According to this popular blogger, M43 sensor is 60% smaller than APS-C. Is this true?

Status
Not open for further replies.

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,345
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
From a product perspective one of the easiest ways to get a feel of the vitality of a market segment is the rate of new product launches, and the mindshare they are developing. Sensor size aside on this metric M43 is very healthy, and Canikon is moribund. The Canon rumors site is like watching grass grow. The product announcement rate in M43 is quite bizarre, and because the mounts are interchangeable there is a huge amount of choice in the system.

M43 products are winning awards every year, and it is clear that in the enthusiast space mirrorless mindshare is growing.
 

yekimrd

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
1,039
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Real Name
Mikey
Yep, micro four thirds is about 35% smaller than APS-C. But if one want's m43 to look bad, then one can say APS-C is about 65% larger than micro four thirds. Both are correct.
You're right. I just never thought of it that way. But as soon as people were challenging the math, did a quick calculation in my head and went, "Oh, he's right". hehe
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,165
Honestly, I don't think KR is a shill. He's an idiot, for sure, but I don't see him as a shill.
Results: Half Right / Half Wrong
Score: Zero

Pretty sure he's a massive shill given all his links redirect you to B&H/Adorama without a clear warning on all his pages. He plays the Search Engine Optimization game as well. Oh and he has an option if you like his cans of BS to subscribe to him as if he was a public radio station that needed funding. While he has oodles of cash yet begs for more while playing "oh look at me on my high and mighty chair of (bad) financial advice."

However he's a great example of a hypocritical idiot, so I'll give you that.
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
Results: Half Right / Half Wrong
Score: Zero

Pretty sure he's a massive shill given all his links redirect you to B&H/Adorama without a clear warning on all his pages. He plays the Search Engine Optimization game as well. Oh and he has an option if you like his cans of BS to subscribe to him as if he was a public radio station that needed funding. While he has oodles of cash yet begs for more while playing "oh look at me on my high and mighty chair of (bad) financial advice."

However he's a great example of a hypocritical idiot, so I'll give you that.
KR specifically tells you that the links to B&H and Adorama pay for his site. BTW, Thom Hogan does the same thing. That doesn't make them a shill. It makes them people who do what they do for a living.
 

RichDesmond

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
573
Location
United States
People should keep in mind that DL and KR and others like them post controversial stuff like "Micro 4/3rds is doomed!!" not because they believe it, but because they know it gets people riled up and drives traffic to their site. Page views = $$. It's just trolling, and the best thing to do is ignore it.
 

RT_Panther

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
5,933
Location
Texas
From Ken Rockwell's own website;

This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."
Folks should keep this in mind before criticizing Rockwell....:smile:
 

humzai

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
410
That article is pretty funny. It kind of reads like satire.
I questioned whether the Micro Four Thirds (M4/3) format would survive: there are no reasons that it ought to survive, at least not at present. Well, video perhaps, though even that is dubious.
video is dubious? In what way is video dubious? Has digital loyd missed out on this whole new fangled deal called moving pictures. Is he unaware of youtube? What about the significant portion of internet traffic that is devoted at any time to streaming video?

I seem to have had the impression that digiloyd was a reasonable guy, that did very thorough reviews. I guess I didn't realize how contradictory he is. That whole article is riddled with contradiction, illogical and outright deceptive statements. He also seems to have the habit of stating opinion as fact.
 

zapatista

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Real Name
Mike Barber
From Ken Rockwell's own website;



Folks should keep this in mind before criticizing Rockwell....:smile:
This is Rockwell's carte blanc excuse for everything. He's worthless, except for gathering attention and traffic to his site. I personally enjoy the remarkable macro photos of his wristwatch.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,397
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Nic
I seem to have had the impression that digiloyd was a reasonable guy, that did very thorough reviews. I guess I didn't realize how contradictory he is. That whole article is riddled with contradiction, illogical and outright deceptive statements. He also seems to have the habit of stating opinion as fact.
Quite. Like this:

With an EVF, the Ricoh GR would be just about perfect. Does it matter that it only has a 28mm fixed lens? No, because that’s perfect for many things I do.
...followed on the next paragraph by this :biggrin::

If the Ricoh GR had 21mm and 45mm and 75mm focal lengths (or similar), this would be beautiful: kit of 3 to cover most everything?
 

T N Args

Agent Photocateur
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
3,507
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Real Name
call me Arg
Personally, I dislike the 3:2 format. After many years with medium format and large format cameras, I really prefer composing on either a more squared or a more panoramic format than 3:2. I think its actually one of the worst formats to use.
I have to completely agree. Take a look at the proportions painters use, to get an idea of what works in a purely visual sense. 3:2 is rarely the right answer.
 

Reflector

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
2,165
From Ken Rockwell's own website;

This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."
Folks should keep this in mind before criticizing Rockwell....:smile:
If I were to write < /sarcasm> after every post on mu-43.com and then say some real stupid, offensive and inaccurate things, would I have immunity from the moderators? Read KR's personality beyond face value: A good example of his real persona can be seen in the video in which he visits B&H. He genuinely is clueless and hypocritical.


KR specifically tells you that the links to B&H and Adorama pay for his site. BTW, Thom Hogan does the same thing. That doesn't make them a shill. It makes them people who do what they do for a living.
Not all of his links are marked. Big difference:
Thom clearly marks his link immediately at the bottom of the article AND clearly states "ADVERTISEMENT:" on the side.
KR will occasionally have some of his blue links break conformity with his writing, where if you were expecting it to send you to a page about the lens or other item, it instead sends you to B&H to set a cookie in your browser so the next time you make a purchase, he makes a profit.

There's a big difference here with how Thom writes his mind out and lets you know you can support the site compared to KR's low tactics of "bam, drop by cookie when you expected to load another page (Better hover those links or keep the status bar on your browser)."
 

