FF vs m43? DSLR vs Mirrorless?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Reflector, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    I don't really understand why there are so many topics on this subject (Especially on other forums) where people need to compare sensor sizes and photographic systems as if their livelihood, honor and pride depended on it.

    I switched over to m43 "officially" (for myself) when I bought my OMD to replace my D200 (Which I still own as well as a GX1 that was a gift) as it suffers from the autofocus drive screw spring weakening and no longer positively engaging with lenses (I must be one of those weird people who keeps photography equipment around forever until the resale value plummets into oblivion I guess). I plan on speedboosting my lenses anyways so I don't see the FOV/"DOF isolation" problem.

    Otherwise I don't see anything about the supposed noise disadvantages or other things associated with the small sensor size. If anything, I know that if I post this on a less welcoming forum I would probably have my arms ripped off, BBQed then used to club me like a baby seal if I were to bring this up on other forums. From my own research I still don't see the supposed magical noise that is supposed to eat my images alive then part of my soul because the sensor is smaller (I sure see that kind of soul consuming, detail annihilating noise when the D200 is set at ISO 3200 or pushed beyond that). I also don't see the problem with the dynamic range either.

    To me, "full frame" is my FM2n and I didn't see any magicialness from it besides the viewfinder view being amazingly stunning. That and it is my other fun camera. The OMD being my primary fun camera and the D200 being the thing that tortures me when the lighting isn't anything but immolatingly bright.

    Now I find I can bring the OMD along with me all the time; what used to be "keep the DSLR in a secure location" becomes "people don't even know what it is, except it possibly is an old film SLR."

    Oddly I see no weird medium format vs "full frame" debates on the internet. I was able to handle a Contax 645 and the viewfinder blew me away. Nor do I see anything about how large format "mirrorless" cameras with their massive pieces of ground glass will utterly obsolete DSLRs from the very existence of the face of this planet with extreme prejudice. Kind of strange that I keep seeing this weird trend of "FF will destroy mirrorless" followed by "NEX-FF mirrorless will destroy everything left after that and FF DSLRs." Still nothing on the large format mirrorless cameras annihilating all photographic systems still. It is kind of weird how that works.

    Maybe I read too many forum posts when I was research m43s as a system for my OMD purchase. They left me an impression that photographers were too busy shooting pictures of test charts under weird lighting conditions and then measuring differences that were in statistical margins of error then debating about those numbers and DXO's number then bashing m43s for having postage stamp sized sensors instead of stepping away from the computer to take photos. (That or they're too busy taking poorly composed lousy shots, somehow mismetered shots with matrix metering while citing a notoious, pagebombing, Nikon D40 zealot-cultist inspiring person (which I shall not mention as he earns revenue when people open his site up without blocking the ads on his pages) to justify themselves)

    Not that any of what I said keeps me from aspiring to buy a used D3s for myself in the future (Maybe I am one of those crazy people who use multiple systems for their purposes... Or something like that. That or I am apparently very out of touch with the trends in online photography discussions).

    Curious on everyone's thoughts on this subject matter.
  2. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    I sold my Canon 40D and lenses when I realized that :43: would be just as effective for the type of photography that I prefer. It has limitations for some types of photography - so others may keep multiple systems and that works for them. :43: has enabled me to afford high quality primes that I could not afford with Canon and to carry two very capable bodies at the same time. My resources are somewhat limited, and I am ten years or so from retiring - this may well be my last system. I plan to stick with :43:. Bottom line - it works for me.
  3. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Medium format is too expensive for most folks. FF has come down to $2000 which is getting closer to the top of mu43 range. Comparison is inevitable because people have to makes decisions about which one to buy and we are spoiled for choice. Aside from that, this is an internet forum and that's what we do best.
  4. ^^ this is all that matters.

    What is it going to take for someone to bring their camera more often and shoot more? Well... its going to be different for each shooter which is why discussions about which is superior is a never-ending-beating-the-dead-horse-flame-enducing mess.

    All sorts of formats bring to the table certain advantages and disadvantages. I personally see the value (and enjoy) a FF camera but it doesn't mean that I appreciate what the MFT system (mine is OMD and E-PL1) have to offer. Prior to digital, I shot 645 and 67 medium format... and I do miss what they did for me.
  5. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    So you though no one would notice one more inane, mumbling while staring into my belly button thread on this topic, did you? I guess contributing one more dreary post to an existing pointless thread wasn't good enough for you.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.