls to "develop" some of these photos...
How do I research marketing trends and the Olympus and OM System digital imaging process? I have an engineering and marketing background, which helps to follow marketing trends and technical points relevant to digital photography. I used to share my thoughts on photography forums. Today I use AI to research technical information and to follow marketing trends. I focus on basic engineering principles as I study and explain digital cameras and the Olympus imaging process. I believe every photographer benefits from more advanced digital photography principles and accurate information.
I love the amazing 3D look of this M.Zuiko lens. Something special about Olympus M.Zuiko lenses...
Folks, my goal was not to convince you that one format is superior. It's to encourage you to evaluate them as excellent imaging systems consisting of cameras, lenses, and digital imaging processes. Judge them by your joy and enthusiasm for a specific system and the photography and photos they inspire. We can do so much more with digital cameras than relying on the sensor for everything...
See this interesting video focusing mainly on the 4th exposure variable.
See this video about a wildlife photographer that changed to MFT.
See this article for more on image noise and dynamic range.
See this inspirational wildlife video from Emily...
PS. I used the OM-5 with the pocket sized 9-18mm f4-5.6 M.Zuiko lens with its excellent color, detail, and 3D looking photos...
A personal experience with M43 cameras changes everything. Full-frame marketers prefer to prevent that with theories like "bigger is better." For example, why should I buy an OM-5 II or the OM-3 if they are inferior to full-frame cameras? It has become almost normal for respected influencers to suggest that M43 cameras have inferior image quality. There are also several videos suggesting that the high-resolution function is inferior to 40 MP or higher FF cameras. Why would people think OM Workspace is inferior to the commercial RAW converters from Adobe and DxO? Shouldn't the logical alternative be to convert your high-resolution RAW files with Workspace or the TruePic X image processor, especially with the new and improved PC-RAW mode of the OM-3, OM-1 Mk I/II, and Workspace?
The E-M5 III (OM-5) with the M.Zuiko 12-45mm f4 pro, 17mm f1.8, and 75mm f1.8 lenses is an excellent day or low-light option.
It's concerning that we don't have basic guidelines to "manage" modern digital cameras. The guidelines we do have are an outdated analog exposure triangle and the "bigger is better" theory. It should be normal to have a digital exposure triangle supporting technical aspects like sensor saturation and ISO amplification. The analog exposure triangle, "size and capture," and "ISO sensitivity" guides disregard the differences between the technical and optical aspects of digital cameras. Modern photographers will benefit from practical guides like the digital exposure triangle and an image-signal flow diagram. For example, it should be normal for modern photographers to manage optical controls like DOF and technical controls like sensor saturation and image signal amplification (ISO) in 2026.
Goto my Page Menu or open this link for the full article.
Does this video explain the parrot-like FF conformity among social media experts?
Photographers benefit as they learn why information is repeated by social media experts, reviewers, and commercial outlets. For years we've been told that sensor size governs optical aspects like depth-of-field (background blur) and technical characteristics like dynamic range and image noise. We were led to believe that the sensor's technical efficiency is measured by its physical size. This practice also applies to conversations about raw conversion software or the art of image editing. The net effect of photographers receiving insufficient "commercial" information is a lack of knowledge.
See my articles for information explaining the benefits of knowledge...
This article lists eight variables linked to "digital" exposure...
Also, see this interesting article at Fstoppers...
Best
Siegfried
I took this image with my M43 Olympus E-M1 III and the M.Zuiko 75mm f1.8 lens, and I converted the raw file with ON1 Photo Raw.
I have been observing YouTube channels focusing on the OM System OM-3. What sparked a discussion with ChatGPT were those explaining their preference for M43 cameras like the E-M1 III or the EP-7. It also seems like YouTubers feel compelled to justify positive reviews of the OM-3 or the OM-5 II. Does this indicate a trend or an accurate reflection of the M43 segment, or should we rather focus on the overwhelming positive feedback from those opting for smaller camera solutions?
My discussion with ChatGPT highlighted the technical weaknesses in the commercial layer's definition of digital camera efficiency. We reviewed the reasons why the OM-1 II or the OM-3 stacked BSI sensor is most likely a high-sensitivity sensor. It's rare to experience this amazing sensor with cameras like the OM-3, as one expects this level of refinement only from pro cameras like the OM-1 II.