T N Args

Agent Photocateur
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
3,507
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Real Name
call me Arg
In that light, it's fair to say the OP asked a fair question. I wish people would stop calling each other "trolls". That's terribly mean and dismissive. To people who use that word: would you call someone that in person? Someone should apologize to the OP.
It is a good idea, not a bad idea, to point out trolling when it occurs. People who engage in trolling are misbehaving and trying to sabotage friendly discussion forums and make people feel bad.

Do you think that's just friendly fun? Just 'stirring up debate'? If so, then you're a troll too.

Would I do that in person? If someone came to my party at my home and started pi**ing everyone off with wild racism, ethnic put-downs, and neo-nazism, and he was specifically tailoring it to upset the individuals there? You bet I would! He would be swiftly removed, no arguments, no second chances, and he would never be seen at my place again. That's what should happen to trolls here.

Now, it turns out that the OP wasn't trolling: he was mathematically incompetent and probably non-native English speaking. I apologise for being wrong, but not for reading the OP as I did. Take a look at it again:

According to this popular blogger, M43 sensor is 60% smaller than APS-C. Is this true?

Also micro four thirds is doomed and comparing m43 to full frame is like comparing APS-C to medium format. What do you reckon about this guy, is he right?
Well, I think it reads like obvious baiting. Why should we assume he has no idea what '60% smaller' means? (In fact, if he has no idea what it means, then it means nothing whether he believes it or not). Where does he say that he thinks the dl blog is terribly wrong in all its claims? As written, he is referencing the blogger as an authority. And to ask us if it is right to say that µ4/3 is doomed: isn't that exactly the sort of thing a genuine troll would post? "Look, here's a link to someone saying you are going the way of the dodo: what say you?"
 

orfeo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
673
Location
FR
This thread is funny! It's non sense to speak in terms of smaller or bigger! percentage is a proportion, so just say m4/3 represents 60% of APS sensor area period...

If you wanna continu about that non sense just say that FF is 135% bigger than APS sensor. Damn thats wasting time here!

percentage increase or decrease does make sense when you have a factor that is variable, our sensor do not...
 

T N Args

Agent Photocateur
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
3,507
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Real Name
call me Arg
But in short, no. That guy has the numbers backwards. Micro Four Thirds has 61% of the area of Nikon, Sony, Pentax's APS-C and 68% the area of Canon's APS-C.
Exactly, so there is no one answer anyway, because there is more than one APS-C sensor size.

But the claim (that µ4/3 is 60% smaller than APS-C) is even more ridiculous than it seems. There are a number of measurements of size: area is only one of them. The diagonal of the sensor is a% smaller, the sensor height is b% smaller, the sensor width is c% smaller.

The reason sensor size if of any significance is only because a bigger sensor allows either more pixels (more resolution) or bigger pixels (more dynamics at high ISO), or a combination of a bit of both. But if the photographer doesn't actually produce this difference in a material sense with his photographs, then the larger sensor offers him no advantage of all (other than the gratification of pixel peeping and saying "ooh, look at that".)

Take pixels. It is hard enough to produce a true distinguishable 16M pixels in-camera, so to produce 36M pixels from a larger sensor is that much harder again. Certainly unlikely without a tripod -- a serious heavy-duty tripod. And if prints are not larger than a certain size, it is impossible for us to see the extra resolution if it has been achieved in-camera.

Take dynamic range. If your printer/paper combo can produce 7 bits of dynamic range (a realistic figure), it doesn't matter much whether photos taken at ISO 6400 have 7 or 9 bits of DR. And it matters even less whether they have 12 or 14 bits of DR at ISO 100.

So it is a long, long way from correctly asserting a technical advantage at the micro level for a larger sensor, to achieving any advantage at all in the viewed print or screen.
 

fortwodriver

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
993
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
I have to completely agree. Take a look at the proportions painters use, to get an idea of what works in a purely visual sense. 3:2 is rarely the right answer.
Yeah, I just discovered this. My wife paints. So we were talking about paper sizes and ratios for our 4:3 cameras after we bought our new printer. Our new printer can print on fine-art paper so we headed out to the art-supply store she uses and purchased a bunch of art paper that was compatible with the printer in sizes that are closer to 4:3, frames too!
 

Reesebass

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
72
It is a good idea, not a bad idea, to point out trolling when it occurs. People who engage in trolling are misbehaving and trying to sabotage friendly discussion forums and make people feel bad.

Do you think that's just friendly fun? Just 'stirring up debate'? If so, then you're a troll too.

Would I do that in person? If someone came to my party at my home and started pi**ing everyone off with wild racism, ethnic put-downs, and neo-nazism, and he was specifically tailoring it to upset the individuals there? You bet I would! He would be swiftly removed, no arguments, no second chances, and he would never be seen at my place again. That's what should happen to trolls here.

Now, it turns out that the OP wasn't trolling: he was mathematically incompetent and probably non-native English speaking. I apologise for being wrong, but not for reading the OP as I did. Take a look at it again:



Well, I think it reads like obvious baiting. Why should we assume he has no idea what '60% smaller' means? (In fact, if he has no idea what it means, then it means nothing whether he believes it or not). Where does he say that he thinks the dl blog is terribly wrong in all its claims? As written, he is referencing the blogger as an authority. And to ask us if it is right to say that µ4/3 is doomed: isn't that exactly the sort of thing a genuine troll would post? "Look, here's a link to someone saying you are going the way of the dodo: what say you?"
No need to take this too seriously, it's only grown men arguing about their expesive toys. Being a rookie with no prior posts, my OP might have seemed trollish and i admit, a little provoking. So me very sorry, you a happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom