Image comparison by CameraSize.
–
With the announcement of the Sony Ay-A7r Full Frame cameras the question raised again. Should Olympus-Panasonic also launch a sort of Macro Four Thirds Full Frame system? We don’t know yet if this will happen but we can at least try to answer one simple question….do we really need Full Frame?
Lindsay Dobson (website here) was so kind to let me re-post here nice “Micro Four Thirds vs Full Frame” article on 43rumors.
—
Micro Four Thirds vs Full Frame
The Micro Four Thirds vs Full Frame argument is becoming a real cliche and is being discussed (and argued) to death on photography forums throughout the world. Elsewhere here on the blog I’ve stated my opinions about the usefulness of the latest generation of mirrorless camera systems, and as a full-time photographer I can offer my own perspective on real-world performance and usability. I have a reputation to protect and it goes without saying that when it comes to equipment choices my clients deserve kit which delivers excellent performance and reliability (together with several levels of backup). I’ve been around enough years to see the evolution of digital technology throughout the professional photography world and not very long ago we were all doing very well with our APS-C systems which were the mainstay of the vast majority of professional studios – nobody questioned us about our camera choices, we delivered good imagery to our clients, and everybody was happy. And not very long ago, we saw the introduction of full frame 135 format digital cameras which have broadened our options still further. There is and there remains a pervasive belief that every professional portrait or wedding photographer should be using full frame cameras and if they do not they are somehow failing their customers. I will say that I have rarely heard this expression from a professional photographer and this viewpoint seems to be representative of the amateur and hobbyist community.
A camera is a recording device, and it can only record what the photographer creates for it (I must preface this discussion by saying that I am referring to recent generation cameras at and above a certain level of performance – I’m not talking about low-priced, low-end, low featured machines destined for the family marketplace). My perspective is also that of the professional portrait photographer, not the advertising photographer who might naturally be drawn towards medium format equipment. There are many elements of a well crafted image, and in professional portraiture and wedding photography much depends upon the photographer’s understanding of light, supplementary lighting, posing, direction, narrative, timing, spatial awareness and composition, people management, and a number of other factors which will clearly separate the professional from the casual amateur. Additionally, equipment choices are often personal. What matters the most is that the photographer is appropriately skilled and uses equipment which is suited to the job at hand. And pretty much every modern well-spec’d FX, APS-C, APS-H or u4/3 camera will fit the bill. But there are a great many newer photographers who are conditioned to believe that this is an unacceptable statement, because of the following:
A full frame sensor is better in low light – indeed it will be, the noise response of the full frame sensor will almost always exceed that of the smaller sensor. This enables the camera operator to gain usable images in dim situations. What of those situations? What are we talking about exactly? Well, the only real world situation the social photographer is likely to encounter where they are forced to photograph in lowlight would probably be a winter wedding, or dark church (if/when not allowed). The less experienced photographers will presume that there is no requirement to worry about additive lighting (if allowed at the location) since a full frame sensor and a very fast lens is all that matters – and many less competent photographers also feel it is not a requirement to learn the art of lighting. But here’s the thing – if you have a bride and groom in front of you it is very unlikely that they will be on exactly the same plane of focus. And considering how razor thin your depth of field will be if using a full frame camera and a very wide aperture, it is perfectly likely that one of your subjects will not be in focus. I see this time and time again and the photographer will presume that the client will not notice, and will believe it was a ‘creative choice’. The solution therefore is that you will need to stop down a little, and to maintain a usable shutter speed you will then have to increase your ISO accordingly. Now consider the photographer using the latest Micro 4/3 camera – they will have around a stop at three-quarter of additional depth of field, so even at a very wide aperture they won’t need to stop down, and they can gather all of the light without worrying about missing focus. So already we are seeing that the ISO advantage of full frame is quite clearly negated in the very situation where full frame bodies are considered to be a requirement. Ditto depth of field – we cannot go through life touting a full frame camera and shooting wide open as a matter of course – at least not on a client’s time.
Full frame gives a shallower depth of field – yes it does, and I’ve already alluded to this above. Virtually every hobbyist or unskilled amateur I encounter is utterly convinced that they must always have the shallowest depth of field possible, or else they cannot possibly enjoy their photography. They are also convinced that a professional photographer would feel the same way, and they would be very wrong indeed. Whilst there may be the odd occasion where you might want to try a very creative or abstract shot, I have spent much of my working life using full frame equipment and telephoto lenses at around f4 or f5.6. This gives a shallow depth of field but also a small amount of leeway for critical focus. I can get the same depth of field using my OMD cameras by shooting with any of the excellent Micro 4/3 prime lenses. In fact it’s very easy to manipulate the depth of field equation to afford extremely shallow depth of field when using a micro 4/3 camera – remember that depth of field depends upon the focal length of the lens, the distance to the subject, the distance between the subject in the background, aperture, and finally sensor format which is the least important determinant. So it follows that if I were to use the excellent Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 lens on my OMD, at f2.8, in-depth the field terms that is about where I would be when shooting my Canon 5D cameras using the 70-200 L at f5.6. In fact I can go even shallower with my OMD, because I possess some wonderful small and lightweight micro 4/3 fast prime lenses (I do not possess the equivalent lenses for my full frame DSLRs for the reasons set out below).
Full frame systems offer better lenses – I think what many people are referring to here are the very expensive fast prime lenses at about the f1.2 or f1.4 mark. I’ve never got along with such lenses for my full frame kit, much preferring the fast pro zooms. Why is that? For a start, on a full frame camera the depth of field will be perilously thin and therefore these lenses are often best reserved for only the most creative applications – it would be unthinkable for me to shoot these wide open during the course of my day-to-day work, or my personal work for that matter. It will also be argued that in different conditions these lenses will gather more light – of course they will, but at the expense of razor thin depth of field and therefore the possibility that most of your subjects will not be in focus, this is very true where wedding or other forms of social photography are concerned. The other potential issue is that these lenses are often fairly heavy and they are rarely if ever stabilised, therefore a realistic shutter speed must be achieved (often at the expense of a higher ISO) and even then the photographs may exhibit some camera shake. On the other hand my OMD bodies feature the incredible Olympus IBIS which gives up to 5 stops of stabilisation, enabling me to shoot at incredibly slow shutter speeds (providing my subjects are fairly static). And the optical quality of the professional Micro 4/3 lenses is sublime.
Big files for big prints – many full frame cameras have a high megapixel count, creating massive digital files. If I were shooting an event such as a wedding where I am likely to come away with a few hundred photographs, the last thing I would want is to have to handle a humongous amount of data. After all, most images will be printed to an album, with the odd substantial wall product – we rarely need 23MP files for this. Therefore I have always tended to set my 5DMkIII bodies at medium RAW. This is an ideal file size and is more than ample for creating bigger enlargements. In fact looking around my studio I have massive prints on the wall which are several years old, taken with cameras which vary from 6MP to 13MP. And they look fantastic, hard to tell apart from most of today’s offerings in fact, and any differences are certainly not something any client would notice. That said, a large file size will enable more cropping, but if you’re shooting portraits and weddings then you really shouldn’t be doing much cropping.
Clients will not take you seriously if you have a small camera – this is nonsense and we have discussed this before. This is inherently an amateur statement and does not seem to be of particular interest to professional photographers, who know that this holds little validity. If we were to ask ourselves why our clients choose us, it’s because they admire the work we produce, they love our photographs, and they value excellent customer service. However many bridal magazines will include equipment in the list of questions that brides are recommended to ask their photographer, and this is folly in my view. The fees the client is paying is largely dependent upon the photographer’s skill, experience, credentials, and style. Overheads play a big part in this, but that doesn’t differ much according to which format the photographer favours – the latest Micro 4/3 bodies are far from cheap, I have just paid £1300 for my EM1 and my professional zooms from Panasonic are close to the £1000 mark apiece. The lighting I use is the same irrespective of my camera brand, my finished products are bespoke, and so forth.
What really matters, and the question which brides should be asking, is whether the photographer has appropriate levels of backup equipment, and insurance. But ultimately your customers are purchasing your work, and of course you as a person. I have never taken my car to the garage and demanded to know which tools my mechanic will use to fix it – I rely on his experience to determine which tools are appropriate to the job. Likewise I don’t go to a classy restaurant and ask the chef what kind of oven he or she is using to cook my food, nor would I take it upon myself to comment that a three-year-old oven would probably not maintain an even enough temperature for my (very skilled) chef to produce a saleable meal. If you feel that your clients will not take you seriously if you are using a mirrorless system then I suspect the problem lies with self-confidence, or perhaps a less than coherent portfolio to support your offerings. Of course not every full frame camera is big, and without doubt we’re going to see some very small full frame cameras coming into the marketplace, but thus far they don’t offer anything like the performance attributes of full-sized DSLRs or the more recent Micro 4/3 offerings, and they still suffer from that old chestnut of being small (at least until you put a big lens on them).
“you shouldn’t be using that camera for your professional assignments – it doesn’t weigh enough”
****************************
With all that said and done, we must be realistic (and we must also respect the right of the individual to choose their equipment based upon their own personal preferences) – there are still areas where a top of the range pro DSLR remains an ideal tool of choice – if you’re a sports photographer then without doubt a highly competent top-of-the-line DSLR system is likely to be better because it will offer more sophisticated tracking focus when you need it and historically that has been a notable weakness of mirrorless cameras (but even that is improving). And I must admit that battery life with a mirrorless camera is poor when compared to a DSLR. But for me, this is a small price to pay for the many advantages that mirrorless systems such as the Olympus OMD can offer:
- Namely, a system which is every bit as competent (if not more so in some areas) than a modern APS-C DSLR, in a tiny and very portable package which enables me to carry a full complement of equipment to assignments and locations which I would otherwise have had to forego.
- I also have the benefit of being able to work much more discreetly – there is nothing worse than hauling around a big backpack of equipment on a day off or recreational outing let alone a professional job, it really does take the shine off your enjoyment.
- Furthermore, people do often treat you with suspicion if you’re trying to enjoy some outdoor photography with a honking great big DSLR in your hand – of course many amateur photographers like the idea of this, it makes them feel good if the public thinks they are a professional photographer. But if you actually are a professional photographer you will very likely feel differently, you’ll simply want to blend in and you won’t want to draw attention to yourself.
- If you’re photographing weddings you might wish to be discreet.
- A small system is also helpful if you’re photographing shy or nervous subjects such as children or pets.
- And last but not least, very importantly, a tiny high performing system will vastly ease the very real stress and strain on your musculoskeletal system. I cannot stress how important this is, as somebody who suffers from occupational injuries and RSI, attributable to having to manage heavy cameras and lenses over a number of years. In fact my OMD system has enabled me to carry on as a photographer, when I might otherwise have been unable to.
The simple truth is that for the vast majority of non-professional (and many professional) photographers top-flight full frame equipment is overkill (at least a lot of the time), there is nothing about the camera or any other camera which will improve your photography skills – that is down to you and the time and discipline you’re prepared to invest in your learning curve. The fact that I have photographed over 95% of my output with the OMD since purchasing it a year ago is testament to its performance – my subjects are discerning and I will photograph everything from environmental portraiture, to boisterous families, to pets and wildlife. All in conditions and situations which will vary greatly. But if it makes you happier to have the latest pro equipment then you have every right to go down that route and nobody should criticise you for that – this is the great thing about the equipment choices we now have. Given that just a few short years ago professionals were successfully working with cameras of a type most new photographers today would consider beneath them, there is little to support any argument that today’s better compact systems are not abundantly suitable for the vast majority of professional applications – they are significantly and notably better than most of the cameras available to us two or 3 years ago and often exceed the capabilities of even today’s better APS-C DSLRs. This simple fact is so often overlooked because of the elephant in the room …..
“they will think less of me unless I have a huge gripped DSLR in my hands with a big beige lens”
The argument raises the matter self-confidence and insecurity – and perhaps even the real issue, which seems to be that of physical size. I think it’s true to say that some people men may feel more confident owning something big. Men are inherently possessive of their masculinity (an understandable part of the male psyche and I’m not knocking that) which is so often entrenched with the matter of size. I have even heard it said on forums that a mirrorless system is ‘for girls’ and is an inappropriate choice for the male professional. Some of the most renowned photographers routinely use, or otherwise rely on compact systems for their professional work. You just have to look at the output of well-known names such as Damien Lovegrove or Kevin Mullins who both use compact (Fuji) systems. Will Crockett is another famous photographer who has seen the benefit in downscaling, particularly with reference to the superb video capabilities of the Panasonic Micro 4/3 bodies. Continuing the subject of powerful men, Damian McGillicuddy is yet another world-renowned professional photographer who now shoots virtually exclusively with the OMD system. And there are many, many more.
Ultimately you should use whatever equipment suits you – if you prefer large full frame cameras then that will be the right kit for you. If you prefer the ease and portability of a miniaturised system that is also your right. But I’m heartily sick and tired of the people who lambast pro photographers for turning to compact systems – and the accusation that we are failing to give our customers value for money. This is an utterly baseless and misguided assertion and appears to be uniquely entrenched in the amateur mindset, and is very often the view of individuals who have never even used the system they are judging. If any of us were to ask our clients why we have become their photographer choice the matter of equipment would never feature in the list. Nor has anyone I have encountered ever questioned what I’m holding in my hands (other than to compliment me on my beautiful retro looking camera). There is another hidden benefit in using small systems – it will pretty much quash the viewpoint that it’s the big camera which creates professional photos – your subjects are likely to be all the more impressed by your abilities when you create beautiful work with cameras they might identify with themselves.
No doubt the Micro Four Thirds/CSC vs Full Frame argument will continue to labour onward, but without doubt the trend for many accomplished professionals to adopt small systems will also continue.
EDIT: There’s been some interesting reading for me over on a well-known photography forum, and I suspect some misunderstanding of the points I made here. So I’ve created an addendum to this article, with some additional clarification and example photographs. However I stress once again that what I say here on my Blog is in the context of my own work and my own style, and the requirements of the photographs I’m called upon to produce. If what you do is different, then you will have your own way of doing things. But the arguments do go on and on, and round and round, usually unnecessarily. The addendum can be seen HERE.
—
Original text by Lindsay Dobson at lindsaydobsonphotography.com.
Thanks Lindsay!
291 Responses
Original text by Lindsay Lohan at lindsaydobsonphotography.com.
LOL
lol
Lindsay’s 2 great articles can be read much easier and comfortably, with all the beautiful photos in her blog. Why post the long piece here in such a hard to read tiny font here?
http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/
http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/
Sometimes authors intentionally put an error like ‘Lindsay Lohan’ in to make sure you have read the text. Not noticed = not read.
I am not sure this is the case here. Could be freudian slip of the pen.
or a search engine ploy more likely =)
I prefer this article http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/eagle/VisionA.html
Shocled she had to defend herself from so many haters that she needed a seperate page for it!
An the strength of the comments against her are lame… mostly it sounds like:
I’ve used FF all my life, FF is pro, I’m not gonna change because tecnology is progressing – fingers in ears, nanananananananana….
So their retorts tend to be – girls system, get back to kitchen…
Never any comment with real point… just lots of bitterness that the investment that shouted they are pro has just been wasted… and they don’t want to hear its time that that system/ethos is outdated and soon to be redundent…
How many arguments were there that digital would never be as good as film?
How many arguments were there that optical VF would always be better?
Haw many arguments were there that CDAF would never be as fast as PDAF?
How many arguments ARE there that FF is better than m43?
Progress… Embrace it or become irrelevent!
I really like my M 4/3rds I have had 5 of them but the FF is so much sweeter, at f 1.4 or f 22.