I decided to use ChatGPT to analyze the Olympus E-M1 III and the Sony A7 IV in an effort to find a more reliable measure for sensor efficiency than physical size. The E-M1 III has a Live MOS sensor, and the Sony A7 IV has a BSI sensor. The EM-1 III is the most capable pro-level camera from the E-M1 series. What differentiates the E-M1 III from the E-M1 II is the TruePic IX image processor. The latest OM-1/OM-3 TruePic X processor and the stacked 20MP Quad BSI sensor offer significant advantages. This commitment to photography cameras became a rarity during the past 5 years.
My discussion with ChatGPT included the 2-stop sensitivity improvement we get with the new BSI sensor in OM-1 and OM-3 cameras. We discussed a more reliable measure for sensor sensitivity, which included typical ISO-to-SNR improvements and the 2-stop depth of field advantage of MFT. Everything changes as we push and extend our knowledge beyond the physical size of the sensor.
Did you know that the OM-1, OM-1 II, and the OM-3 use the same sensor?
Olympus EP-7 enhanced raw file converted and edited in Workspace.
A brief summary of my discussion with ChatGPT.
We started with basic knowledge and how to measure the efficiency of complex electronic parts. This know-how benefits all digital photographers, not only M43 photographers, as a good understanding of these basics will improve your ability to evaluate and select new camera equipment.
I cropped ChatGPT's replies so that they can be viewed as pictures.
The following ChatGPT reply discusses the above feedback and how it applies to image sensors. For instance, is physical size a reliable measure for sensor efficiency, or do we need more?
The chances of finding a truly equivalent sensor size comparison are almost impossible. Equivalence means all the optical plus technical aspects need to be similar. Focusing only on optical aspects will result in inaccurate comparisons. See this fun example of rating the bigger one better.
The next question reviewed camera and sensor differences. Searching for a better way of expressing sensor efficiency, the aim was to quantify the differences in exposure stops. A more practical way is to say the difference between pro-level (more sensitive) and budget sensors is 2 to 3 stops?
This could encourage a more meaningful discussion than repeating "bigger is better."
The next conversation examines the E-M1 III and the Sony A7 IV. The aim is not to compare them but to highlight technical differences. AI questioning and probing techniques are crucial when searching for specific and theoretically accurate information. Poor questioning techniques generally lead to pleasing replies from most AI platforms. All information from AI needs to be verified and challenged. Use the AI replies in this article to start your own search for accurate information.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
ChatGPT reply: Part 1:
CFA = Color Filter Aray
Part 2:
Part 3:
I included the following replies, as they share relevant information for those wanting to improve their digital know-how. Much of what I cover in my articles is reflected in these AI replies. There is much more to digital photography than what is presented in the commercial information layer. The secret is to focus on those aspects making a real difference for all digital photographers.
This link discusses the commercial versus factual information layers.
The next question discussed the 2-stop M43 depth-of-field advantage. For example, how do we apply this benefit to optimize our ISO-to-SNR ratio? This knowledge is only crucial if you want top results from digital cameras. Typical applications are landscape, low light, or product photography. Study my articles discussing the digital photography flow diagram for digital cameras.
The final question considers the 4th exposure variable in the exposure formula. Yes, it is possible to manage shadow and highlight clipping. The sensor's dynamic range is only another variable.
Folks, there is no need to apologize for the M43 segment or when recognizing that there are almost no visible image quality differences between most cameras. The OM-3's shadow details did benefit from the new BSI sensor. What surely made a difference in application is the TruePic X image processor and BSI sensor combination. That said, I get great results from both my E-M1 III and the OM-3.
If physical sensor size is not a reliable indicator, what criteria should we use to rate digital cameras? As said, budget sensors are 1 to 2 stops less sensitive than professional sensors. The key difference between digital cameras is advanced features and autofocusing options that enable us to repeatedly capture great results in diverse conditions. Some of these differences are not associated with casual or hobby photography but are more relevant to professional photography applications.
Olympus EP-7 enhanced raw file converted and edited in Workspace.
The camera's image processor governs critical image quality markers, such as the gamma curve, white balance calculations, image sharpening, image color priorities, and fine detail processing. This makes it factually incorrect to say that larger sensors capture and produce "more" image quality. It is better to highlight the roles and definitions of the sensor and image processor more accurately.
