Sell my Nikon FX stuff?

[tkbslc]

or f/3.6 as most primes in m4/3 are f/1.8

Imho the dof part is the easiest, and most overblown by internet dilema, to overcome...

I agree about DOF, unless you have a specific style that requires massive subject isolation. But many people picked FF for specifically that reason.

The low light exposure differences are real, though. Given that ISO 25600 on the d600 looks like ISO 6400 on m4/3, f2.8 on a FF sensor can shoot in the dark quite well. Since the OP was considering trading his FF f2.8 zooms for m4/3 f2.8 zooms, the easiest way to see what that is like is to shoot his current zooms at f5.6. Then he will be shooting two ISO stops higher, which will approximate the high ISO ceiling of m4/3 vs the D600 as well as see what the DOF control on m4/3 is like at f2.8.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...1&x=0.030237233614796945&y=0.4561859193438141

If you were moving from a FF f2.8 setup to f1.7/1.8 primes on m4/3, then the difference is not going to be much, not even a stop. That wouldn't be too bad, but you could also shoot primes on FF (And OP says they do) which means the comparison of two stops is still there

I moved from Canon 1.6x crop to m4/3 2x crop and I barely notice the difference. But that was only a 1.25x sensor diagonal change. And I originally picked APS-C and didn't upgrade to FF because I knew I was OK with the limitations of a slightly smaller sensor. I think we all like what m4/3 can do, I just don't want to oversell it against FF, because there is a significant difference at the extremes of DOF and low light.

 

[Growltiger]

m43 never wins because you can stop FF down two more stops before diffraction wins. Exposure difference is compensated by highs ISO noise ceiling.

I like m43, but smaller sensors do have trade offs.

M43 can win. If you have poor light and need to use f/2.8 at the same ISO and shutter speed. Neither format has diffraction. M43 has two more stops depth of field.

 

[tkbslc]

M43 can win. If you have poor light and need to use f/2.8 at the same ISO and shutter speed. Neither format has diffraction. M43 has two more stops depth of field.

But if you use the FF camera at f5.6 and raise the ISO two stops, you get same DOF, same shutter speed and same noise, but better resolution.

 

[cptobvious]

DOF is just one aspect of it, I think. Other benefits of FF include cleaner pixels (MFT has noise even at base ISO that reduces acuity, but you have to compare at 100% to see this), richer/more natural colors and tones, and extra shadow recovery with the FF cams with Sony sensors. MFT isn't bad...I think the newer Olympus cams are almost on-par with my old Canon 5D classic in these areas, but the newer FF cameras just give you that extra latitude to crop, push shadows and pull highlights and still have a very clean sharp image.

The cost difference is really shrinking as well, especially recently where you can get a D610, 6D, or A7 for about the same price as an E-M1. If I were starting over from scratch today with a budget of around $2500-3000, it would be a tough decision. I personally went with MFT because it was good enough for my uses (casual shooting, rarely printing), but if I were shooting professionally I would've gone FF.

 

[Growltiger]

But if you use the FF camera at f5.6 and raise the ISO two stops, you get same DOF, same shutter speed and same noise, but better resolution.

So you now claim that an FF sensor is automatically two stops better than an M43 sensor. It isn't so.

I agree about not overselling M43, but you seem to be here just to disparage it.

 

[tkbslc]

So you now claim that an FF sensor is automatically two stops better than an M43 sensor. It isn't so.

Well, yes I am claiming that, and yes it is so. At least in the type of light where that scenario would make sense. In good light, it's all irrelevant because there is enough light to stop down or not.

Here's an example: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...&x=-0.9707911683532658&y=-0.19747807017543856

I agree about not overselling M43, but you seem to be here just to disparage it.

I assure you that is not the case. I just barely finished selling my Canon kit and purchasing all m4/3 gear. I can like m4/3 while acknowledging that FF has advantages in imaging capabilities.

 

[RJNear]

I sold my Nikon D700 system after getting the EM-1 and many Olympus/Panasonic lens to go with it and do not regret selling the Nikon System. I will say the Nikon D700 was a little better and noise in low light and high dynamic range but I have over looked this due the fact Olympus system is smaller and lighter and I am carry the camera with me all the time now.

 

[lightmonkey]

i have on the shelf 1/2.3, m43, aps-c, ff. (gave away 1")

i like shooting at a variety of FL. m43 allows me to have a diverse lens collection at reasonable price but most especially occupying minimal space and weight. appreciate the extra reach and the dof for my shooting.

i travel often. of all the cameras, m43 is the default go-to system. allows the widest "shooting envelope". i print at home, and any supposed image quality inferiority is aboslutely not a deterrent.

 

[qppoiz]

The good thing about selling all those FF goodies is that you'll be able to start a m43 kit with a good camera and very good glass.

 

[tkbslc]

I went m4/3 because in my view it provides the best balance of:

good enough image quality
good enough price/performance ratio
good enough portability
good enough lens/body options
good enough DOF control

It doesn't win ANY of those categories on an absolute basis, but it is the only one that ticks all those boxes for me. Some other systems may be better in a few categories, but then not good enough in others.

I feel like m4/3 is the best all-around camera system, even if it isn't the absolute best in every category.

 

[Klorenzo]

So you now claim that an FF sensor is automatically two stops better than an M43 sensor. It isn't so.

Obviously it vastly depends on the model and generation you are comparing. What about a 5D classic vs a Sony A7s? Or a EM-5 vs a 1D classic?

But "a couple of stops" of difference to me seems a very reasonable rough estimate for any reasonable generic comparison.

 

[sesser]

I dumped my Canon 6D kit for µ4/3 purely for size and weight. Picked up an E-M1, 12-40, 35-100, 17 and an E-PM2. It's such a small system and that's what I like. I felt the same way as swede... felt like dope carrying around a big ol' camera for personal use.

if you want a small version of the 70-200, get the Panasonic 35-100/2.8

I agree 100%. This lens is only slightly longer than the Oly 12-40 and weighs about the same. And image quality is great....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Olympus E-M1 + Panny 35-100 - 100mm - 1/5000s @ ƒ2.8 - ISO 200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Olympus E-PM2 + Panny 35-100 - 64mm - 1/800s @ ƒ5.6 - ISO 200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Olympus E-PM2 + Panny 35-100 - 66mm - 1/160s @ ƒ2.8 - ISO 500