Just is
That’s such a good point. Convincing. Thanks for keeping up the level of the discussion.
M43 is better at F4. It just is.
FF at F1.2 has very very thing DOF and it can look nice…
Photoshop used well can give you any DOF you require… so for the 30 photos you take in your life that requre tiny DOF you can photoshop them… for the ones that have too little DOF there is no way of changing that!
You can digitaly remove DOF but you can never increase DOF!
The new nikon df is a another competitor to MFT. Price is high but they will come out with another chearper model just like Fuji did.
Other than the fact that the Df and m43 cameras both use lenses to expose digital imaging sensors to light, they have little in common. People are about as likely to cross shop m43 and a Df as they are to cross shop a Leica M and a Panasonic GM1.
+100 (that could change though after the GM gets Leica branding and a 4x price-hike!)
unless of course Leica rebrands the GF1…. 😉
Thanks for reprinting this sensible, well-reasoned essay, as otherwise I would have missed it.
I wish more people would adopt the viewpoint she presents in her addendum: “…a competent confident photographer will not care what other people use nor will they care much about how other photographers do things. I cannot understand why a simple preference for something, or a different way of doing things should be so threatening or inflammatory.”
But it does beg the question, why write so much about something so meaningless ?
She’s probably tired of inane, amateurish comments saying that 135 format is the panacea for anything wrong with photography.
EVERY camera system is about tradeoffs. Including “full frame,”(which is actually a meaningless term), m43, medium format, etc. No camera system is perfect, and no format is right for every purpose.
For what it’s worth “full frame” is not equal to a 24x36mm sensor. That’s 35mm full frame. m43 cameras are “full frame” for their design and native lenses, as are 6×6 CM roll film cameras, 4×5 view cameras, and 110 format pocket instamatic cameras. 6×4.5, OTOH, is a crop format when used with 120 film and lenses capable of covering a full 6x6CM image. Just as APS-C is a crop format when used with lenses capable of covering a 24x36mm frame.
People need to spend a lot less time worrying about the size of their manhood, oops, I mean their sensor, and a lot more time taking pictures. The way a lot of full frame zealots act, you might think their love of a large sensor is compensating for lack of size elsewhere…..
“Full-frame” is not a meaningless term. You and I both know we’re talking about the image size of 35mm, the most popular film format during the transition to digital. Early digital SLRs had sensors that only took up part of the frame, hence the glorious return to full-frame. Sure, you can argue that “full frame” might refer to medium format or large format, but it doesn’t. And if you weren’t into photography prior to 2005, perhaps the term “film” doesn’t mean anything to you either.
Yes, FF means 35mm film sized sensor. And that’s as far as the meaningfulness goes. Or am I missing something? A deep and profound meaning? Return to FF? Should I be humble and get down on my knees? Come on, it means nothing in this digital age.
It sounds like it DOES mean a lot to some people, mostly some M43 shooters who seem to have some sort of size inferiority complex. I shoot both M43 and Nikon FX and I love both systems. Full-frame is a return to the format and DoF that I cut my teeth on; I love it. But I also enjoy my M43 rig. Both systems have their place and neither is necessarily “better” than the other.
+1 for that.
how often did you guys/gals meet someone or read a stupid post on the internet, where people REALLY think that this/that camera would give them better, better results? i, for one: quite often (even am inclined to think so myself on occasions…)
so, let him/her shoot with 35mm full frame or whatever, i don’t care.
for me, the issue with that too shallow DOF and the lenses seal the game: i would not (right now) consider 35mm full frame, because m43 gives me what i want 🙂 but hey, who knows, what i want/need in 5 years from now? and what you do?
buckle up, beautiful people, and don’t waste your time on stupid things like this – and like me right now!
That sounds fair enough.
And with meaningless, by the way, I mean that any size of sensor is possible. Just add a lens to cover it and you’re done. There is no need to match the equipment to any existing film size anymore. 24×35? No need, but OK. 25×34? Fine. 17×22? No problem. 11×17? Why? 33×47? So? 8×10? Whatever. Why not. Who cares. Come to think of it, though I now only use m43 for digital, I wouldn’t even be able to answer what is the size of the sensor.
🙂
just for my ego: 2x smaller than 35mm, thus around 17mm. divided with 4 and multiplied with 3, i get around 13. 17x13mm sounds quite right. if anything…
Using the term “full-frame” to mean 35mm sized sensor is nothing but sloppy language and lazy thinking. That is NOT what “full-frame” means. Period.
Yes, setting your e-m5 to 4:3 is an example of full-frame. Setting it to 3:2 is standard frame etc, etc.
Umm – It’s exactly what it means… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_frame
I am not sure you read that link. Maybe you should go back again… your answer is int he first sentence. Full Frame refers to the Use of the frame area available and not a specific frame size… Hence the use of the word Full.
35mm film is merely one option… there is nothing “fuller” about it except in the current and mistaken use.
It may not be meaningless but it is a misnomer. All digital formats shoot their full frame. A more appropriate term would be 35mm frame. It is, one, more accurate, and two, more descriptive and understandable.
full frame is standard naming for 36×24 mm image sensor size.
If someone likes to use 43 (17,3×13 mm) sensor it does
not affect to other standards.
Saying 35mm is as imprecise as Full Frame, as frames are 36mm x 24mm in film and close to that on digital sensors. It’s been a very long time since someone used 35mm motion picture film as for still cameras.
Not that long ago. I used an Olympus Pen FT for years, and it was “full-frame” at 18x24mm, same as 35mm motion picture format. Later on, I owned Olympus OM cameras which produced “full-frame” 24x36mm images.
Later still, I “graduated” to the E-1, which used a “full-frame” FourThirds sensor, of course, the same dimensions as mFT, 17.3x13mm, interestingly virtually the same size as “full-frame” 110 format, 17x13mm. By this point, you’d guess I was also the proud owner of the Pentax 110 which did an outstanding job shooting “full-frame” 110 negatives and transparencies (yes, even Kodachrome).
No wonder we all love our “full-frame” cameras! However, when speaking of 35mm formats, instead of the ambiguous “full-frame” nonsense, it makes real sense to refer to 18x24mm as “single-frame”, and 24x36mm as “double-frame”. That way it’s both technically accurate and far more clear what we’re talking about.
So try it out! Say “double-frame” 35mm format if that’s what you mean! It makes you sound smarter and confuses the trolls–what could be better?
In the days of plate glass photography the term half-plate and quarter plate were in use and even then full plate users looked down upon smaller format users.
Same thing today and by the same sort of people.
A very intelligently written piece. WOW!
I have quoted here and again Lindsay, showing how one can see through the pretentiousness of ‘big is beautiful’.
Another remark struck me. ‘Do you prefer the big eye of a pig, or the small eye of a falcon’?
People are crazy : in just 24 hours I have seen people bragging they were going to get a Sony FF, to going back to an Oly E-M1 by this evening. What happened, darlings?
I’ll do even worse: I’ll stick to my E-M5, and even lower to my E-PM1, knowing full well that even they are too much for my modest abilities.
Perhaps I should get a Holga kit with coloured filters and plastic lenses, to show how low one can get 🙂
Well, whats the fun of a holga when you can just preview the results.
I mean, trying to guess what a light-leaking camera with bad optics will make of a scene, and trying to exploit that, there is some level of challenge into that, and some level of skill in actually making it work.
Rather, I’d pick some simple all-manual, non-SLR film camera, preferably without a meter, and learn to do all the work by means of zone focus, guesstimated exposure and experience.
I should also add that fewer things annoy me more that the “lol” acronym. It screams, “I have nothing to add to this discussion other than my idotic giggle”. You lot should go apply at DigitalRev.
The movie “As Good as it Gets”
Jack Nicholson (playing a writer) is asked how he understands women so well by a gushing female fan of his work:
“I just think of a man and I take away accountability and reason”.
Food for thought, here.
Nothing really new. Bigger Sensor will always give better IQ (same generation) than a smaller sensor, especially when you can influence lighting.
BUT current IQ from mft is so overwhelming that I am not willing to carry or spend more for the little gain in IQ with ‘bigger’ equipment.
Isn’t the opposite? If have full control of the lighting, your light acquisition equipment make almost no difference. Larger sensors seem to make sense mostly in very marginal lighting conditions.
Fuck NO!
There’s the answer.
It’s called a trade-off. I love my M43 cameras and lenses, but they can’t compete against my Canon 6D/35mmf2IS lens… they just can’t. BUT, do I want to carry my 6D around my neck all day and get camera strap neck burn? No. So you sacrifice. I’ve done BTS shooting with both and even though the M43 shots look great, the 6D blows them away.
If Canon or Nikon were to make a mirrorless camera like sony nust did, M43 would be in trouble. Wbich is why I thinkPanasonic should make a FF camera.
That is simply not true. The only lenses m43 can’t compete with are not lenses that you’ll be mounting to your Canon. They are Cooke, Schneider, Zeiss, and other PL mount lenses designed for $250,000 cinema cameras. These lenses cost $20G’s, $90G’s, etc. Olympus’s high end lenses compete and can even outpace lenses by Canon and Nikon. I would put an Olympus 75mm up against any of my Nikon telephoto lenses any day.
Sorry but actually the Fuji lenses will be better than any MFT lenses. It is not my opinion you can check the mtf test results at your preferred web page. Regarding the article, usually bigger sensor is equal to a better dynamic range better iso perfomance better depth of field, thid is not my opinion this is a phisicall reality.
Yeah, he’s obviously bugging…
I think there’s a lot of self-delusion in this argument.
I’m willing to bet that 90% of these full-frame zealots, shown the same scene shot with a FF and an m43, cropped the same way, with equivalent DOF, couldn’t pick which was the FF shot much better than random chance at normal print or monitor sizes.
Whith the Sony A7 end the ff nex on the horizon the size of the ff camera’s vs crop
is getting equal. The only point are the lenses, there still bigger than crop lenses
(even they can be just as small like leica lenses)I’m not shure about the AF part, that maybe result in thicker lenses.
I cant give a verdict about whats better for tele use, crop or ff. but what i do know is that >400mm for full frame is a HELL of a heavy lens.
————-
There is no gain of(high) iso noise if U compare FF vs crop.
When U want the same frame and the same dof,U have to stop down the FF camera more to get the same DOF. And thus U loose light and have to compensate by using higher iso.If u can live with a smaller DOF then -yes- A ff sensor is better
————-
Its not just ff sensors vs crop sensors, its about the whole system.That includes the lens. If U want to get the most out of your sensor U have to have capable glass.Good FF glass is generally more expensive than crop. Getting sharp corners on a ff sensor is harder than on a m43 sensor. Its mostly the glass that limits quality , so if U are looking for the best quality id say get a ff camera and a Zeiss OTUS lens. For me a gx7 and a 25mm Panaleica is more then adequate. Its better for the budget too.
————–
Just a few comments to communicate my perspective:
– I am probably a good amateur
– I love my EM-5 cam, use it more often than my previous DSLR, make more photos and make good photos with it, and have it handy all the time
– Although it is true that FF results are better analyzed in labor condition ….
– I will never believe that you are able to see that in real life
– I think, you would be better working on your own skills instead of putting the camera at fault !!!!
Why should every company make a “Kleinbild” (ff) Kamera?
MFT is very cool for so many people, like me, and it gets better every year.
Three KB systems are nice for the profis and people who need “the longest”.
Some People buy just Porsche instead of Ferrari and Aston Martin, and they are happy.
Text too long, no time!
Attention span too short, no intelligence.
lol! 🙂
I find it typical that the effect of using shallow dof is again being described as something only used by inexperienced people and that it even on the bigger sensor formats is only used occassionaly. Imo the effect can only be over the top for closeups, as shallow dof can be obtained with any lens at very close distances. In order to get a pleasant transition from sharp to blur for full body shots, it is very usefull to shoot wideopen. The shallow depth wont be that obvious as in close shots but its present more subtle. Unless you shoot environmental portraits where the ammbiance is part of the suject too.
true. i saw half-body portraits, shot with a leica M 35mm full frame and 50mm. the images were just – they were just awesome. and i thought: what a gem.
but then again, these were photos, made by a pro photographer who could have done considerably well with a APS-C or m43 too…
but just for the sake of argument: 50mm f/1.2 from 8ft away: gorgeous…
@Ulli: With all due respect, you might want to take a look at your new profile picture.
At first glance, your right ear lucks like something between Mr Spock and Master Yoda.
Best regards
Ulli, you’re reading into this what you want read. I don’t see the claim that only amateurs care about shallow DOF. What I read is that pros care about more than Shallow DOF, and recognize that it’s not always the right approach.
Which is unarguably true. Only FF zealots act like shallow DOF is the be-all and end-all of photography.
@Zeal, i reread again, ofcourse its possible i misread because of being drunk at that time or other reasons. But it really is there, I guess you reread it again 🙂 And to the previous comment, whats wrong with my ear?? lol
Due to big DOF your ear seems like welded to a part of wood on the background wall!
Still hope to get a em1 next year, just to have less to Carry as my e3 without loosing too much 43lens control.
NON Sense article coming from a frustrated guy …. Using only FF at F5.6 he says… LOL that says everything.
Go on 500px, go on Popular shot and be amazed by all of them. Remove landscapes and so on, what is the aperture of the best pics ? ……. Where are the OMD and M43 in the best pic ???
Try yourself ! put “canon 5D mark III” in the search bar and first pictures are the best ones. Compare with “olympus” and so on… You will laugh.
Actually a Sony A7R compared to OMD is : sharper / better DOF / less noise / Overall better look.
We have compared millions of time small vs big sensor, the fact is that all the best world images are taken with big sensors, and when you watch landscapes with EM-5 it looks really awfull (again, see 500px). And don’t tell me it is because more People use 5D mark III… There are millions of olympus pics on the website.
Finally, saying that having a small camera doesn’t change anything for a pro and his clients is totally wrong. All my friends in photography got troubles with clients for shooting with Fuji X-PRO1 for exemple, because of this.
So stop this fucking bulshit please. Thanks.
The first fact is that the best pictures in the world are the best because of content.
The second fact is that lindsay has the pictures to demonstrate her point and shows them, you don’t.
Ah yes, theres more wrong with your post.
“her”, not “him”. And you actually haven’t got any friends, have you ?
Text to long and just another attempt to compare M43 with FF. Its just dumb to compare. M43 not so good pictures but small (exept EM1). FF good pictures and not so small (accept A7 and future Fuji etc). FF is now getting to a good size and weight for normal people. Its just stupid to pick M43 over APSC or FF.
@Viezevure
What a hilarious comment:
> Text to long …
OK, but some of us are able to read longer text.
>… and just another attempt to compare M43 with FF. Its just dumb to compare.
Hardly anyone in this forum seem to be more eager to compare M43 with FF than you. And now you find it dumb… I certainly agree.
>… M43 not so good pictures but small (exept EM1). FF good pictures and not so small (accept A7 and future Fuji etc). FF is now getting to a good size and weight for normal people. Its just stupid to pick M43 over APSC or FF.
It is quite impressive to find comparison dumb, and then continue with comparison in the very next sentence. I’m sure you don’t find yourself dumb, and few people can have such a small span of memory that they forget what they are writing from one short sentence to the next. The obviously question is: what do you really mean?
Whatever the internal difference is, Nikon is worried about the E-M1. Talking to working professionals, Nikon must be concerned that people will buy the E-M1 as their second camera. Have a look at the new D1 just announced. It looks boxy, like a large E-M5. But unlike the Olympus flagship, they have elected for not just black, but silver and black! mind you to buy a flagship Nikon you could for the same price buy 20 E-M1.