I appreciate that AI is an ongoing project and not a mature and reliable service. My intention is not to suggest AI has reliable information. Nothing beats an inquisitive mindset, experience, and knowledge. My recommendation is to learn and to question everything you see, read, and hear.
See this interesting image quality test I did with 15 cameras - link.
My son said I may try his Sony ZV-E1 while he tried my Fuji XT-5. The Sony ZV-E1 uses the same FF 12MP BSI sensor as the Sony A7S III. A camera like this should be tested. I would have liked to include my Fuji XT-5 in this test. The results are exciting and reveal much about what to expect from various cameras. For example, the Sony ZV-E1 pixel area is 5 times larger than the Olympus E-M1 III and almost 20 times larger than the Olympus XZ-2. How much do these pixel area differences impact the IQ of these cameras? What should we look for, and how will you test these cameras?
Sensor Sensitivity is an indicator of the sensor's Optical and Quantum efficiencies. That means larger pixel areas capture more light, right? The secret is to study shadow details because increasing sensor sensitivity means capturing more shadow information. What kind of shadow differences do you expect to find between the Sony ZV-E1 and an older Olympus XZ-2? While I am not testing for noise, what do you expect to see from these 2 cameras? Would the sensor's "pixel control wiring" add noise?
I included several Olympus cameras in this test. We learn much from the pixel area variances between these cameras. For example, the pixel area of the Olympus E-1 is three times larger than the EM1 III. It is sometimes easier to simulate sensor size differences with an existing camera collection.
Preparing my Test Studio
I created a test "studio" with a 4EV exposure difference between the highs and lows and measured the brightest point to set the exposure with my camera's spot meter. That means each sensor's Saturation and SNR were 4 stops lower in the shadows. Study the photon-to-electron graph in this article to learn more about sensor saturation and SNR. Every digital photographer should know this graph...
Each camera's sensor is technically different. My knowledge of digital cameras helped me plan pixel area tests. For example, pixel area reveals more about sensor performance when comparing digital cameras. Sensor size (diagonal measurements) is an indicator of the sensor's optical characteristics. I created the chart below to illustrate the pixel area variances of the cameras I tested.
The chart lists pixel count in red. Why is it important to consider pixel count? Because pixel count determines the sensor's total pixel area. For example, go to the 12MP (FF) sensor on the horizontal axis and compare its pixel area to the 12MP (1/1.7") sensor on the vertical axis. You can compare all the sensor sizes in this chart with this technique. That means we are evaluating pixel area and not sensor size. For example, how much more detail should the Olympus E1 capture over the E-M1 III? Does the sensor's quantum and optical efficiencies influence these camera comparisons?
The only benefit of sensor size is commercial. It's technically meaningless and reveals nothing about the sensor's ability to capture more data. For example, it's better to focus on the sensor's diagonal measurements. The reason is the lens image circle has to cover the complete sensor. This explains the more light theory confusing so many FF enthusiasts or the equivalence factor when comparing the optical differences between M43, APC, and full-frame cameras. See the table below for more.
What is the best way to compare these different pixel areas? Take a few minutes to prepare yourself by selecting a few cameras (pixel areas), and writing down what you like to learn from these tests. For example, how many more shadow details do you expect to see from the 12MP FF sensor over the smaller 1/1.7" version? Also, study the Fuji X-T5 or Medium Format 100MP pixel areas and explain why the shadow details of these cameras would be technically similar to 20MP (M43) sensors. Why would one expect to see more shadow noise with these two Fuji cameras (sensors)?
Olympus C-770UZ (4MP) - ISO64, f3.2, 1/160 - OOC JPEG and not edited...
Let's study these different test images...
The noise filters were OFF while taking 4 RAW images with each camera. The Enhanced RAW Files were converted in Workspace with no noise reduction (NR). I used the Photoshop 2024 Raw Converter with no NR for the other. I upped the shadows to reveal more captured data. All the cameras were optimized to deliver maximum detail and IQ. One typically expects less visible noise from a saturated sensor and a higher SNR. That said, these comparisons were all about capturing detail...
The test images are best viewed on a large display. Click on the first image...
