Crop factor or sensor size?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by knodel, Mar 3, 2013.

  1. knodel

    knodel New to Mu-43

    2
    Mar 3, 2013
    So... do you give priority to chances of carrying lighter lenses with a bigger crop factor (fourthirds 2x, nikon 1 2.7x, pentax q 5.6x) or you prefer the sensor size thinking in quality?
     
  2. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    It's all about balance. :) The sensor should be optimized for the best efficiency with the lenses used.
     
  3. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    :biggrin::tongue::biggrin: (Zuiko 300 ƒ2.8)




    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    lol. :D Not physical balance, but engineering and design...

    So yes, even large pro-grade lenses like the Zuiko 90-250mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, or 35-100mm f/2 I would consider a balance in optical engineering, as they were made for the best performance with the 4/3 sensor. Of course, even these lenses are physically light compared to what they could be on other systems. That could be a reason why the others don't do constant f/2 zooms like Olympus does.
     
  5. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Love to see a :43: version of these....
     
  6. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Me too. :D Not saying I'd jump up and buy one though... I'd like to see the option presented to us. I think the f/2.8 versions however, are certainly a lot more marketable, lol. It's cool that they got them at a constant f/2.8 within the price range of Zuiko HG glass like the 12-60mm and 50-200mm, and in such a small size... still with weather sealing. I'd love to see them add longer fast lenses (like a 150mm/2, 70-200mm/2.8, 300mm/2.8, etc.), but I can't really imagine a more reasonable option for the 12-100mm range than the Lumix X zooms. As great as the top-pro Zuikos were, the next level down (High Grade) were still the most popular for their value and balance of size, weight, and performance. I think the Lumix X lenses are a good match. Not as exotic as the top-pro, but more likely to be owned and used... and carried everywhere.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. arad85

    arad85 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Aug 16, 2012
    I don't print above A3 size. IMVHO, with a well exposed image and lower ISOs it is almost impossible to tell :43: from full frame at that print size (depth of field aside - but then we do have some ridiculously fast lenses). As you will see from my signature, I put my money where my mouth is and sold my full frame stuff some time ago.
     
  8. pictor

    pictor Mu-43 Top Veteran

    636
    Jul 17, 2010
    In my opinion, crop factor is the wrong concept, since µ4/3 sensors use the whole image circle of all native lenses. Although we have got used to interpret full format as 35mm format, which is only one meaning of full format, its general meaning is just that: the sensor uses the whole image circle of the native lenses. That's the reason, why full format is also used in medium format, where earlier sensors were smaller than the image circle, too.

    My reason for using µ4/3 is the reduction of size and weight. The newest sensors are perfectly fine. At base ISO they offer about the same image quality as the sensors of full frame DSLRs one generation before the current generation. They offer about the same image quality as the current APS-C sensors (apart from Fuji's sensors) at all ISO and are even better than some of the weaker APS-C sensors. Therefore, in my opinion µ4/3 offers the best compromise between size, weight and image quality (and, by the way, availability of excellent lenses).