Let’s hope, design is going the way of cars, all looking the same
NIKON “Afraid” of the E-M1???
Pfftt!!! -HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Where do y’all come up with this stuff? Trust me, Nikon isn’t even worried about Olympus at all! I’m sure the J series sold much better than the Pen series. In fact, I’m sure most camera companies look at the E-M1 as a joke!
A camera that supports lenses less than 1% of shooters even own!
Yeah, they’re shaking in their boots…
On Flickr upload stats Nikon J versus Olympus PEN, The PEN walks all over the J and V series combined…
I think you will find they will be concerned. Nikon camera sales are down about 30%. 78% of Nikon sales rely on camera sales. Nikon have almost gone under before because of their high reliance on camera sales. They cannot afford for any camera model to flop. Olympus don’t rely on camera sales. It is their medical side that gets in the sales. Nikon do not have that luxury. Of all the brands that could go under it is Nikon even though they are number 2 at the moment. Canon are much more stable as again they don’t rely so much on camera sales. Nikon cannot afford for cameras like the E-M1 to keep chipping away at their sales.
I can think of two professionals that may only get one two Nikons instead of two this year, the second could be the E-M1. Would they be upset at losing two, maybe not, but multiply that, then they need to be worried. Why else does it look like a E-M5
Lovely article. Thank you for convincing me to buy an A7.
What a moron. Feel free to waste your money on a clickety-clack, sewing machine-like, no IBIS, copycat OM-D look-alike excuse for a camera. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be shooting with a state-of-the-art picture taking machine – the OM-D E-M1.
If anyone is wasting money, its a E-M1 buyer. You can get aFull Frame camera for around the price of one, or a Fuji Xseries, a Panasonic or a Sony.
In all honesty, this could be one of Olympus’ s last cameras.
They have been in the red for the last 4 years, the Pen series isn’t selling, they got a bailout from Sony and they have to pay a huge EU fine.
I could see them getting rid of their camera division altogether, to save the Medical division. Sony just might get that for a steal of a price.
Ha! Have you seen Sony stock lately…it’s tanking BIG TIME. Perhaps it is Sony that is producing it’s last camera and not Olympus.
Yes, IBIS is very useful for beginners.
You didn’t read the article.
+1. Pana GM1 style cameras are good options when you need pocketable camera. But tiny sensor in big body.. whats the point?
Well, I have both a Canon 5D Mk3 and an OM-D – I love them both! The 5D certainly is better for landscape; the tonal range is fantastic but the OM-D is the one I have with me all the time. I reckon one main difference is the kind of lenses you use; to my mind to get the most out of the OM-D you need prime lenses. With my 5D I usually have a zoom attached…
Funny thing is, even though the OM-D is much smaller the silent mode on the 5D makes shooting at weddings etc less obtrusive.
That’s not true:
– The OM-D (E-M5) works very well indeed with zoom lenses.
– The E-M5 is NOT a loud shutter and can be confidently used at weddings or elsewhere when a quieter shutter is needed.
Why do people do this?
YES its true! He just said it is.
Its his opinion and you have no ability or even right to question if its true or not. you can only state YOUR opinion and then shut up.
As I have written somewhere else, THe problem of (m)43 is the sensor size.
I do not want a completely incompatible size like “Full Frame”, but it should be at least between APS and 4/3″ for a professional variant of m43.
The APS-C sensor is much closer in size to the M43 sensor than it is to the FF sensor.
You want a new sensor size between M43 and APS-C?
I don’t understand this argument.
again why I dont see this article at sonyalpharumors ?…m43 users know why they choose it …so lets educate also the others 🙂
Yet another attempt to rationalize their preferences. I prefer M43 because the alternative is so terrible!
Smart photog don’t agonize over the choice of gear. Experienced photog know what kind of photography they do. What is the best gear to do the job?
Thom Hogan uses DSLR for sports and birding. Likes the EM5 (or any MILC) for casual work. Must use FF for low light work, e.g. shooting BIF at dawn.
What many novices don’t consider is the future. Which brand allows me to expand my repertoire in the future?
I started with Nikon APS-C. Moved on to FF. Then, added Nikon One for portability and reach (14mp at 2.7x). This extended system allows me to share lens (and batteries/flash).
So, what is in your future?
“Smart photog don’t agonize over the choice of gear. Experienced photog know what kind of photography they do. What is the best gear to do the job?”
Indeed, through they might want to explain to interested people why they make the choices they do.
More interesting is how your behavior here can quite be described (as shows again from this post) as obsessing over people not using the same kind of gear as you do, what does that make you?
I’m keeping an eye on the M43 propaganda machine. I tell the truth.
Personally, I don’t care what you use. It’s not my problem. I merely share my experience.
Anyway, I don’t go around abusing people with the “s” word. Have you looked in the mirror?
“I merely share my experience.”
Not exactly, you are telling everyone how wrong they are for not using the same things you do, in other words, you are obsessing not just over your own choices of gear but those of other people. Are you afraid that someone thinking differently would invalidate your choices?
What a silly accusation!
I have just said that Thom uses a M5. I have no problem with that. Did I not say,
“Experienced photog know what kind of photography they do. What is the best gear to do the job?”
It’s not about what gear I use. It’s about what gear is best for the job you do.
Suggest you take a break and clear your head.
Read back your own ‘work’ and see how you are overly busy with what equipment others use, and how you have to accuse anyone who has a different view from yours. Yes that also applies to your initial post here, especially so actually. Unlike you Lindsay makes a number of arguments with actual pictures to make the point, but all you can do is comment negatively and doubting motivation.
Also your idiocy about 4/3 propaganda machine just makes clear you are not here for actually discussing things, but for ‘political’ reasons.
Go do as you say and stop obsessing about what others use, learn from it where its useful for you andvbeyond that go get a life.
Pot calling the kettle
Unlike you, I’m not going around on forums for equipment I don’t use just to tell people how wrong they are.
Ah So!
Now we have the truth. You’ve got an extreme reaction to criticism.
Get a life. No camera or brand is perfect. Live with it.
There is a difference between criticism and going around dismissing whatever you don’t use. Your response to Lindsays article is all telling in that, as you don’t respond on the arguments but try to disqualify it by making assumptions about the motivations of the author.
Im also so tired of people like you that obsess over your choise and try to convince that everybody ells made a bad decision because you are insecure about your own purchase.
This type of forum behavior used to mostly lurc around the pc vs mac and later on smartphone forums. But now I see its spreading everywhere to forums for almost all topics and it sadens med that its now in camera forums,
I love discussing with people that have different gear than me and sharing experiences but its not duable any more.
The last ten years on forums have stopped me from asking how what happended could happen in Berlin some 60 years ago. Its totaly clear to me now. Humans arent able to form groups and then coexist with other groups. Most people simply do not have that ability in their brain. And that starts wars.
But prior to the Sony A7/R there were no small compact mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. Now there is. And I am seriously considering a full frame mirrorless camera. Exciting times. In the end though I may just go ahead and get a 5D Mark III.
One thing pushing me towards a FF CSC (I have a 5D but I’d like a FF CSC) is that MFT and Fuji at least have moved away from having a base iSO of 100 which means that even with a shutter speed of 1/8000 (and a base ISO of 200) I need to be constantly fitting and removing ND’s when shooting in good light and I find that a right royal PITA that detracts from the portability advantages of the smaller systems as fitting AND removing ND’s is a two handed operation.
Yes, some CSC have an extended ISO of 100 or 125 or so but it’s a hobbled setting with a price.
If there was a MFT CSC with a good base ISO of 100 (and 50 would be nice too) and a shutter speed of 1/8000 I’d probably have a rethink but at the moment Oly and Panasonic seem to believe that wide aperture lenses are for low light use only and my wish to shoot at wide apertures in good light (without ND’s) is unreasonable.
In a few years there will be no mechanical shutter needed and we get insane shutter speads. Look at GM1 with 1/16k!
A7/A7r is the same size as the EM-1 so why not go Full Frame?
It’s like keeping a set of standard wrenches and a set of metric wrenches.
We must buy A7 just because the body is small? it will be hard for Sony to make small lens which can match very well with the A7/A7r. did you notice FF exist since longtime, and lens never has their size reduced.
Yeah, like Olympus isnt making large lenses… they want to go big with a small sensor, while Panasonic makes the GM1… Panasonic “Gets” what M43 should be, while Olympus wants to turn back the clock and revisit Four Thirds again. They want to make the same mistake TWICE!
Ya, thats why Olympus also has an e-pm2 and lumix a gh3.
Use your head for a change. The A7 is simply a OM-D look-alike, has a LOUD clickety-clack sewing machine noise shutter (ridiculous), has no IBIS (and also no state-of-the-art 5-axis IBIS), has LESS features than the E-M1, costs more, and has VERY expensive lenses.
But, by all means, go right ahead and get one.
Maby he is using his head?
Maby he doesnt care if the A7 looks like the EM-1, maby he thinks the E-M1 looks good?
Maby he likes a loud camera and think the E-M1 is to quiet?
Maby He uses a tripod always, every single time?
Maby he thinks the E-M1 has to many features?
Maby he plan to use adapted Nikon glass?
Maby he is rich?
Maby he knows all that because he read some reviews, talked to a sales man but still thougt it was a sweet camera and wants to buy it?
Hes obviosly here at this site, so we know he already new alot about cameras. Because lets face it, no “ordenary” consumer would ever read a blogg like this. Evereyone here knows all the short comings and strengths of all this cameras but we still will not buy the same one. BECAUSE WE ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
Cameras are the same size, but the lenses will not be…………a full frame 24-80 2.8 will be huge.
Got my E-M1 today, luckily the A7 preorder is delayed until next year so I will have enough time playing with E-M1 before having a second system.
I think at this point mFT system equals or better FF system when you consider things like price, compactness, and weight. FF allows one to reach beyond certain performance boundaries, the performance envelope of the system, if you willing to invest in good glass or already own glass, but at the expense of well… expense. Good glass, especially FF, can be big and heavy, though, depending on the design.
Your going to see people shooting cheap glass, or have a limited selection of lenses with the A7/A7R. Your going to hear whining about how expensive a lens is or how big and heavy it is. There are those calling for a Sony version of the “ridiculously” priced Zeiss glass. These are the people that should have reconsidered the fact that they weren’t committed to spending $$$ on a great system and the ones that Sony marketing successfully convinced needed to buy FF in order to be happy.
I’m finding the conversation a bit unreal. The sensor is four times bigger, the body witihin the same ballpark re size and price as the top end m43, and there a lot of legacy MF lenses that work really well on the system. That’s going to have a huge impact.
At the top end of the m43 range, five axis IBIS and native AF lenses are our only saving grace. But Sony bought into Olympus partly for that very reason. So to thrive in that part of the market in the next five years, m43 needs to lift its game. Big time.
The small m43 still stands alone, but it’s only a matter of time before the like of a RX100 catch us there.
Put it this way. In five years, I can see a smart phone cover what the Nikon 1 does now; an RX100 covering the EM5, and the A7 covering everything else you need (unless you’re an astronomer).
Can m43 tell a similar story?
Still investing in good m43 glass, but can’t help but wonder if our future is the same as 4/3rds: an adaptor on the end of my lenses.
What difference does it make if a future RX100 matches m43?
You’ll then be able to have a compact camera to carry around as well as an ILC.
And if m43 is good enough now it will certainly be better in five years.
Just how much quality do you need ?
This is like the Hi Fi world where eventually, for 99% of people, a budget Hi Fi system became good enough and it was just a few obsessives chasing ever better sound quality and claiming improvements which were mainly in their mind.
And given equal technology m43 will always have better quality than the 1″ sensor in the same way that FF will always be better then m43.
Whether you will be able to tell the difference in a few years is debateable though
The fact is that in 5 years things are likely to be different for everyone. The only sure thing is that some people will still waiting for their “dream camera” and won’t ever buy anything new.
This means that some of them are already satisfied with their gear, while others are simply full time complainers.
Absolutely. For example, my dream is a 28mm equivalent T/S lens for m43. Until that arrives, I’ve decided not to take any more photos, ever, but instead dedicate my life to forum trolling.
An excellent and worthy choice!
I’ve said it a million times. The people who think they “need” all this extra shallow DOF or DR or resolution, probably really don’t. I would argue that MAYBE 5% of all photographers actually NEED it, and I’m being generous. ALL of these cameras are very capapble of capturing amazing images.
If you ask me, focus speed/accuracy and exposure are WAY more important than any of these trivial things that are constantly “improved.” There was definitely a time where m43 lagged. I was an early adoptor and I WAS frustrated. However, since the E-M5, E-P5, E-M1, GF3 and GX7 it has all changed.
I don’t know any real world situation where someone looks at a well composed, artistically interesting photo and thinks, “Jeez, the dynamic range could be a little better”, or “when I do a 100% crop it gets a little noisy”, etc etc.
The people who are doing all this complaining are not photographers, they are tech geeks.
There was a perfect analogy to this that Scott Bourne used. He was driving a Porsche, and someone asked him, “how fast does it go?” He said, “it depends on who’s driving.”
None of these cameras are any good unless the right person is behind them.
+1
This deserves an Amen.
Agree completely
+2
+3. I’m a tech geek myself and i salivate at the best gear, but a few good photos are worth far more than any camera. I can’t mention how many times I’ve looked at some JPEGs I took in Australia, not the best, but pretty good, that I will look back at in 10, 20, 30 years from now and enjoy. The little Olympus I used would have been long forgotten.
Agreed. I have one photo in particular that I love. The irony is, I had a Canon 20D with an L lens with me at the time. However, I happened to grab a little 4MP point and shoot, because the dSLR was in the back of the car, and the P&S was within reach. To this day, people compliment me on that photo more than any other, and I have it blown up to 16 x 20!! That was nearly 10 years ago. I think that every single person would agree any of the cameras today are way “better” than any camera made then, yet that photo from a “lowly” 4MP p&s gets the most comments. THAT is what matters….
+1000 I love the good photos…. some of them 45 years ago… others in 4mp. 12 mp. 16 mp. for me the small format (always with me) is a joy…. of course if i need a big poster or a pro studio etc etc i will no use my 4mp……
That is what kept me on micro four thirds. I bought an EPM1 to see what it’s like, and after nearly 2 years upgraded to an EPL5. I loved the small size and relative affordability (therefore less impact to the wallet if something should happen). I actually bring it out MORE than the point and shoot because it had the size but much better IQ.
you must have much free time to write so much…. biz going slow?
Yeah, business must be slow for her. Other photographers have no time to do anything but take picture. No time for anything. You probably had to eat lunch at the same time you were photographing red herrings today.
If you take the time to click (I know, you’re really busy because your biz is just so fast) you’ll see that she appears to be doing quite well. Also, since this is a re-post you’re not talking directly to the author.
I stopped reading at: “the only real world situation the social photographer is likely to encounter where they are forced to photograph in lowlight would probably be a winter wedding, or dark church”
I guess I’m a “social” photographer. I constantly photograph in low-light conditions: bars, outdoors at or after sundown, in my own house. In fact, nearly everyplace I use a camera is low-light, since I’m rarely outside taking pictures during broad daylight.
So yeah, low noise at high ISO is a big deal to me. Sorry I don’t shoot the way the author thinks I should.
Why not read it all and educate yourself. People who “stop reading at….” are usually the ones who would get the most out of something. Or is “stop reading at…” a euphemism for not wanting to hear a message. If you had read all and the link. You may have not needed to comment.
Should have kept reading. You know what they say about assumptions….
I don’t get the LOW LIGHT MYTH. Hold a piece of paper under your bulb. Now tear the paper in halves and see if any of them receives less light. You guessed it – the intensity of light stays the same, just like F/2.0 lens produces the same intensity of light on M43 / full frame sensor surface. In terms of pixel area and pixel density, both sensors are the same. It’s just that full frame sensor has more pixels so if you don’t crop and use the whole resolution, noise is confined to higher frequencies which are less disturbing. But crop sensor is just that – a crop. It’s the same crop as crop in Photoshop.
More resolution or less noise are mostly equivalent, so having more or larger pixels to cover the same scene gives a larger format a low-light advantage, that is, as long as you don’t care about the same DOF. As soon as you do, you throw away any advantages a larger format would give and just pay the price in increased size.
You are right about making a crop, but even with the highest resolution ‘full frame’ cameras we can currently buy, we ‘only’ get 36mp. To make a m4/3 sized crop from a full frame image while ending up at the same approx 16mp pixel count as current m4/3 cameras, you’d need a 64mp full frame sensor. In other words, typical current full frame sensor has both more and larger pixels.
Obviously, when you’d have a 64mp full frame sensor, and you crop it to m4/3 size (and given the same technology) you end up with the same thing, but you aren’t taking advantage of the larger sensor anymore, so while technically correct, its not a good comparison.
I’m just pointing out that there’s no any inherent advantage of full frame sensors resulting from laws of physics. If individual pixels are roughly the same area (which is the case), the advantage of full frame is only in resolution that can be used to “average out” the noise if you downsample. But 100% zoom to pixel level would show roughly the same amount of noise on both cropped and full frame sensors. You could crop full frame sensor photo to APS-C size or you could just frame your photo on APS-C camera, it would be the same.
Well, its a matter of what you call ‘approximately the same size’. A current 36mp ‘full frame’ sensor has pixels almost twice the size of a 16mp m4/3 camera. The previous generation often only had 12 or 16mp, resulting in much larger pixels.
Also, I think its totally fair to downscale that 36mp image to 16mp to make it more comparable.
Its still trading resolution for lower noise of course, but when considering a complete photograph, the simple advantage is having 4x the overall area available, regardless of if you use that for more or for better pixels, 4x the area at the same brightness means 4x the amount of photons to work with, and that is an inherent advantage, but one that you’ll undo as soon as you consider DOF, because you’ll no longer end up with the same brightness.
Indeed, it occured to me that full frame pixels are in fact larger. We always trade noise for resolution and with larger sensor we can afford bigger pixels without giving up too much resolution. Hmmm… but if we speak in terms of DOF equivalence, given the same shutter speed, full frame requires smaller aperture and higher ISO so the advantage is sort-of negated and we are back to “just” resolution I think.
Indeed, once you factor in dof (and want it to be the same) you just end up with essentially the same thing.
These equivalences can get messy, especially if we take into account also lenses and their properties (retrofocus, telecentricity etc.) I can imagine situations where smaller sensors or smaller flange distances allow for more effective lens designs but obviously there are also situations where the opposite is true. I’m not an expert in this area though. It could well be that the “ultimate detail” is achieved as a sweet spot between particular lens design and sensor resolution. And this might differ from case to case. I wish I had the time and resources to really test everything. But I’d be missing a lot of photographic opportunities 🙂 Btw, photography forums remind me in some ways audiophile forums – these people believe they can hear something that’s not possible to hear and they like the “sound” (distortion) of something which should be sonically transparent.
As soon as you move from reproduction to ‘pleasing experience’, transparancy goes out of the window, as it becomes a matter of taste and no longer of accuracy.
Pixel area and pixel density are irrelevant. Photon count *is* important. And large sensor area is just a means of collecting more photons from image scene.
If you place M43 F2.0 lens in front of either M43 or full frame sensor it will produce an image circle with the same intensity of light which means the same number of photons per given time interval. It just won’t cover the whole full frame sensor area. You could take a crop within that image circle and that would be M43 photo. That’s it. So, if the underlying sensor technology is comparably efficient, full frame has only more resolution to play with – which is a good thing but it won’t magically increase light flow.
Since I need a second m43 body for my work, I’m going to buy Em1 (already reserved at the store, I’ll pick it up in 2 days)
I will probably buy a Sony a7 just for fun.
A couple of weeks ago I shot a fashion event at evening/night in Venice, my double depth of field helped me a lot, and was an annoying “trouble” to my friend, using a DS2.
So: it’s photography, get what suits best your needs and enjoy. And don’t tell me what I have to do. 😉
Those who say it can’t be done shouldn’t get in the way of those who are doing it.
Does every MFT camera come with a chip for the should or do you need to buy it separately like the lens hoods?
LOL 🙂
No, it came free in a nice velvet bag with 43 bodies & lenses, but for m43 you have to pay extra. Well worth it though!
I am not going to read such a long article, especially because I will own and love both.
Dude, you have some serious G.A.S.
Hi. I’m a working fashion/commercial photographer who shoots primarily with micro 4/3 (GH3 – fotosiamo.com) and occassionally, medium format (Phase One, Hasselblad).
I am also a writer for SLRLounge.com and last week I was able to go to Nashville for Sony’s Media Week to use the a7 and a7R quite extensively. I’m also currently testing and reviewing the E-M1.
So in a nutshell, I have used both system. For me, there’s no doubt that I will be moving up to the Sony a7R for my kind of work and even for travelling and street photography.
Compared to the GH3 and even the E-M1, the a7R just have a much sharper image and better color gradation/look to it. I’m only able to work with jpegs since Adobe & Capture One have not updated their RAW converters, but the potential IQ is just going to get better than what I’ve already been looking it.
In terms of low light, it’s NOT only for wedding shooters. I took the a7R to a dimly lit Ben Folds concert and out at night in Nashville. You can see how well it performs in my article: http://www.slrlounge.com/night-sony-a7r-low-light-performance
Are there drawbacks to the a7R? Yes! For one, the GH3 and the E-M1 have better ergonomics in both the body and grip. Both can change AF points just by using the directional pads whereas the a7R has to be activated via a Fn button.
No IS, 36MP sensor, and a large mechanical shutter mean that you have to be more mindful of camera shake compared to the GH3 and especially compared to the E-M1.
Focusing is also more a challenge in manual and focus peaking because of shallower depth of field. The AF also doesn’t always quite hit the eyes as often as the GH3/E-M1. This can be partly be due to me just getting to know the a7R, though.
The LA-EA4 alpha to E-mount adapter (with pellicle mirror) had misfocusing problems since my copy was a pre-production model. You can see that in my other a7/a7R article on SLRLounge: http://www.slrlounge.com/tennessee-new-sony-a7-a7r-image-samples
Focusing is relatively quick EXCEPT in low light. It does hunt too much even with the native lenses.
Finally the battery is small and the grip is not as ergonomic and well thought out as the GH3 and E-M1 grip.
But that being said, I love the IQ of the a7R, even in jpegs. The viewfinder is marvelous and is on par with the E-M1. No smearing like you’d get w/ the GH3.
Both the Zeiss prime lenses (35mm f/2.8 and 55mm f/1.8) are really no bigger than Fuji X lenses and I can live with that. The 35mm in particular is practically mu4/3 size.
And no, I don’t usually shoot super shallow DOF, so that’s not the reason for me to get this camera
As I said earlier, I use mu4/3 and medium format for my work, as well as for personal. The Sony a7R is the best balance between the mu4/3 and medium format look.
Hope that helps! Thank you for 2 1/2 years of great mu4/3 experience (Olympus E-PL1, E-Pl2, GH2, and GH3 user here)
do you will leave m43?
Well for me tonality, gradation, sharpness, and dynamic range are the most important factors for my images, especially since I tend to shoot with strobes with grids. I love medium format, but I also love the portability of the mu4/3 cameras.
I feel that the Sony a7R can give me the best of both worlds, especially in regards to resolution for hair and fabric pieces. Once I started shooting MF, I kinda got spoiled with the amount of resolution and utter sharpness available.
I may still keep the mu4/3 lens and go to a smaller body, but that’s also up in the air.
Seriously, after one week with the a7R, I really don’t see myself sticking with mu4/3. For me, it’s enough of a jump in quality
Thank you for this candid report. I have very similar sentiments about this topic and it’s good to see that I am not the only one. Cheers!
you made great pics: what do you want more?…
While the Sony A7’s are a remarkable achievement, they do show the issues you get with compacting the larger sensor into a smaller package. The shallow shutter-to-lens distance becomes a problem with lens compatibility and focus. The shutter mech is no longer buried in the body and so shutter actuation noise becomes a factor. A smaller camera body has less space for heat, battery storage is limited; good luck cramming an IBIS system into the already packed space. All this effort to use a larger sensor, when the logical approach is simply to improve the smaller one that fits the system … Almost all technology as it improves miniaturizes in the process. Sensors are bound to follow the same path.
Eine kleinbild systemkamera? Was ist? Himmel!
But seriously the writing is worth reading, the psychological anti-macho part – I am still laughing.
She does make however a structural argument. Most of the time when in FF 35 you MUST stop down to 5.6 to get any useful DOF, therefore negating the advantage you have. I know when having 35mm film it was indeed the case.
With m4/3 and 4/3 before you shoot full open, with no consequences.
What is not discussed is limits to growth. How far in Mpx can m4/3 still go? Or is it hitting against a wall? Would you accept staying stuck at 16 forever, if this was indeed the case?
I don’t mind, but for a MFR this means no more room for innovation, or little. I remember that there was such a moment in the 1970s before AF was introduced as a difference. Everybody was stuck at 400 – 800 ASA.
Nobody really complained It was simply a given.
There is so much self training to have in order to improve picture taking, that sometimes it’s better to forget about the equipment, and care about the Art.
So possibly it’s what Lindsay is saying about portrait. m4/3 is more than enough.
Full Frame VS Micro Four Thirds
is like
Mozart VS Salieri
… and Salieri lived so much longer…
To me as an amateur relatively new to photography micro 4/3 is and for the forseeable future, remains the best choice for me. My desires, when choosing a camera system were good image quality, portability and coveniance. Micro 4/3 offers me good zoom lens options that are compact enough for me to carry around all day, as well as a good selection of primes when i want to exercise my creative juices.
Im guessing that this was always the target market for 4/3 and no matter how great or small ff mirorless gets, its lenses will always be too big for my needs…
I wouldn’t trade my D800 for Micro 4/3. In fact, I am planning a trade up. Here’s why.
I have heard this argument from several photographers about how 6MP is more than enough for giant prints, then how 12 MP is more than enough for giant prints and so on. Guess what, you could make giant prints from 35mm film too. But when you compare those giant prints with those made from 645 film, they always lose out in terms of fine detail. Say nothing of 6×6, 6×7, 4×5 and 8×10.
I get it. “Good enough” works for a lot of photographers and a lot of clients. If that’s what’s floating your boat, that’s absolutely fine. But for me, someone who does fine art and editorial, getting the best possible quality out of my files is absolutely vital. I wouldn’t even DREAM of shooting a downsized RAW format (s-RAW isn’t RAW btw, it’s a lossily compressed TIFF in a “RAW” wrapper). I have worked with files from a Nikon V1 to a GH2 to APS-C DSLRs to a D800 all the way up to 80 MP medium format digital and trust me when I say this, M4/3 doesn’t cut it. Not in fine detail.
The other reason I prefer a full frame kit is skin tonality. As someone doing portraiture, skintones is THE most important thing for me. We all hear people blabbing about how beautiful the “Olympus” skintones are and all that, but in reality, the subtle gradations where mids turn to highlights are a LOT more graceful in a full frame file. Again, if M4/3 files are “Good enough” for you, that’s fine. It isn’t, for me.
Lastly, we come to the topic of tele photos. Yes, you may have to stop down a full frame lens while you can shoot wide open on your M4/3. The problem is, M4/3 teles only offer equivalent field of view, they don’t offer equivalent perspective compression. A 200mm lens does a much more beautiful compression of the foreground than a 100mm, so even if your Panasonic 35-100 lens can give the same FoV as a heavier 70-200 for full frames, it isn’t quite the same thing.
I can quite see why when doing fine arts, you may prefer a much larger format.
One issue with what you are saying, perspective compression is a function of distance, not of focal length.
What is a function of focal length, and especially visible in out of focus foreground rendering is how DOF is distributed, but this is an effect only visible at very short focal lengths (compare the distribution of a 24mm to a 50mm when focused at the same distance and set to the same absolute aperture, and you’ll notice the 24mm having less foreground but more background in focus). Its pretty much invisible above around 50mm.
I wouldn’t trade my D800 for Micro 4/3. In fact, I am planning a trade up. Here’s why.
I have heard this argument from several photographers about how 6MP is more than enough for giant prints, then how 12 MP is more than enough for giant prints and so on. Guess what, you could make giant prints from 35mm film too. But when you compare those giant prints with those made from 645 film, they always lose out in terms of fine detail. Say nothing of 6×6, 6×7, 4×5 and 8×10.
I get it. “Good enough” works for a lot of photographers and a lot of clients. If that’s what’s floating your boat, that’s absolutely fine. But for me, someone who does fine art and editorial, getting the best possible quality out of my files is absolutely vital. I wouldn’t even DREAM of shooting a downsized RAW format (s-RAW isn’t RAW btw, it’s a lossily compressed TIFF in a “RAW” wrapper). I have worked with files from a Nikon V1 to a GH2 to APS-C DSLRs to a D800 all the way up to 80 MP medium format digital and trust me when I say this, M4/3 doesn’t cut it. Not in fine detail.
The other reason I prefer a full frame kit is skin tonality. As someone doing portraiture, skintones is THE most important thing for me. We all hear people blabbing about how beautiful the “Olympus” skintones are and all that, but in reality, the subtle gradations where mids turn to highlights are a LOT more graceful in a full frame file. Again, if M4/3 files are “Good enough” for you, that’s fine. It isn’t, for me.
Lastly, we come to the topic of tele photos. Yes, you may have to stop down a full frame lens while you can shoot wide open on your M4/3. The problem is, M4/3 teles only offer equivalent field of view, they don’t offer equivalent perspective compression. A 200mm lens does a much more beautiful compression of the foreground than a 100mm, so even if your Panasonic 35-100 lens can give the same FoV as a heavier 70-200 for full frames, it isn’t quite the same thing.
My bad, posted the old comment as a reply by mistake.
What I mean is, at the same distance from the subject, a 200mm lens on FF compresses the BG more beautifully than a 100mm on M4/3 with roughly the same FoV (I actually prefer the 4:3 aspect ration to 3:2, but that’s another story).
This is why I love medium format. With an 80mm lens, you get beautiful short-tele compression, but with the same F0V as a normal lens on FF.
I appreciate what you’re saying but the point of the article is that “Virtually every hobbyist or unskilled amateur I encounter is utterly convinced that they must always have the shallowest depth of field possible, or else they cannot possibly enjoy their photography.” is more to the point.
EVERYONE raves about DOF, and it’s frustrating as hell. Sure, in some cases the IQ won’t cut it. But in a lot more cases, it’s not the IQ people are worried about (another point of the article).
When good is good enough.
Fair point, but those hobbyists are also ranting and raving about the f/0.95 primes that are released for M4/3 by various manufacturers and use that as a bragging right against FF. Shallow DoF enthusiasts don’t only exist in FF-land.
Personally, I like my f/1.8 primes because they are incredibly sharp, light and give me a bright image in the viewfinder. Can’t remember the last time I shot them at anything wider than f/4.
Then again, I am a strobe based shooter, so I don’t represent the majority. 🙂
I again see what you’re saying (and I’ve never boasted the f0.95 lenses. I’ve used the 25mm f0.95 and had to stop it down to f2.8 most the time. It also is has quite low contrast. Anyway…) but I think it’s more a defence.
So often people will turn their nose up at 4/3 because of it’s sensor size. And you know what else? It’s never been a problem until Micro was put in front of it, which merely means “Mirrorless”. Exactly the same size as 4/3 yet the internet now is full on experts! 😛
Anyway, we both agree that each format has it’s place and advantages/disadvantages.
Absolutely! All formats have their place and aren’t direct replacements for each other. Cheers! 🙂
How is that? 200mm on full frame translates to the same field of view as 100mm on M43. Which means I can see the same solid angle, the same pizza slice of the world which is then projected onto my image plane. Perspective compression and field of view is the same thing.
I am sorry, but you are horribly mistaken. FoV and perspective compression is not the same thing. Perspective compression is the optical property whereby foreground and background appear closer to each other.
Ever seen those pictures of a giant moon behind skyscrapers? These are shot with very long lenses (500mm+). The focal length makes it appear as if the moon is closer to the buildings than it actually is, hence its increased size. I can get the same F0V with say, a 300mm lens on my Nikon V1, but the moon won’t be as big because the perspective compression isn’t as strong with a 300mm lens.
You are simply incorrect. Distance to subject is the ONLY thing that determines perspective distortion/compression. Focal length or equivalent focal length have nothing to do with it.
I shoot with FF, APSC and M43rds, and there is absolutely no difference in perspective in any way shape or form.
If what you were saying was correct, all those tiny sensors in cell phones and lenses that start at 5 or 6mm would give you the perspective of an ultrawide lens. Hmmm, but that isn’t the case at all is it? I wonder why that is….
I would suggest actually trying to shoot with both formats before you make any more foolish claims.
I wouldn’t waste my time on someone who doesn’t understand the basic concepts of physics.
Do take a look at my portfolio to understand that I know what side of the camera to look into.
Good day.
So on top of being wrong, and a fool, you’re also arrogant. Awesome.
Again, try actually using the camera systems you claim to be an expert with next time. Because its blatantly obvious that you’re simply regurgitating something you’ve heard elsewhere and have not verified with your own eyes.
If you’re too lazy or proud to actually test the principal yourself, give this a read instead: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=672913
Given the same distance to subject sensor size is completely irrelevant to perspective. With an equivalent focal length lens you will end up with the exact same framing, and perspective, though the DOF will vary for the same physical aperture. You can’t grasp this basic concept but think its wise to lecture others oh physics? Get over yourself.
I should know that internet trolls will resort to personal attacks 5 minutes into the conversation.
Listen, I will explain this in very simple terms so that even those with double digit IQ scores like yourself will get this.
You have a model who is 5meters away from you.
Your background (Let’s say a picket fence) is 500m behind her.
You’re using an M4/3 camera with a 100mm lens
You’re using an FF camera with a 200mm lens
The aperture isn’t relevant as we are not looking at DoF here.
If you shoot an image with each of the cameras under the above conditions while not moving your vantage point, you will see that:
Ignoring aspect ratio differences, you will have more or less the same field of view for both images.
The picket fence would appear much closer to the model in the FF shot.
Any leading lines you have in the composition would appear much less converging in the FF shot.
This has been my point right from the start. If you can’t understand this simple concept, please do us a favor and go away. I don’t have time for name calling.
Sorry but that is still wrong.
Someone already posted a good link showing why, suffice to say that your observation is only correct when disregarding distance and actually field of view.
What you observe only happens if you use a 100 and a 200mm lens to test this on the same format, and with the same framing of the subject (note, same framing is NOT the same as same FOV). If you try that you’ll indeed see what you describe, the background looks closer to the subject with the 200mm lens. BUT to get the same framing, your distance to the subject must be different.
This is something that really confuses some people, and there are many myths about it, but math and physics simply say that what you suggest is incorrect, and a careful test in properly controlled conditions will show the same thing.
To be very exact, perspective compression of the background is a function of the difference between camera – subject distance and subject background distance.
Sorry, that link is useless. It compares two lenses on the SAME sensor.
I am talking about two different sized sensors with lenses of differing focal lengths providing field of view equivalency.
I can’t explain this any clearer than this. I do my recce shots with a Nikon V1 @30mm. That’s equivalent to 81mm FoV on FF. My Actual 85mm shots on the D800 at those locations show much more perspective compression. This is experience int he field, not some silly indoor tests or numbers on a chart.
It’s cool if you can’t fathom or accept this. If you’d rather live on “Online reality”, that’s fine by me. I know what tools I want to use for my real world shoots and the reasons for choosing them. Cheers.
Yet again you show your ignorance, which appears to be willful at this point. Any personal attacks you receive are well deserved for your own condescending and ignorant posts.
What is the difference between taking a photo with a 100mm lens, and another with a 50mm lens, on the same sensor, at the same distance to subject, and then cropping the 50mm to match the 100mm? Please, Mr. Physics man, enlighten us.
I’ll save you the trouble. There is no difference. This is equivalent to what happens when using a smaller sensor.
Perspective is based solely on distance to subject, this is true for cell phones, compact point and shoot, m43, aps-c, FF and even medium and large format as well as the human eye. If this was not true, it would be impossible to take a photo with compressed perspective on a point and shoot camera, and likewise impossible to take a photo with exaggerated perspective on a medium format or larger camera. This is again, quite obviously not the case.
A camera lens can not bend the laws of physics, which is what would be required for perspective to vary for any reason other than distance to subject.
Its not a matter of me not accepting your experience, its a matter of it being technically absolutely wrong and contradicting the laws of physics.
It also is a common misconception.
Here is a nice article with pictures, and some drawings that demonstrate why this is exclusively a result of distance.
http://www.scottbideauphotography.com/myths-about-lens-compression/
without going into the technical side of this, I also think Sandeep is right about the compression effect being stronger with the longer FL; while using a 100mm gives the same fov on m43 as when using a 200mm on 24×36 format, the compression of perspective is more obvious on the 200mm.
According to sandeep that would mean that with the same FOV but different sensor size/focal length, on FF things two steps away seem smaller or further / things 200 steps away seem bigger or closer. So a 100mm on FF would show more compression than a 50mm on m43. One thing can not be true: same FOV means whatever object is at the same distance from both cameras, will seem to be the same size and will take up just as much space in both pictures. So where would that compression come from? Because things will appear to have the same size at equal FOV, no matter how far or how close. How could they not? Isn’t that a bit what FOV is about?
Not sure if this is really important when you’re taking pictures or buying a camera, but it may be fun if you enjoy optical physics puzzles.
Nope, while what you’re saying may *seem* to make sense it has no foundation in reality.
Typically, when you use a longer focal length, you move the camera further backwards to get the same framing. This is where the misconception that focal length controls perspective comes from. When we keep the distance to subject constant, changes of focal length or sensors size make no difference to perspective.
Here are some real world examples, un-cropped images complete with full EXIF information:
#1: Sony A900 with 50mm lens
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/499159/a90050mm.jpg
#2: Olympus EM5 with 25mm lens (50mm equiv FL), taken at the same distance to subject as #1.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/499159/em525mm.jpg
Now, lets move a bit further back
#3: Sony A900 with 200mm lens
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/499159/a900200mm.jpg
#4: Olmypus EM5 with 100mm (200mm equiv FL) lens, taken at the same distance to subject as #3.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/499159/em5100mm.jpg
Here, we can clearly see that perspective is based solely on distance to subject. The 200mm (and 200mm equivilent in the case of EM5) shots moved further back shows more perspective compression than the 50mm shots (sorry, I didn’t match the 50mm and 200mm shots up for framing, but its not really relevant), but the sensor size and focal length have no effect. As long as you have the same distance to subject, and equivalent focal length lens, you will get the same framing AND perspective (minor differences in alignment and aspect ratio aside).
@Bro, thx for the effort making the samples. Imo the perspective compression effects is hard to see in your test setup because of the background being too near to the object. Ideal scenario would be a backsetting which is FAR away from the object/subject. To give an extreme setup, lets imagine a 300 mm supertele full body shot of a model, like seen alot of times in the old fashion catalogues. If I would use the same position with a m43 plus lets say the ZD 150 f/2.0, I am pretty sure the extreme magnification of the background vs the model looks quite less spectacular on the 150 mm.
@Ulli: You think in the setting you just described it will look completely different? The compression will suddenly kick in? It’s not magic. These examples are totally adequate!
Feel free to make further tests if you’ve got the time.
In the linked article (@potn) longer distances are compared and the result is the same (FL has nothing to do with perspective).
okay all info on the net about this phenomenon clearly states that the effect is not cause by the used FL. This all confuses me as i judge the strenght of the effect by the choice of lens used, and ignoring the other parameters. Still i find it hard believe that i can get the same effect with a 150mm on mft compared with a 300mm on 24×36 like this one by my FB friend Widjita:
http://www.cuded.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/freedom_by_widjita_raya_mulyadi600_409.jpg
@Ulli: you really will get the same compression from the same distance with any equal FOV sensor lens combination. You are not talking about the bokeh here, are you..? Because no matter what aperture is used, a longer focal length will give more compression.
Among many websites that just talk bullshit, I found these two correct explanations:
http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/how-i-took/129206-perspective-compression.html
http://www.scottbideauphotography.com/myths-about-lens-compression/
@BDV..thanks for that link, and indeed i was not thinking about the DOF….hmmm, again another case which shows i really need to be more active with photography, especially into this specific topic style.
Glad to see someone had already corrected you.
Sad to see you couldn’t listen.
Willfully ignorant….
And now I know you have no idea what you’re talking about. Wow. You think you can take a shot from the same vantage point with 2 different lenses, have the exact same crops and one will have a different background than the other? I mean, there could be difference in background blur but not anything else. It doesn’t physically make sense… You should probably think these things through again before you repeat them…
Why, oh why, do so many choose ignorance?
First hit in Google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
Exactly. Just because I “zoom in” in particular direction it doesn’t mean the background suddenly changes. I’ve just made my field of view narrower. If I use a crop sensor with shorter focal length that gives me the same equivalent narrow field of view, the amount of zoom will be the same. I can frame the photo exactly the same way.
I need a pancake pocketable lens. I can’t afford 20mm f1.7 right now, but 14mm f2.5 fits my budget (15mm f8 is not good enought). Suppose i’ll shoot f2.8 or slower. Can I crop 14mm pics and get the same picture than 20mm?
Yes.
Yes but you’ll be giving up resolution. That’s what longer lens essentially does – zooms the world so that the camera sensor is your crop. Obviously in both cases your camera must be orientated the same.
Some people do fine art, some travel a lot. Some people would trade a bit of image quality for increased portability and “stealthiness”. Some would never do that because their output medium is not web but large prints. And that’s totally fine. My guess is though that fine art and large prints are not mainstream use cases and I can’t blame anyone who chooses non-mainstream tools for that.
Agreed. Another important reason why pros use FF (And medium format) is because of the extensive support the companies provide. You could dunk your camera in mud and still show up for a shoot two days after with a loaner camera while yours goes in for servicing. This is where Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji etc. have a lot to catch up to.
That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with format.
Its also a pretty incomplete ‘picture’.
For the price of a 6D or D600 or A7r one can buy 2 E-M5s for example. First you can dunk those cameras in mud and then simply rinse them off and use them, but whats more, your camera can break in the middle of a photoshoot and you’ll have a spare ready. Unless you have some service dude from your brand of choice following you around with a spare all the time, relying on a service plan for that means end of photoshoot.
But but I can bring 2 full frame cameras!
Indeed you can, but for the same money weight and size you could bring 4 E-M5s. Ok, reduce that to 3 since 4 seems overkill, and spend some more on lenses…
Sorry, there are some really good arguments for using full frame or larger formats for fine-art, especially related to resolution, but neither your perspective compression or service plan arguments are among them, rather, those are myths that just keep being echoed both by people who don’t know better and by people with an agenda. Neither holds up to scrutiny, and one would require different laws of physics.
Sorry to put it like this but please educate yourself a bit better about the physics involved and use some more critical thought before accepting group think.
You lose all of your credibility when you claim there is a problem rendering skin tones with micro four thirds. Makes me question everything else you say.
That’s ok, I can’t think of a scenario where I would need your approval to continue shooting. 🙂
Jared has a point – if bit depth (and consequently number of shades renderable) is the same on the two systems then the only difference in tone rendering is the number of pixels the change in tone is spread across. Downsample the MF pics to the same megapixels as the m43 camera and the rendering will be identical.
This article would’ve been better if it wasn’t completely one-sided.
What – you mean by giving her opinion?
Perhaps she should have given someone else’s opinion instead, preferably one you agree with so you wouldn’t leave such an asinine comment.
I found it quite a balanced commentary explaining both sides
Agree, It seems like he is trying to justify his choice to himself as much as a defence of the system. I found it painful to read as much because his efforts imply my system choice requires such a defence.
Her images are quite lovely. I wonder how they stack up against the photos taken by all those here so eager to make fun of her?
BINGO. Good images are their own argument.
Indeed and that’s the point. Admin time and again has given proof that Pros use m4/3 to good purpose. OC they are good photographers. We had proof for Fashion, and with Lindsay, for Portrait.
Should they be bad in order to prove the point of those who ambition FF35, because they believe it will solve all their problems, and make them great photographers?
The sorry point in case is that there is a growing number of Neanderthals believing that the machine can replace the human operator.
They don’t realise that FF35 is going to deepen their problems by the lack of DOF, main one. But also slow AF, slow fps, and especially problems at the edges with wides.
What to say? They are Neanderthals after all, they believe in the machine, they are marketing zombies, the kind Sony (or Nikon) needs to bring their bread home.
I find it amazing that at the very moment stark amateurs pretentiously warn they are going to jump ship to FF35, there is a growing number of real Pros, who say they are doing the opposite.
Who to believe?
Do they even know that Pros use speedlights, and that the couldn’t care less about their f/0.95 measturbations? Speedlights are a great format equalizer BTW.
Myopic views like this (On either side of the fence) is the reason why we can’t have civil debates on the internet.
Amazingly, I agree. Neanderthals are the market target for so many expensive products.
Well, I can’t speak for everyone who posted here, but I for one was offering a counter point based on my shooting style. She’s a wedding photographer who deals with a lot of images per shoot. It might work for her style of “Pro-shooting”, but that’s not a universal story (And neither is mine).
As for images, http://www.sandeepmurali.com . Your move.
+100
I’m just gobsmacked by large sensor trolls. They don’t even realize how embarrassing and transparent their size obsession is.
Poor marketing fodder polluting the premises…
These are (mostly) fun debates. To me, the most important consideration is not whether or not M43 low light/high ISO performance or depth of field control is “as good” as larger sensors, but rather, is it more than good enough for the applications I am shooting?
As for the Sony A7 and A7r, they look like very interesting cameras, and certainly advance things for everyone by forcing Canon and Nikon to keep innovating. We all benefit from competition, no matter what brand we use. As for the Sonys “killing” M43, I’d have to disagree (at least for now). Sure, the bodies are similar in size. But Sony FF doesn’t yet have the range of native lenses that are available for M43, and it will be a while (if ever) that they catch up. None of that matters if they have the lens that you like, even if that means one or two lenses. The most important advancement that I see in the A7 and A7r is not the sensor size but the UI and controls. As an ex-NEX7 owner who sold the system because I just could not bond with the UI, menus and controls (but loved the image quality and feature set), I’m happy to see the company moving toward things like standard hot shoe mount, simple, sensible UI, and lots of direct access buttons and dials.
This is a great time to be a photographer!
The idiots and trolls are back. The Admin really needs to get these comment threads under control. This site is a joke right now.
Sony call kill M43 easily if they allow anyone to make any lenses for E-mount,
(today’s Sigma is restricted in what they can make) and implement support (in person of 3rd parties) for m43 lenses (who would then buy m43 bodies if FF body can work with m43 lenses).
BTW now when Sony owns part of Olympus they wouldn’t wish death of m43 anyway
The images of EM-1 and A7R are inappropriate for this article, because they haven’t hit the market yet.
Lindsay Dobson’s blog is eloquently written and reasoned.Her photography is superb.Her blog is worth following.
+100
m43 is the successor to Daewoo.
I do use high ISOs routinely for sports shots (where I need long focal lengths to let me shoot from legal and safe positions, and high shutter speeds to freeze action), and for late-night jam session shots, and for wildlife shots. M43 isn’t yet adequate for my needs here (I shoot a D700, which is remarkably close to as good as it gets, and was almost affordable a long time ago).
And for the sports shots, I need much better AF (continuous, tracking) than any M43 camera provides so far (the OM-D M-5 isn’t even close, and the reviews don’t say the M-1 is much better).
For flash setups, M43 is great, and the extra DOF is useful most of the time (I mostly find myself wanting MORE DOF than the equipment wants to provide not less). Ditto for macro photography. If I shot landscapes seriously I’d want something with a lot more pixels, like a D800, but that’s just play for me so I do it with whatever gear I chose for other reasons.
Another interesting take is Kirk Tuck’s:
http://www.diyphotography.net/graying-traditional-photography-and-why-everything-getting-re-invented-form-we-dont-understand
“For a while my markets drove me back into full frame cameras. But those markets have changed so much that it no longer seems to matter. Now I’m just looking for cameras that are fun and easy to embrace. They all take good enough images now. Ultimate quality is now taking a back seat to intimacy and immediacy. A big camera is no longer a prerequisite for a place at the table.”
I took the road of the ‘G6 and a bunch of cheap lenses’ because i can carry a versatile body and enough light lenses to face most situation without hurting my back.
People tend to concentrate too much on bodies including their sensors and not enough on the lenses to match them . It’s the combo that mathers and it mathers now.
Sony A7 will only be judge correctly both in compactness and performance when enough native lenses will be available.
article reminds me http://www.flickr.com/photos/youdidntdidyou/6966688107/
Ask a woman does size matter, and the answer she gives you, applies to cameras size as well.
dont expect to roll up to a Pro Gig with a small mini camera, and expect not to be frowned upon.
had it happen to me to many times.
you may know all about camera technology, but best believe your clients, wont.
Image is Everything.
luckily the EM-1 just passes the Pro image bill by a margin. (with the vertical grip attached to ad).
I like Lindsay’s work. However there is a thread which runs through her writing which is ‘I am a professional not an amateur and here is what professionals do’
I am not a pro not even a good amateur but there is absolutely no doubt that I can see the difference in rendering of images from my FF and m43 cameras.
Maybe the willingness of customers to accept such differences reflects also their increasing willingness to accept the work of ‘amateurs’- there are many lines blurring.
It is largely a free world and people can buy and use what they want. There is no moral imperative associated with a camera choice so there isn’t much point in debating it.
This article is usesless to me, because I am not a social or wedding photographer (good beware) – I give a fuck about what other people think. All I care about is value for money. When I spend over 1.500 EUR for a camera body, I want the best iq possible. FF is better in low light? Yes and the smaller noise pattern has it´s benefits in good light too – or havn´t you seen noisy skies at iso 200 with mft? My e-Pl1 is not much worse than the EM-1 at base iso and even with detail reproductio, I even like the color rendering of the e-pl1 much better – what the hell.
So, here I am again – ordering a Sony and hoping that the price tag is justified. If not? Well, we got great return policies where I live…
So the best value for money would be to still use the E-PL1 🙂
That´s true and I find that frustrating because christmas is coming and I WANT something new to play with. I just want a new camera but I want to see progression for my money, is that too much to ask for? It´s stupid and childish, I know…
I just found some arguments to justify a new camera for myself 🙂
I want to print bigger – I want finer grain at all iso levels – I want more flexible raw files, especially in regard to dr – I want autofocus to be a little faster (not sports fast, but still a little faster) – a better lcd and maybe an evf (don´t use that often) – a great prime at 35mm (50mm are a little too long for a walk around lens for my taste) – that´s it for the moment – and the perception that the money spending is justified.
Charles, try an RX1 😉
It bugs me that the RX1 is a closed system – I don´t need many lenses but in the long run I want wo be able to add some lenses (wide angle and moderate tele). The RX1 maybe great for walk around, but that´s it and just for that, it´s too expensive. With the A7 / A7r I have much more options – I could add a manual wide angle prime (with adapter) and I guess that Sony will release a 85mm lens sooner or later – and I would be done. An open system adds much value in my book.
Yep… having two large sensor “point and shoots” with two good primes can be actually cheaper and more portable than a single interchangeable lens camera system. But I too wonder if I’d like to buy a new camera everytime, if that’s really a sweet spot in terms of flexibility.
Well, I am going to admit that I have wasted money (alot) with the m43 system. Twice! Once around the GH2 and then again around the EM-5. I tried m43 along with a FF system (5d mk2 & 3), on it’s own (no Canon gear) and then along with a Nikon d800. Loads of mistakes – I have to say that the internet forums and this site didn’t help nor does articles like this!
m43 isn’t that good! Sorry. It’s ok but overpriced. You can say what you want but I have tried several times in the end I had a lovely camera (em-5) and some great lenses but it’s just not as good as a larger sensor. Pictures just look better and cost less.
I am sure you will ignore this if you want to, I did but my larger sensor pictures just look better (its the DR that does it?). I am a pro photographer but thats not the point – the photos of my clients and my dog look better with a larger sensor and more glass. The camera doesn’t though!
My main gripe with m43 is the price vs picture quality… So I guess m43 isnt for me as I want absolute picture quality (within reason)?
I think if you go IQ/price a NEX5 wins. But the controls…
Overwhelming amount of words with underwhelming logic!
I think, today very few will deny the high end m43 cameras and lenses are very competent and are able to produce image quality meeting most needs. Nobody ever denied they are smaller and lighter.
I used m43 for about three years, then fond myself longing for a bigger camera. Better to hold and operate, no fiddly controls. Accurate AF and not least better dynamic range. In came the Nikon D800…..
Since then m43 has improved a lot, dynamic range is much better both Pana and Oly have cameras big enough, like EM5 and GH3.
I will give you a concrete example of FF vs m43: At my recent exhibition a visitor wanted one of my picture upsized to 1.6 x 2.3 meter. Very flattered of course I said I will check the file. This was a Pana G3 shot. After interpolation to requested fil size (1.3GB) the result looked so so. I made a similar upsize of a D800 file: Looked great. With my background from graphic design and subsequently very critical eye, I had to say: Sorry can´t deliver that picture in the size you want. I could have made it anyway and the customer may have accepted the result. I have my professional pride.
I guess very few of you will be in a similar situation, nor have the critical eye I have.
So what is the best, small or large sensor? Both!
I own D800 and (currently)a Fuji X. Use them a lot and sometimes need to go light and be stealthy. Often it feels great to pack the D800 with tripod and go out for some SLOW photography.
So you happened to have exactly the same motive taken with your G3 and with your D800? And in both cases you used top quality lenses? That is impressive foresight! But why didn’t you make a large print of the picture taken with your D800?
Ah… you *didn’t* compare photos of the same motive/taken under the same conditions? You just compared one picture taken with the D800 with an arbitrary other picture taken with your G3? Doesn’t seem very scientific, with or without your critical eye.
BLI: I feel sorry for you. Did you read what I wrote at all? Did you understand anything of it?
No need to sound so condescending. It makes you look like a douche.
1) m43 is near APS IQ, threre is no big difference.
2) FF has better IQ then m43 (and APS), significantly.
3) m43 has to be smaller and lighter then FF, therefore when Sony produce small FF mirrorless body, m43 should produce smaller bodies and much smaller lenses then FF.
Oly should change direction to smaller size – EM-1 and 12-40 are too big in comparison with Sony FF. Hump for EVF is not necessary, even if EVF is so good as in EM-1. Planned 40-150/2.8 will be too big.
Panasonic is doing better job – 12-35 is smaller then 12-40 and all f/2.8 zooms, and has good IQ. GX7 has no hump for EVF and in-build flash is acceptable body size. GM1 is smaller then Sony RX100. There are some pancake primes with good IQ (14/2.5, 20/1.7) and pancake zeooms (12-32 rules). Planned 35-100 will be very small, and existing 35-100/2.8 is aceptable small.
4) m43 should implement something like Alien Skin Software plugin into firmware to get thin DOF from firmware (new art filters?)
5) Oly 9-18/4-5.6 is small and good. Planned mirror lens 250/5 should be small. It is good direction.
6) There is necessary body with all – EVF, flash, wifi, sensor stabilization, whells and buttons, but smaller then GX7, without retro style (Sony NEX-6 is good example).
7) EM-1, GH3, G6 – are too big…
What is the problem with big, high IQ lenses, if there are also smaller ones with compromises available?
That is one of the big advantages in MFT. Choice!
some good inputs for m43, especialli the size.
I’m sure Olympus will hire you for a consultant. The GM1 is smaller than the RX100. Are you talking about the RX100 with lens, and the GM1 without lens?
I suppose that is why cameras like the e-pm2, gm1 etc exist…
As for lenses, are we talking about Sony? Where are those small lenses? (and how about the images they produce?)
Or more to the point, why are you failing to notice you get quite a bit of choice, where the biggest m4/3 body is about the size of the smallest ‘ff’ camera, while the smallest m4/3 camera is much smaller?Hmm
I stopped reading at “social [which I guess means event photographers?] don’t have to worry about low-light performance.” Pfft.
Yup I thought that. Of all people, social (casual) photographers need low light capability more – shooting in house, buildings, pubs etc.
I just got back from another shoot with my PEN E-P5. It blows my mind how well this camera works. It is blazing fast in low light. The focus is always dead on. The 25/1.4 is one fantastic lens: everything looks gorgeous.
I cannot get this performance from my D7000 nor from my 6D.
The PEN (and I’m sure the OMD and GX7 as well) are cameras that get out of your way: unobtrusive and blazing fast.
Regarding the MFT vs. FF debate: why not just own both? With pro-class MFT bodies costing around $1K and the Sony A7 around $1.5K, why settle? I’m planning to sell all my Nikon gear and remain with a super-conventient MFT setup complemented with an A7 to play with extreme IQ and DOF. Sounds like fun, no?
To claim there is no difference is pretty moronic. Simple physics + the way all cameras work will mean that a larger sensor is always going to be technically better (DOF & Noise control).
M43 has certainly closed the gap between apsc and m43, but to say some of the things she has, is pretty silly.
However, I would say that we all have different needs, and see different things. Lindsey posts her stuff quite frequently on various forums, and her style does tend to be very punchy, saturated colours and very sharp(end). So m43, and specifically the Olympus Em5 suit her quite well as these are signatures of m43. So truth be told, she probably wouldn’t benefit as much from FF as a shooter who likes a softer, more neutral look with finer, but more subtle details.
From my perspective though, now that FF is the same size body as m43, I can’t see m43 being around too long – or forced into ‘handbag cameras’. The main draw for m43 is size, and that is starting to not be such a benefit with ff and APSC getting smaller (fuji x – gx7 and em1 and sony ff). Olympus are to blame for this as they seem intent on making their cameras bigger each time. Silly.
Technically better is a useless metric, practically better is what matters. A client doesn’t care about technology but about the result.
I stopped reading at f1.2 having a razor-thin DoF, as it’s a fan-girl comment. I often find f1.2 has too much DoF for what I want. For example in the darker Winter months I can leave the GH3 at home and take my Canon FF with the 85/1.2 out, as it never gets too dull for that. However I’ve had a number of cases where even at f1.2 the DoF is just too much. Examples:
A flotilla on the River Thames for an event. The centre of the River is around 140m from the paths beside it in Central London. At f1.2 and focused at 140m the DoF will extend from 80m to 550m, so you’re stuck with all the clutter on the far bank in focus.
At a much closer distance I tried to isolate Marble Arch, but if you get the whole Arch in the shot you won’t get a blurry background at f1.2, just clutter – well, unless something went wrong and everything’s blurry 😉
You can get very thin DoF if you want to, at very short range, but it’s a creative option not a requirement. You also get all the DoF options of m43, as diffraction destroys sharpness at about the same DoF on FF and m43, i.e. at f8 on m43 the diffraction effects and DoF are basically equivalent to f16 on FF, as is the amount of light captured.
Don’t get me wrong, I love my GH3, well except for the video where I am still having Moire issues despite shooting pretty flat (I’m working on that though), but smaller and lighter are the m43 USPs. It’s better than FF mostly in that you’re more likely to have the lens you need with you (in the cases where a lens is available, there are still some huge holes in the range for fast, good+long and T/S lenses). For example my 35-100 is 360g and is a fixture in my m43 bag, my 70-200 f2.8 is 1490g and doesn’t feature in my carry around FF bag.
Also, I’m happy with 36x24mm being FF as for several recent decades 35mm SLRs were the go-to serious cameras for 99% of prosumers and a sizable chunk of pros. Other formats came and went (or stayed in the case of APS and MF) but everyone I know saw 35mm film as the main choice in a serious camera. MF usage has always been tiny, although my Father did have a MF TLR as well as a couple of SLRs, and film smaller than 35mm was always very limiting. Also to compare lenses usefully you need to pick a comparison point and for the previous reasons 35mm is the sensible choice. Quite why people need to argue about it does defeat me. Still if anyone wants to buy a camera with a 6-30mm lens I have a spare… it’s an unusual focal length, but I can provide the sensor diagonal if it helps…
One last thing, on the Canon forum I inhabit m43 is only ever mentioned if I suggest it as an option for someone looking for a small/light option. No one has ever slagged it off. We don’t even slag Nikon off, they make some nice cameras. Quite why m43 forums (well, the dpr one anyway, here too) have multiple anti-FF posts per week depresses me. Also they then complain if someone points out one of their arguments has the wrong end of something… I wish people would be happy with their gear, see it has plusses/minuses and go take photographs, rather than seeing it as something to depend to the death and everyone must understand their choice is the one true answer and anyone not seeing that must be burnt at the stake…
Anyway, I have a bunch more anti-Moire hunting to do (50 test clips so far, all worse than my RX100 for Moire and Stabilisation and only a bit better for Sharpness)… ho hum…
Maybe you should have read the entire thing instead? At least you’d have understood that the comment is quite true within the scope of her work… It doesn’t apply to all cases, but calling it a fan-girl comment just shows you aren’t even trying to understand what you are responding to.
Too bad as the remainder of your post is interesting enough and would be a very useful contribution if you’d get rid of the aggressive approach.
Sorry for the double reply, but your statement about 35mm is plain wrong. Until fairly recently, 35mm was only taken seriously in the ‘pro’ world for sports and news. Everything else was pramarily done with ‘large format’ and some medium format. 35mm has until fairly recently been regarded an ‘amateur’ format, and for example publications like National Geographic didn’t accept 35mm for anything beyond small images, centerfold from 35mm? Until aboit a decade ago that was not going to happen.
There is an important lesson in that, 2 actually:
– formats have been getting smaller ever since the early days of photography, and there is no magic format at which this will stop
– ‘pro’ photographers tend to use larger systems then technically needed, and claim such format will for some magical reason be and remain THE standard, no matter how often history has proven this to be utter nonsense.
I wasn’t going for aggressive, but it’s hard to see how people will vocalise what you write. Plus it was like the fourth “razor thin DoF” comment I’d seen in the last week and it was getting silly. Oh, 🙂
As to 35mm being the commonest serious format from the 1970s to the start of the digital age I stand by that, but note I talk about prosumers as well as pros. MF has always been a tiny market in comparison. Pre-digital pretty much everyone I know who was serious about photography had a 35mm SLR. Some had MF but they usually had more 35mm SLRs than MF cameras anyway. The University photography club had about 100% of members with 35mm SLRs. Plus 35mm was one format, MF is a bunch (I have 6×6 slides for example, seem pretty MF to me detail-wise, but what about 120, 220, 2-1/4,” 645, 6×7 and 6×9).
“Pre-digital pretty much everyone I know who was serious about photography had a 35mm SLR. Some had MF but they usually had more 35mm SLRs than MF cameras anyway.”
It very much depends on what time-frame you actually look at and whom you ask. I started with photography in the early 1970s, and at that moment, ‘pro’ meant larger then 35mm in the eyes of any pro you’d ask. Yes, serious amateurs, prosumers and sports photographers would use 35mm, but it was called an amateur format, ‘kleinbilt’ and so on. No serious nature magazine was accepting 35mm negatives as source for their prints, and using 35mm for ‘fine arts’ other then by amateurs was totally unheard of.
Skip 15 years, and things had changed quite a bit in practice, as 35mm had become commonplace for many ‘pro’ uses, yet the perception of it being an amateur format persisted, and it was most certainly described as such by many pros still. Skip another 10 years and we are in the late 90s, and that perception still lingered, through by then most had to grudgingly admit that it was a damn serious ‘amateur format’.
Of course news and sports photographers had been ignoring that for decades by that time, as 35mm was a much more practical solution for them.
And note that this is about ‘pro’ photographers, people who had photography as their main source of income. The ‘prosumer’ and ‘serious amateur’ was a different market, especially at that time, and in that market 35mm had been the most used option for decades already.
But really, go find yourself photography magazines from the 1970s and 1980s and look what they describe as the tools of choice for professional photographers.
“The University photography club had about 100% of members with 35mm SLRs. Plus 35mm was one format,”
And those would typically qualify as ‘serious amateur’ and not as professional as it wasn’t their main source of income, and that they’d use the most serious ‘amateur format’ should be no surprise.
“MF is a bunch (I have 6×6 slides for example, seem pretty MF to me detail-wise, but what about 120, 220, 2-1/4,” 645, 6×7 and 6×9).”
120 and 220 are film formats, actually the same format but with different backing. How wide you make the picture on a roll of 120 film doesn’t matter to the format, just like you have 135 format (35mm) panorama cameras, and at the time, had ‘half frame’ 135 format cameras (very popular among photo journalists as you got 72 pictures from a ’36 exposure’ roll of 35mm film), and over time different aspect ratios have existed on 35mm. Such different frame sizes on 35mm have never been very popular in the USA, but have been in very wide use outside the USA, especially in Russia en much of Asia.
There have been various ‘large formats’, and most people who go used (or still use) those extensively find the entire ‘crop factor’ and ‘equivalent aperture’ arguing quite hilarious, as to them this whole ‘issue’ is as old as photography itself, has never been an issue for the last 1 1/2 centuries, and shouldn’t be an issue now either if it weren’t for number masturbators on internet forums.
But anyway, if you look at the typical photography club from the 1970s and 1980s, yeah, 35mm SLR ruled. But go look at people who made their money from photography, and especially ask them what they thought to be suitable for ‘pro’ use, and you’d get a different answer.
And that situation is not unlike what we see now. The perception is that the largest format in somewhat common use (35mm format nowadays) is THE pro format, regardless of what people really use, and regardless of what would really be needed to do the job.
History repeats itself.
Future m43:
– small body like GM1
– body with all features (EVF, flash, ect.) little smaller then current GX7
– grip option for all bodies
– more pancakes primes (10mm, 17mm) and small lenses (like 45/1.8) with good (or superb) IQ
– more small zooms like 12-32 and planned 35-100, or patented 250/5
– size 75/1.8 and 12-35/2.8 is the biggest available (maximum filter size 58mm)
– cooperation with such features like Google Glass (instead of EVF)
– modern ergonomic design (beside retro)
– good cooperation with smartphones, wifi, maybe smartphones inside (connection with internet)
There is no chance to compete with Sony FF with such big cameras as EM-1 or GH3. M43 have to be real pocketable.
No thank you. A tiny body can’t be that tiny if you put a (useable) flash, EVF, hotshoe.
Grip option for every body available: costly development in my opinion, those of Em5 and Em1 are already expensive.
Size of lenses: maybe you are happy with average output glass, but not me: I prefer quality, as 75mm, even put in longer focal lenghts (150mm).
Google glass: people wearing them look stupid as those who walk around wearing a bluetooth earplug for their phone..
No, they should NOT all be pocketable!
The E-M1 is a pro camera that should be comfortable to hold and use and not everybody has the hands of a small girl. I like my camera to have a certain size or its a no-go for professional work.
The size advantage in m43 is for me not the body (although there are very small ones) but the lenses. I am sick and tired of lugging huge heavy lenses around with me and thats where m43 shines: small and light lenses with great IQ!
The E-M1 is fine. It should not be smaller because it is just right and if its too big for you then its JUST NOT FOR YOU. Not every cam is for everybody, so just go and buy a gx7 or gm1.
And alot of what you said (google glass, modern design like tupperware dsrls, smartphones inside?) just shows you’re a kid with no clue.
Maybe you’d best be served with an iphone or some such toy.
Let me sum up this article’s argument:
Full Frame is the standard for industry professionals, but
As much as I love 4/3 and small cameras, you can’t argue with physics and the simple fact that four thirds has already failed at one attempt to get into the hands of professionals. They simply do not want it. And for good reason. And catching up with sensors 10 years after the fact is simply not going to work. Sorry. Love your 4/3 camera for what it is and stop these silly comparisons to FF pro cameras.
Perdon?
too long.
you can say it in 3 lines. so please.
Possibly these arguments could boil down to:
a) People with too much money to spend, and
B) too much time on their hands.
Yaa
“There is a difference between criticism and going around dismissing whatever you don’t use. Your response to Lindsays article is all telling in that, as you don’t respond on the arguments but try to disqualify it by making assumptions about the motivations of the author.”
Another wild exaggeration. Like I said, I have no problem when someone uses the M5 or M1 or Pentax Q.
The problem is that the OP is making the debate lopsided. As I have pointed out,
“Smart photog don’t agonize over the choice of gear. Experienced photog know what kind of photography they do. What is the best gear to do the job?
Thom Hogan uses DSLR for sports and birding. Likes the EM5 (or any MILC) for casual work. Must use FF for low light work, e.g. shooting BIF at dawn.”
Stop misrepresenting what I said. You’re just enraged because I pointed out the merits of other systems.
Uh no, she explains why this is a good choice for her, shared her experience, and has the pictures to make the point.
You started out not by providing a motivated opinion of your own but by attacking her motivation and calling it propaganda, and continued with fud.
Like I said, I’m unconvinced by OP’s analysis. Looks like she’s debating with herself.
Busy pro don’t waste time justifying the tools they use. They get the results. Add and subtract tools as required.
FUD? Tell that to the owners of Minolta, Pentax and Oly DSLR. Don’t forget the 43 users. Hah!
You’re stalking me because you are afraid. No need for debate.
And still you address the motivations, try to disqualify the author, but didn’t even begin to address the arguments. Well known ‘techniques’ for frustrating any kind of debate, so you have yourself to blame for the lack of debate, and in fact just somewhat more subtle personal attacks.
There’s no need to critique what she said. It’s been covered ad nauseam.
Look at her images.
She does very stylized portraits. So, it’s the lens that’s important. Subjectively, which lens’ bokeh is your favourite?
The sensor doesn’t matter to her because she is staging her portraits. She can position her subject at a distance from the background. In a live shoot, FF still offers the best DOF control.
That’s why people pay a lot of money for FF 1.4 lenses. And, some M43 users look for ever faster lenses.
The brand she uses doesn’t really matter Her images are heavily processed. So, it’s the software and saved pre-sets that matter.
Do consider very carefully what she does and how it works.
I looked at her pictures (more then a few times) but unlike you, I also happen to have experience with the same system as she uses, and read what she wrote. Nearly all the things you mention are addressed in what she wrote, especially the DOF and positioning your subjects part. Additionally, you obviously never shot a wedding or you’d know that your comment about being able to stage your shots and position your subjects is a half-truth at best.
Funny thing is, I do a fair bit of corporate event coverage for the company I work for. I used to have a fair bit of ‘competition’ from d700 and d800 toting photographers. They don’t bother anymore because especially for live coverage they need a much bigger camera and lens and still can’t compete with 2 e-m5s, one with 45/1.8 and the other with 75/1.8
But hey, each to his own, if you are content with your combined fx + nikon 1 system, more power to you, its a very nice setup for sure, and much better then that dual e-m5 setup for certain applications, but not as good for others.
For Mr. L
Do note that the thread is about M43 versus FF. So, I am entitled to add my opinion. My POV is as good or better than yours. I am actually a FF user.
Please note that I have tried to extend the scope of the debate. Which system offers the most flexibility?
M43 offers two form factors. NEX offers APS-C and FF. DSLR offers both sensor formats and allows sharing of lenses. So think ahead. Learn from the debacle of 43.
That’s all I need to say on the matter. Best of luck to the OP.
Ah yes, your opinion is ‘better’…
I’ve been using 9.5mm, 2/3″, 4/3″, aps (film), aps-c, aps-h, 35mm (film and digital), medium format and various large formats, so my opinion is even better then yours?
What an arrogant person you are.
You’re stalking me because you are afraid. No need for debate.
“learn from the debacle of 43” really? what kind of loaded comment is that?
I use FF DSLRs, and APS-C Fuji X and M43s. They each have exceptional features not possessed by the other. The important thing to note is that the FF DSLR doesn’t always sit at the top of an image quality pyramid. It’s entirely unsuitable for many purposes. The obvious ones that spring to mind are street photography, nighttime landscapes, social and family photography and concert photography to name a few. However, it’s a broader issue than that because actually the IBIS used in the E-M1/E-M5/E-P5 negates a lot of the need for tripods or high iso one finds in using a FF DSLR.
“people do often treat you with suspicion if you’re trying to enjoy some outdoor photography with a honking great big DSLR in your hand – of course many amateur photographers like the idea of this, it makes them feel good if the public thinks they are a professional photographer. But if you actually are a professional photographer you will very likely feel differently, you’ll simply want to blend in and you won’t want to draw attention to yourself.”
That is the heart of the story, honestly. Those who want affirmation that they are infact ‘professional’ photographers. The same thing applies to video. Someone picks up a RED or a C100 and suddenly believes he/she is a top-notch pro. The person behind the lens matters infinitely more than the equipment.
Outstanding article. No need for the addendum. You summed up many viewpoints for those of us who WORK in M43. Cheers!
Original Text by Lindsay Lohan? Really? 🙂
Brent Coventry
New! 2 minutes ago | Reply
JUST RECEIVED MY EM1 & 12-40f2.8 COMBO @6pm TONIGHT UK COVENTRY VERY VERY EXCITED !!!
JUST RECEIVED MY EM1 & 12-40f2.8 COMBO @6pm TONIGHT UK COVENTRY VERY VERY EXCITED !!!
JUST RECEIVED MY EM1 & 12-40f2.8 COMBO @6pm TONIGHT UK COVENTRY VERY VERY EXCITED !!!
Its been a long wait but its finally here HIP! HIP! HOORAY HIP! HIP! HOORAY
AND ALL FOR £1696.12 BARGAIN
One missing thing to make M43 a true universal “professional” system is the dynamic range above 13 stops and tonal the depth above 24 bits. As soon as this “little” problem is solved the debates about the professionalism of M43 shall be over.
Well that means Canon have a problem then with all their pro cameras without 13stop DR.
Waiting for the figures, don’t know another the depth but the E-M1 is probably 13.3 DR
Full Frame user says to to APS-c user, “hey your camera sucks and it’s sensor is too small”
APS-C user says to m4/3 user, “Hey your camera sucks and it’s sensor is too small”
m4/3 user says to Nikon 1 user, “Hey your camera sucks and it’s sensor is too small”
Nikon 1 user says to Advanced compact user,” hey your camera sucks and it’s sensor is too small”
photographer says to forum addicts, “Hey why don’t you leave your computer once and a while and go take some pictures. Stop wasting countless hours reading bullshit that doesn’t matter and enjoy yourself….get a date….spend time with your family instead of strangers on the internet.
Select a good lens, use a proper technique and you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference between sensors. It’s just psychological. I mean, unless you make gallery prints or heavy crops where the use of large sensor is understandable. It won’t even occur to you to look for differences. There’s nothing wrong with buying a camera you want but if you feel the current cameras limit you in any way I assure you it’s not the camera that has a problem. Reminds me of a guy who uses Roger Federer’s string pattern on his tennis racquet. Totally doesn’t make a difference for him but at least it makes him feel like he’s in top ten. Most of your images will be downsampled to 1/20th of their original area for web. Think about that before you go pixel peeping.
To avoid loathsome Equivalence debates can one just say that m4/3 is Half Frame? Vs. Full Frame?
Pixel intensity corresponds too, 16 Mpx vs. 36 Mpx of the Sony A7r. Since technology is the same, that is per Pixel Resolution, in effect the only advantage you get is crop room.
One could for instance assume that Editors in Newsroom would prefer the latter since they crop anyway.
ore one could argue that it is still the old inflation at work, since if you are not a dog, there won’t be much need of cropping.
Other question: when you downsize FF35 by two, to Half Frame Size, can you see the difference?
Lindsay Dobson seem to say no, but then one should ask a landscaper too.
When i compared a 5Mk2 to my old 4/3 camera on a computer screen I could, but only just, and I had to magnify. Today with twice the resolution in m4/3 I suppose that my eye couldn’t make the difference, unless I magnified more. Eyesight and computer screens can only make that much.
So yes it’s Half Frame, but to Eyesight the proportion is twice as good as what it was in film, so the meaning of the word is different: it simply means more portable set.
Landscaper, see here:
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.it/2013/10/megapixels-sharpness-and-landscape.html
“This lack of lenses, does of course offer a very restricted series of options. It may well suit some people perfectly, but for me and I imagine lots of other photographers, it doesn’t, far from it. In fact I would go as far as to say its close to a shooting themselves in the foot situation for Sony. If anyone is in the target market for the A7r, it’s me, and unless I have a change of heart or come up with a ‘spiffing wheeze’ (and don’t bet against either!!) I won’t be buying one. Now 36MP is very enticing, but I’m upsizing my m4/3 files to that and picture libraries are accepting them and more importantly clients are buying them, so that really isn’t an issue, particularly taking into consideration the fact that libraries aren’t that bothered about ultra-sharp images anyway. Its not as if the A7r is that great at high ISO’s. The Nikon D800E wasn’t either and any Fuji X camera leaves both the Sony and the Nikon trailing in its wake for low light use. Plus with some work, I can get decent results from my m4/3 cameras for the rare times I actually use high ISO settings. ”
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.it/2013/10/reasons-not-to-buy-sony-a7r-well.html
So don’t underestimate the lenses and the system you already have. I find interesting that Pros tare sending the same message, both in the case of Portrait AND Landscape..