The following samples are crops of the above images. This will assist readers to find more details. I only upped the shadows and prepped the images for the web. I did no color corrections or NR. These converted raw files reflecs the captured sensor data. I appreciate that each person experience the results differently. Knowledge and regular practice is good advice for consistent results with different cameras. I expected larger IQ differences from 20 years and 20X pixel area variances.
How does one explain the increased noise levels of the E1, E500, E-620, and EP3? One would typically expect less noise with fewer pixels and less control wiring. The noise floor of these older sensors are larger because the the quantum efficiencies (photons to electrons conversion) and control wiring are not as optimized as newer sensors. ETTR is more effective with older digital cameras.
How would you explain the increased noise levels of the Panasonic LX-10?
What were my camera configurations? I used the 17mm f1.2 lens on my M43 cameras and the 50mm f2 macro lens on my 4/3rds DSLRs. The Canon 6D II had an EF 35mm f2.0 lens, and the Sony ZV-E1 had a 55mm f1.8 Zeiss lens. That means I used my tripod distance to the subject to compensate for lower megapixel sensors and the different focal lengths. I used Manual Exposure with an Aperture of f3.5 or f4 for these cameras. I also used the 2sec timer and +1EV ETTR for each camera.
I used the same white balance (marker) when converting the raw files.
Conclusion
You don't need to be an expert to see the Olympus XZ-2 and Sony ZV-E1 results are very similar. For example, I couldn't find 20 times more image details for the Sony. That means the Olympus XZ-2's image details compare well with the Sony ZV-E1 and its 20 times larger pixel areas. The 20-year age difference between some cameras also didn't make a 20X difference. Finally, less than 100% pixel area differences seem insignificant. That means one can ignore the sensor sensitivity differences between M43 (Live MOS) and APC (Standard CMOS and BSI) sensors. What makes a real difference is knowledge, lens selections, and regularly using Workspace and one's Olympus camera.
I used the Olympus E-M1 II for years and the E-M1 III for eighteen months. This is an exceptional camera with excellent IQ, speed, and functionality. The most fascinating part about them is the 20MP Live MOS sensor. I would love to see the specs Olympus used to find this sensor 12 years ago.
What do we learn from this comparison? We simply can't trust those repeating the same "size and capture" phrases. The Sony ZV E1 is a top performer and delivers excellent image details and shadow data. We also saw that the Image Quality differences between cameras are way less than expected. Is this the reason why photographers are rediscovering older cameras and sensors? For example, the TruePic processors and 16MP sensors in the E-M1, E-PL9, E-M5 II, and E-M10 II/III are excellent. Photographers are better off evaluating costs, functionality, speed, application, and form factor.
The following 4 samples are the final edits with Workspace, Photoshop, and Photolab 6. I did them to help readers get a feel for the various edited versions of the above samples...
Olympus E-1 with 50mm f2.0 lens - ISO100, f4.0, 0.6 seconds (1EV ETTR) - Raw converted and edited in Photoshop.
Olympus E-1 with 50mm f2.0 lens - ISO100, f4.0, 0.6 seconds (1EV ETTR) - Enhanced Raw converted and edited in Workspace.
I used the standard NR filter on the above image. Workspace has an older NR filter for older cameras like the E-1. The E-410 and newer models have a different and more advanced NR filter...
Olympus EM1 III with 17mm f1.2 Pro lens - ISO100, f4.0, 1/2 seconds (1EV ETTR) - Raw converted and edited in Photoshop.
Those photographers who make a habit of improving their Enhanced Raw files and Image Editing skills enjoy an advantage. The benefits of improving one's knowledge and camera and editing skills are remarkable. I often write about the benefits of converting your Enhanced Raw Files with Workspace. Also, see this video reviewing the Enhanced Raw Format and Workspace.
Olympus EM1 III with 17mm f1.2 Pro lens - ISO100, f4.0, 1/2 seconds (1EV ETTR) - Raw converted and edited in Photolab 6.
Final observations. Study the "deeper" shadows between the above flowers to see the details from these cameras. The Canon 6D II revealed more shadow details than others. The last four edits are interesting. One can spend hours editing these raw files for different results. DxO PL-6 or 7 is a good solution for older Olympus raw files, especially if you prefer basic conversions and editing.
See this article where I comment on 12MP versus 100MP printed samples.
Also, see my Workspace firmware update page - link.
