Where are the sample images??

I have asked here more than a few times as well as on other forums......where are the actual samples that prove a m4/3 IQ and "lack of DR" can't compete with......whatever camera is their choice.

I don't want to see some DXO chart that has been proven to be not the end all of IQ or performance measuring. I want to see actual samples, of the same seen, under the same conditions, either proceeded the same or better yet proved the raw files so we can judge. I ask partly because I am indeed curious but also because I always here about it but it is never proved with actual images.

This link might be interesting for you? http://www.imaging-resource.com …-eos-m3-image-quality.htm

this is the only thing that i can think is somewhat close to what you're asking for...although it doesn't really show off the dynamic range of a camera well...but you can compare a ton of different cameras on the same scene
https://www.dpreview.c​om/reviews/studio-compare

and i guess they have a newer one
https://www.dpreview.c​om/reviews/image-comparison

DreDaze wrote in post #18084800
this is the only thing that i can think is somewhat close to what you're asking for...although it doesn't really show off the dynamic range of a camera well...but you can compare a ton of different cameras on the same scene
https://www.dpreview.c​om/reviews/studio-compare

and i guess they have a newer one
https://www.dpreview.c​om/reviews/image-comparison

I am thinking more of actual real world images, not studio test shots.

Good luck in your quest.

Yeah, which is why I said close- I think real world, same lighting with multiple cameras just isn't realistic

Strick wrote in post #18084801
I am thinking more of actual real world images, not studio test shots.

You will find that the vast majority of armchair testers will be incompetent at creating a meaningful demonstration.

And then, even if they pick a great subject that demands resolution and DR and everything else, and they manage to shoot two or more systems back to back without motion blur or whatever messing up the test.....well there you are. Now you have one test of a scene from two cameras that can never be reproduced or shot again, because the light and scene will never be exactly the same again. So the test will quickly become irrelevant. Imagine if I'd put a huge amount of effort into comparing a Canon 5D and 30D in 2006. Would you care about this test now? Nope....and I would not be able to keep shooting the scene with newer bodies.

That's basically why dedicated testers shoot static, fixed test scenes that they can recreate. There are a lot of problems with that methodology as well, but at least the results can plausibly be recreated or compared to future cameras as they come along.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18084954
You will find that the vast majority of armchair testers will be incompetent at creating a meaningful demonstration.

And then, even if they pick a great subject that demands resolution and DR and everything else, and they manage to shoot two or more systems back to back without motion blur or whatever messing up the test.....well there you are. Now you have one test of a scene from two cameras that can never be reproduced or shot again, because the light and scene will never be exactly the same again. So the test will quickly become irrelevant. Imagine if I'd put a huge amount of effort into comparing a Canon 5D and 30D in 2006. Would you care about this test now? Nope....and I would not be able to keep shooting the scene with newer bodies.

That's basically why dedicated testers shoot static, fixed test scenes that they can recreate. There are a lot of problems with that methodology as well, but at least the results can plausibly be recreated or compared to future cameras as they come along.

Yeah that is mostly true.

It just would be nice to see some images of something actually out in the world that photographers would shoot. I am not even looking for in depth technical comparisons, just the shot framed the same and the same exposure (using same f stop and iso).

On another forum where I posted this it seems to be a touchy subject.

They don't exist in the manner you are asking for; mainly because folks don't often keep the body they're unhappy with. So, they only have their preferred body to make new shots with.

I've had similar issues with other common comparisons as well; unfortunately, that's just how these things go.

If you really have a concern, I'd suggest renting to do your own comparisons.

I own a Powershot Pro1 (small sensor), 5D2 (FF) and a 645Z (1.3x MF). I have a 400D that I gave to a friend, so alas I don't have an APS-C option to compare right now.
If I get some nice sunny weather (and my camera back) I might go out and try something.

Edit: So I completely forgot that I already had a couple of test images I took just a week or so ago, using the 5D2 and 645Z.
First two images are uncropped, and the next two are 100% crops of what I found to be the darkest area with +100% shadow recovery in Lightroom. Both were shot at ISO100.

Thanks. That is a the type of comparison I was thinking about.