Apples To Oranges: A real life "full frame" Vs. Micro 4/3 Comparison

flash

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,004
Location
1 hour from Sydney Australia.
Real Name
Gordon
yeah :) I was pretty stoked got to say if you were like me first time I looked through the EVF of the E-M1 I had this laughing grin on my face and did a double take grabbed my D600 and compared and kinda chuckled to myself

and yeah the handling :) everything is so much nicer for me I am going to end up with a full set of there PRO zoom lens

my plans are ping ponging all over :) ahhahaha
I am thinking of getting some voigtlander glass ? maybe 50 1.1 the 35 1.2 and the 75 1.8 they have and seeing about getting a sony a7r ? but might hold off and get the next version :) could also use them on the OMD of course
I was going to hold my E-M5 for second body but going to get it up ASAP on the sale and put the money elsewhere I think

been playing a lot more with peaking and I am really liking it so going to get the 17 voigt I have been holding off on and still might wait for the panny 42.5 1.2
and see what the fuji pro X2 or whatever it is going to be called is like
going to be doing more portrait this year and debating about getting out of weddings ? so after 13 years of doing weddings I have a hard time getting out of the wedding way of thinking of what I need in a camera :) the weddings I am going to keep shooting I am going to go back to my older way of shooting them I think to which is wider lens style and more angles again not sure how I drifted from my early stuff ? but it happens :)

I've had all three of those CV lenses, although the 75mm 1.8 is the only one I have at the moment. I'll definitely get another 35 1.2 but the 50 1.1 has wildly uncontrollable CA and I have the rater brilliant Nokton 1.5. The CV 21mm 1.8 is also absolutely fantastic. I have that for the Leica and will be testing it on the EM1 for sure. I'm also liking the 135mm f2.8 aid Nikkor. Not as sharp as my Leica APO 135 but i think I like the rendering of the Nikon better on the EM1. And it only cost me $40.

Getting out of weddings sure would make it easier to choose lenses!! :) If I did that i think I wouldn't own a single zoom except maybe the 40-150 when it comes out. Plus I have the very good fuji tele zoom.

Gordon
 

HappyFish

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
982
Real Name
Chad
interesting to hear about the 1.1 and the 1.5 :) thanks :) that 1.5 is a nice looking lens :) and reasonable was curious about the CV21 1.8 also :) and on M4/3 I think a 40mm would be a fun lens

part of the thought was use them on a OMD or Fuji or FF for dif coverages of course ;) hahaha but just to get the character of them

I saw a 1.1 on sale at a place here in the US for $799 used ? might see if he offers a buy back since he is a good CV dealer :) if I was not happy

maybe I will start with the 17 0.95 since its M4/3 native and then get the 35 1.2 since I could use a 70 or so range on the OMD :) and would be fun to have that have 35 and 70 manual and my panny/leica 25 1.4 to fall in between the two for auto focus when I want :)
so funny I have such a hard time calling it a panny/leica :) its like calling that Chrysler K car they put Maserati on a Maserati :) hahahaha

only downside of getting out is money :) haahahh still debating :) maybe switching things up a lot will make it fun again ? we shall see :)

in some ways I kinda just want to second shoot for relax fun :)
 

LV426

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
1,014
Location
Sacramento, California
Real Name
Dan
I have been an avid photographer for 30 years now. I view M4/3 as EXACTLY what 35mm format photographers have been asking for all their lives. Day in and day out I would talk to someone carrying a SLR with a pro zoom wishing it were lighter, smaller and less costly -- now we have it! BIG Thanks to Olympus and Panasonic for listening and responding!


Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 mobile app
 

rezatravilla

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,131
Location
Indonesia
Real Name
Reza Travilla
one thing I find I like the BW out of my OMD better camera jpg are very nice tone something about them :) but even raw converted the noise character I prefer BW out to my OMD over my FF gear :)

color wise I agree I think the noise is smoother in FF

Agreed. I also love the BW output and the color also unique =D
 

mingus

New to Mu-43
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
8
Location
SW of Chicago, Illinois
Real Name
Mike
The technical debate will never stop. However, having moved from Medium format to DSLR and recently to M43, it is increasingly clear to me that the portability of M43 equipment makes it far more likely that I will actually have a camera and the right lens with me at any given moment. It makes little difference how good the “other stuff” is if it’s somewhere else!

Thanks Brian for the article – good job.
 

Amin Sabet

Administrator
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
11,106
Location
Boston, MA (USA)
There is no way to write the definitive article about this because so much comes down to user perspective. Also, one can't generalize effectively about formats when individual cameras defy the stereotypes of the format. Eg, Sony full frame with IBIS, Leica full frame CCD with poor high ISO SNR, etc.

One thing few people seem to realize is that for high ISO, handheld, shutter speed limited photography, full frame sensors only hold an advantage when a more shallow DOF than the smaller format can provide is acceptable. For example, when handholding in low light, an E-M5 actually has slightly better image quality than a D800 if you are shooting with matched depth of field and framing. In other words, an E-M5 at ISO 6400 will have slightly better image quality than the D800 at two stops higher ISO, which is what it would take to get a matched DOF at the same shutter speed. Along the same lines, an iPhone 5S will beat both the E-M5 and the D800 if you're unwilling to go with more shallow DOF than the iPhone can go. Sensor technology (efficiency) tends to favor smaller sensors, while larger sensors make up for that with greater light collecting area, the latter being a factor that is negated when lenses are used at higher f-numbers to match DOF.

From a purely practical sense, my full frame Leica M9 had zero low light high ISO advantage over my MFT cameras, and for my purposes the advantages of my 5D II, D700, and D600 were largely negated by the fact that I had no IS with my most commonly used primes on those cameras and often had to stop down either for the desired DOF or to overcome aberrations inherent to older lens designs (eg, Nikon AF-D 35/2). Certainly there are times and situations where a full frame camera will provide better image quality and/or help to "get the shot", but those were few and far between for me. Likewise, the fact that I can handhold my Oly 17/1.8 steady for a full second on the E-M1 is nice but unlikely to come in handy very often from a practical standpoint with the types of photography I do. The main charm of full frame cameras for me is the ability to occasionally get a very shallow DOF when desired with a particular framing, eg 50mm f/1.5 on full frame. I don't get that itch very often though.
 

HappyFish

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
982
Real Name
Chad
and throw a 0.95 CV lens on there and you are the same as a wide open with 1.8 on a FF :)
 

Ray Sachs

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
2,704
Location
Near Philadephila
One thing very few people seem to realize is that for high ISO, handheld, shutter speed limited photography, full frame sensors only hold an advantage when a more shallow DOF than the smaller format can provide is acceptable. For example, when handholding in low light, an E-M5 actually has slightly better image quality than a D800 if you are shooting with matched depth of field and framing. In other words, an E-M5 at ISO 6400 will have slightly better image quality than the D800 at two stops higher ISO, which is what it would take to get a matched DOF at the same shutter speed. Along the same lines, an iPhone 5S will beat both the E-M5 and the D800 if you're unwilling to go with more shallow DOF than the iPhone can go. Sensor technology (efficiency) tends to favor smaller sensors, while larger sensors make up for that with greater light collecting area, the latter being a factor that is negated when lenses are used at higher f-numbers to match DOF.
Yeah, very true. I have an RX1, which is my favorite all around camera and the only digital full frame I've ever owned. It's amazing for low light (when I'm not looking for MORE depth of field) and for dynamic range in good light and the raw files have to be worked with to be believed. BUT, for street photography, I much prefer an APS or m43 based camera because I can get more light AND more DOF, all other things being equal and for this application I want both a lot of DOF and a reasonably fast shutter speed. My APS Nikon A (or any m43 body I've tried) is not nearly as good at ISO 6400 as the RX1 (which is at least as good at 12,800), but I have to really close down the aperture to get decent DOF with the RX1, whereas with the Nikon A I can shoot at f3.5 at 6400 in low light and still get a reasonable zone of focus and reasonable shutter speed. Different courses, different horses...

For low light where I'm not looking for a lot of DOF or a fast shutter speed, fuggetaboutit - the RX1 kills anything else I've tried. But if I need more DOF and faster shutter speeds, it's not the tool of choice...

-Ray
 

cmpatti

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
263
Location
Berkeley, CA
I use m43 because of the size/weight/performance tradeoffs that work well enough for me. But there is no "equalizer", just tradeoffs...

-Ray

This full comment makes some excellent points, but there is one other I'd like to add. In some cases, the advantages of FF aren't "tradeoffs" against the advantages of mFT at all because those FF advantages are entirely theoretical. In my experience, the IQ advantages of FF can't even be detected in prints made of reasonably well-lit scenes printed at 15x20 or smaller. Since that describes perhaps 90% or more of my photography, the advantages of FF aren't really relevant to me; I would be carrying around the extra bulk and weight for no reason. I think that this is why mFT is a big deal: the current generation of mFT cameras and lenses completely fulfill the quality needs of the great majority of enthusiast photographers making the tradeoffs necessary to get the advantages of FF completely unnecessary.


Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 mobile app
 

tomO2013

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
864
About the only aspect that is part of the IQ equation that can be directly attributable to sensor size is DOF.
Whether that is an advantage or disadvantage depends on your perspective and your needs. Ironically, it is very easy to juggle around the core attributes that make up Shallow/Large DOF - distance to subject, distance of subject to background, focal length of lens, aperture selected. The sensor size is only one aspect of the many factors that make up DOF and it is possible to juggle these to get the effect you want in most cases.