Curiously the same crowd cheering for the sanctity of 24x36mm sensors fails to note or understand two optic truths. 1) the plethora of “full frame” m4/3 prime lenses, and the paucity of “full frame” 35mm lenses that are capable of resolving 36 megapixels.
The only real “cropped sensor” is the APS-C sensor, primarily on Canon and Nikon. It’s a pejorative term proven by the dearth of “full frame” APS-C lenses from Canon and Nikon. Fuji X and Sony E are by and large “full frame” systems, as their lenses are designed to match their respective sensors.
Certainly resolution, combined resolution between sensor and lens, is all. So if you expect legacy lenses to fill the gaps, one can see the fallacy, especially in the case of wides, which will have bad edges, under 35mm.
However even in the case of the more telecentric lenses, don’t expect miracles. Most were designed for lesser resolutions.
Combined resolution is one of the strengths of m4/3. That is why I was arguing that what you might earn with 35mm and *native* lenses is size, but you probably won’t notice an increase in sharpness.
OTH there are negative tradeoffs for 35mm mirrorless on the side of reactiveness, and IBIS plugs the gap.
What use is the latest sensor if the only way to get maximum performance is to screw it permanently on a tripod? That was already the destiny of Medium Format in film.
Well said Lindsay, as an OMD user I would agree with all of your comments. In addition to the full-frame vs MFT debate which rages on, there are further levels of misguided beliefs held by many who believe that APS-C equipped systems are far superior to MFT because (they think) the APS-C sensors are considerably larger than MFT. This myth was actually first propagated by Fuji who initially used completely misleading graphics to suggest that the APS-C sensor was just a little bit smaller than full frame and that MFT sensors were a whole lot smaller. The reality is that MFT is only slightly smaller than APS-C and that both are a good bit smaller than full frame.
The difference in bokeh shooting the same equivalent focal length on both systems is there only just visible and can be completely eradicated if you move a few inches closer to your subject.
I also read with interest the flutter surrounding the new ‘smaller’ full-frame mirrorless cameras coming out. Its all very well having smaller bodies but what’s the point if your full frame stabilised lenses are just as big as ever? When you stick 5 or 6 of them in your bag, the body size becomes somewhat irrelevant as the lens bulk is the biggest issue. It almost seems that the makers of these mini-full-frame bodies are jumping on the bandwagon of ‘smaller’ but as Scotty used to say, “you canna change the laws of physics (captain)”.
I took a shot the other day with my OMD at 1600 ISO with a 45mm f1.8 (90mm eqv) lens wide open at 1/15 of a second. It looked stunning, contrasty, sharp, smooth on screen and on an A3+ print
I hate 4/3
Come and lie down, and tell me all about it…
I’ll bring the jacket with long sleeves and ties on the back 🙂
There are some corrections need on this article.
“… Well, the only real world situation the social photographer is likely to encounter where they are forced to photograph in lowlight would probably be a winter wedding, or dark church (if/when not allowed).”
Every country in the world, after sunset is considered low light situation. From street photography to anything except the artificial lighting, after sunset you don’t have the light. And thats some many hours of living. During the day, many of the times in indoors you have the same low light situation.
Btw, when you have full frame, it is a pleasure taking pictures in low light rather than you are “forced to”.
“Full frame gives a shallower depth of field”
No. Full frame “can” give shallower depth of field ALSO. As well as deep DOF with smaller apertures. Small sensors simply can not do both. You are stuck in deeper DOF.
M43: 1/60 sec, F2.0, 25mm, ISO 200
FF: 1/60 sec, F4.0, 50mm, ISO 800
These settings represent equivalent images with equivalent FOV and DOF, differing only in resolution. I’m assuming comparable sensor efficiency per square unit (check DXO marks). Now, the full frame photo will have better resolution at the expense of higher noise. If you downsample, higher resolution will help to average out the noise and we are back to essentially the same image. If I don’t need gallery-like resolution I basically don’t care either way.
In case 2) I could use lower ISO but I’d have to use also slower shutter. This might or might not be an issue but sometimes my photo could be blurry despite the fact I’m “using full frame”.
As for DOF you’re right, smaller sensors have less flexibility. But I might just as well value deeper DOF or faster shutter (even though we know people value DOF more :)).
What a bullsh!t, people don’t value shallower dof more. It was and is still a tradeoff with 35mmFF. As a professional photographer I want a whole face or with two people two faces in focus. In dimly lit environment you need to use flash to get sufficient shutterspeed to avoid motion blur, With m43 that’s more easy while still being able to isolate the subject.
No, to me 35mmFF is just as awkward as FF was with film. I don’t say 35mmFF doesn’t have it’s purpose because it does, but for the majority it’s overkill and the pictures are not better than from a m43 system.
I don’t get this FF hype, I’d be glad when m43 is able to do CAF tracking as well as the top of the bill DSLR’s because that would mean, that I wouldn’t need to rent a 35mmFF or MF/FF camera kit just maybe once or twice a year. My customers don’t see the difference between 35mmFF and m43 at all.
I mean, people usually complain about lack of depth of field control on smaller sensors which makes it look like they value that shallow depth of field look. But obviously, there comes a point when you have to ask whether you really want someone’s nose to be out of focus. Full frame, just like everything else is a tradeoff between resolution, price and portability. Some people might value one of these more than the others. But my main argument was that crop sensors simply crop the image and the rest is essentially equivalent.
“In case 2) I could use lower ISO but I’d have to use also slower shutter. This might or might not be an issue but sometimes my photo could be blurry despite the fact I’m “using full frame”.”
Why does it have to be f/4? You could use larger aperture, too.
Smaller sensors just need a ‘faster’ relative aperture to obtain the same shallow dof, so no, they aren’t ‘stuck’ at wide dof.
The thing is that for m4/3, the fastest lenses you can get are f/0.95, which compares well to f/1.8 on 35mm for the same angle of view.
Hi! I shoot track and field events for a news website, thus my gear is large and heavy. And btw I HATE that people always notice my gear. My husband and I travel quite a bit, and I have reached my limit with lugging this stuff around for leisure (it’s bad enough running with it across football fields to catch the pole vaulter between track heats). Which brought me to your article while researching the mirrorless cameras so I can save my back and neck! I am looking forward to the day it is perfected for sports–won’t that be fantastic? In the meantime, it will work for everything else! Thanks for cementing the idea that I am going in the right direction here.
Hello,
I’m a professional photographer and I mostly do nut shots. I really like the M43 since I got to hold it today. On the other side of the table was the new A7R Sony and it was great. However, the focus was much better on the M43 and so was the lens selection.
Of course, I can by and used practically any lens manufacturer with the Sony. However, if I want balls out performance I would rather go with a traditional DSLR like my a900 or the next real Sony flagship. For the small stuff, I think Olympus has it nailed down. I wish I could borrow that thing for a few days along with the 75mm and see how it goes.
I shoot almost exclusively architectural and art photography (particularly stained glass windows) My field as an author is medieval French architecture, mostly Gothic architecture (Great Gothic Cathedrals of France, A Visitor’s Guide, Penguin/Viking Studio). This fall we are doing a photographic tour of the cathedrals for an ebook and coffee table version of the original. I have used a Canon 5DII with great results, but am really tired of the bulkiness and weight. For me depth of field is not for shallow but for depth. I sometime like bokeh for statuaray I often use a 24mm tilt/shift lens. The Olympus OMD E-1 is appealing for its features, lenses, size and weight. The Sony A7 & A7r are appealing for their resolution and full frame capabilities. I am leaning toward the Olympus but concerned that it won’t give me the full frame quality I am used to with architecture. What do you think? I liked your well balanced comments. Anyone else please join in. Stan
I started photography just over 2 years ago. As a hobby, not a profession. My first camera and only camera I have ever owned. Nikon D3100. Yes, entry level as a lot of people might say. I’ve been wanting to upgrade to a d610 or d800 for about 6 months now. Many people around me have higher end cameras.
Last week I learnt a little bit more about MIT’s and the EM1. I then went through the features and man I’m impressed.
I shoot a lot of landscape and seascapes. As well as a fair bit of light painting. I’m trying to expand my horizons into more street and night photography.
The e-m1 seems like the perfect package for me.
Thank you sooo much for this article. You’ve really proven my gut feelings on this matter.
i’m a rank amateur with enough discretionary cash to allow me to buy a few cameras now and then, and as i love gadgets, love mastering (ha!) gadgets, and love color, cameras are a natural for me.
I love reading this stuff because i learn a lot, but the reality is in 1978 i packed up as a 21 year old for 4 months backpacking around Europe with a 3 lb Canon fTBn 35mm, a 50mm 1.8 prime lens, 28mm Tamron, and a 70-210 Soligor (what?) zoom.
man, was that fun. Camera and a lens around my neck, one on the camera, one (the 28) in my pocket – there’s a picture – oops – gotta switch to the zoom….wait…it’s too far away – let me put my 2x teleconverter on there…wait – out of film….gotta put a roll in…wait – line (queue to those of you in UK…spelling?) is moving into Wells Cathedral, better change to the 28….where are the lens caps….wonder why my neck hurts. After about 1 month I was trudging past David Saxby photography, I think it was, in Windsor or Warwick and saw an ad in the window for a Hoya 35-105 zoom…I traded all my lenses on the spot, bought a 72mm filter that could have sufficed as a window, put the Hoya on my Canon and never took it off again. Ever.
But it still weighed 6 pounds and over the years it just wasn’t fun to use anymore. So I bought a little auto focus 35mm Ricoh zoom and you know what? it took great pictures. Sure, i couldn’t blow up a slide to the size of an ad on the wall of Grand Central Station, but it was fun and i started taking pictures again.
When the digital revolution hit, I started out with p & s cameras until I said I am making enough $$ to buy something that will last so i went into my local high end shop and said I want a legacy camera…something i can leave to my kids…something like a Leica, or a Contax, or a Rollei. The guy said, that’s nice, but if you want something that’ll take remarkable pictures, here’s a Fuji F31fd. he handed me something the size of a cigarette pack (cigarettes, for those of you who don’t know are toxic little sticks of tobacco that people used to smoke in the USA).
And the pictures were absolutely remarkable. I have about 500 pictures of Croatia that rival anything I’ve ever taken.
But envy got to me, and since i’d never owned a Nikon I bought a D40 and a Tamron wide-tele zoom. 6mp. Vs. the 6mp of my F 31.
And on a trip to new zealand I shot both of them, sometimes one in each hand….and I can’t tell them apart.
So smaller is definitely better for me. And when i saw the size of the Olympus OM-D EM-5 i said I gotta have this. And I did. First with a 14-150 lens, then sidegraded to the 12-50 (because of the macro and weatherproofing…before a trip to rainy old England in july 2013, where we were for 14 days, 12 of which were sunny, gorgeous, and hot). And i have no complaints about anything and i still love that camera. Unfortunately I don’t get to shoot hot models in hoops and lingerie and frankly if I got close enough to do so I’d be more concerned about the focal length of something else…..
But then i was surfing DPReview and saw the Fuji x100 and, remembering Leica’s and Arguses adults had when i was a kid, thought, man, if they ever make something that looks that beautiful with a zoom…that takes even remotely good pictures, I’m in.
And Fujifilm listened and sent the X10. And after they fixed the supposed white orb problem I bought one, and man, on a recent trip to Oktoberfest and Cz republic, I forwent bringing two cameras and shot an entire week of pictures with just the X10. And what more can I say? 2x teleconverter, gorgeous build, viewfinder, decent battery life, art filters, panorama, and it fits in my pocket – yes, it does….but otherwise I keep it on a wrist strap and now i’m having a hard time because between the two I’m not sure I’m ever going to buy another camera. And that saddens me. But there isn’t a camera out there that can improve my pictures…only i can. I own two concert quality classical guitars too but I assure you, i’ll never sound like Julian Bream…
But once again, like with my little Ricoh, the Fujifilm X10 and the Oly EM-5 have made schlepping my camera with me fun again.
And for the hell of it, I bought a replacement F31fd (i’d sold my original one), which BTW does amazingly well in low light, and also gets 600 shots per battery – you heard it right – and i keep it as a backup for those times that European outlets fail to charge my other batteries properly.
My Canon? I use it to show my kids what cameras used to be like.
Keep the debate going but everytime i see someone schlepping a camera, battery pack, pistol grip, huge flash and a lens that looks like john c. holmes I say there but for the grace of God go I….
Beautiful, just beautiful. We All feel this way, if we’re honest, don’t we?
I tear at myself wondering if my MFT Oly outfit is providing me with enough resolution – printability up to a maximum of – say 16″x 20″ (or a little larger). I’m in a quandary because my old shooting kit was Nikon/ Leica film cameras and have been taken by the size and relative sharpness and detail I’ve achieved with my MFT Oly kit. I’m fundamentally a wildlife/ natural history/ street photographer with no desire to shoot weddings. My concern was that color saturation and contrast would suffer by compressing my images onto too small format. I have my old Nikon manual focus lenses which I’m having a hard time letting go of. Fortunately Olympus permits their use and as a manual photographer of old working in aperture priority mode and manual focus suits me just fine. I hate auto focus and have never found that letting the camera decide what to focus on – other than the auto focus on my iPhone – has produced an image to my liking. I may soon be in position to purchase a new camera body and am weighing the advantages of Oly OMD- EM1 or Nikon D610. I presently shoot with two E-M5’s. After reading this article I’m more than ever convinced that adding the M1 to my kit will prove more than satisfactory. My dilemma becomes one of what to do with my collection of Nikon lenses of shorter than 50mm fl. The only reason for going with a FF sensor would be to use these at maximum FOV. I own the magnificent Oly 7-14mm f/4. I don’t give a toot about the arguments in favor of the Panny same. This one’s built like a tank and is optically superior from what I’ve read 9no, i’m NOT going to be fair and find a Panny to test!!!!). I do a lot of macro work and own both the Oly 60 and the Panny 45. They’re both beautiful performers. The Oly supposedly has an edge, but the Panny produces a fine image, too. Unless you’re spending all your time shooting test grids, you’ll never notice the difference in real life photogeraphy!
Thanks for the Article Lindsay. You only missed mentioning that smaller Sensors allow bigger Zoom.
.
Another Tip for the self professed expert noPros:
”they will think less of me unless I have a huge gripped DSLR in my hands with a big beige lens”
AND — the winner will have a Tripod shaped Barbecue (cooking pulled pork) http://mercerinterior.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lam-bsetfp_a.jpg of course.
I finally finished my olympus set up. I now have the 9-18, 25mm 1.8, 45mm 1.8 and 75mm1.8 with an EP5. After shooting this along side a Sony A900 for over six months I decided to part ways with the full frame. IMO one of the best DSLR’s ever made. But I just can’t justify the money wrapped up in something that is giving me such similar results.
Fast forward to buying the 75mm 1.8. I also own the zeiss 135mm 1.8 for Sony and it is spectacular. But when I went back to look at all my photos- I realized how very little I ever shot at 1.8. If I did parts of the subject were often out of focus.
Well, I still have all my zeiss lenses and full frame equipment….just no camera at the moment. I will buy the a7r but for purely personal interests. As far as I can tell I see no difference for most work- your over paying at this point. Heck, I’ve even got into medium format film. The only thing left is 5×7 for this guy. As far as I’m concerned I get more keepers, better experience and the added bonus of less weight with the oly. Who would have thought I would ever think that. In fact, when I first saw olympus in an add I thought it was a joke. Its not until a rep was at my local camera store that I got to try it out…..after looking at an a7. The rest was history.