With respect to dynamic range ,one myth that I keep hearing on different boards and forumrs is that dynamic range is a by-product of sensor size and therefore "35mm has better dynamic range" than m43/APS-C at even daylight ISO's.
This is not the case. Dynamic range and tonal range are not a direct physical attribute of having a larger sensor. Sure it is probably 'easier' for silicon manufacturers to extract better dynamic and tonal range from a bigger silicon canvas. However ultimately dynamic range and tonal range are a derivative of having a better sensor/silicon process not directly a physical aspect of the sensor size.
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/ca...pus-om-d-e-m5-1075717/review/5#articleContent
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/ca...n-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/6#articleContent
For example... the 5d mark iii (stunning camera and one I would also very much like to own for it's 85mm 1.8) has a dynamic range lower than the E-M5 at lower ISO's e.g. ISO200/400. The E-M5 sits between the E-M5 and D800/E in terms of dynamic range. Also interesting is that in real world the Canon is not that far off the D800 in terms of range despite what the tech spec sheet might say.
Sensor size == dynamic range... this is not necessarily the case... even within the same sensor generation e.g. 5D to D800.
 

Just Jim

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
940
whats funny is I read it as FF has better wide angle and he is saying UMMM NO !
and then saying 7-14 anyone meaning its a really good wide angle ? and those that say FF is better have no clue about the 7-14 :)

not sure but he will clarify I am sure :) hahaahahah

one thing I am stoked on getting is the OLY super wide zoom when it comes out :)

The TS-E wide angles outperform the 7-14... handily. And I love the 7-14. ...but the 24 II and the 17 are stunning wide angle lenses. Especially the 17mm. I've been pinching pennies ever since I rented one a few months back. I only need another $1200. I may even sell off of some of my antique lenses to get it.
 

HappyFish

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
982
Real Name
Chad
yeah TS are specialty for sure :) and again why I still shoot both setups :)

my fav canon prime lens was my 24 L :) awesome lens zoom ? most likely 70-200 and why I owned two of them cause they were so important to have and not be down !

but I think we are talking ultra wide zooms here to compare not trying to compare zooms to primes :) thats a whole other argument :) hahhahaha
and also saying you can get very good ultra wide on M4/3 its not like it does not exist :)

I do wish we had a nice 14 prime that was top notch :)
 

beanedsprout

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
429
Location
north central Ohio
Someone probably already said it but it makes no sense to use the 16-35 f4 instead of the 24-70 f2.8. It's cheating on m43s part thinking that there exists that much more light for the system. Plus then you keep the focal lengths equivalent.
 

Chrisnmn

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
1,215
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Real Name
Chris
This type of threads never gets old here.

But to the OP, I must admit you probably wrote one of the best m43 vs ff there is. :drinks:
 

mattia

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
2,395
Location
The Netherlands
The TS-E wide angles outperform the 7-14... handily. And I love the 7-14. ...but the 24 II and the 17 are stunning wide angle lenses. Especially the 17mm. I've been pinching pennies ever since I rented one a few months back. I only need another $1200. I may even sell off of some of my antique lenses to get it.

Occasionally I'm really, really, really tempted to get the 24 or the 17, a MetaBones mk III E to EOS adapter, and call it a day for landscape setups. More likely the 24, since I prefer 'normal' wide with stiching to ultrawide. On the other hand, that kind of money should buy me a nice native mount 21/2.8 Zeiss for the A7r (assuming they make one eventually) which will probably be smaller...
 

Chrisnmn

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
1,215
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Real Name
Chris
Occasionally I'm really, really, really tempted to get the 24 or the 17, a MetaBones mk III E to EOS adapter, and call it a day for landscape setups. More likely the 24, since I prefer 'normal' wide with stiching to ultrawide. On the other hand, that kind of money should buy me a nice native mount 21/2.8 Zeiss for the A7r (assuming they make one eventually) which will probably be smaller...

You can get the voigtlander 21mm Ultron f1.8 for $1k and its size is somewhere in between the P25 and O75. And it works wonders with the A7/r
 

broody

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
388
I'm not a pro photographer, but I do event coverage and take my own photographs for my graphic design work, beside shooting recreatively. I'm definitely much happier with M43 than I ever was with a DSLR. You can always compare sizes, performance, prices, etc., but at the end of the day every system involves a compromise, and it comes down to which compromise you're willing to live with. I've found my sweet spot, and am very glad I did.
 

Art

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,385
Location
San Francisco, CA
One can blur out background in post but "out of focus" areas are forever lost.

m43 DoF is quite practical and appropriate for most uses especially in low light. The only issue is the need to use ND filters in daylight for nice DoF. Hopefully, future m43 cams will have ND built-in and electronic shutter for high speed flash sync.
 

Latest threads

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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom