Has everyone gone mad?

[Mike Wingate]

Full frame is tempting, but...none are perfect and such big lenses. iPhone 12 pro with 3 lenses is out soon, everyone except android uses will rate it highly. Plus it has computational whatevers.

 

[demiro]

To each their own... but I tried that and didn’t like it. I enjoy shootIng many different genres. If I use one system for certain genres and the other system for other genres, very quickly I am going to be in situations where I need both, and either have to pick one or take a heavier, redundant pack. This leads me to fleshing out both systems to avoid that dilemma, which is a waste, IMO.

I also subscribe to the idea that mastering one system will get the most out of it. It makes a difference in quickly getting a shot with less likelihood of making mistakes.

I think that's a great example of understanding your needs and preferences. I'm definitely not saying that a split kit is the best approach for everyone.

 

[Mike Peters]

Of course the title was provocatively worded. I was trying to see what kind of arguments would be put forward in favour of FF that go beyond "but it's two stops better" without disregarding all the cost and size disadvantages. As I wrote in an earlier post, thinking that everyone that went FF is stupid would be a very depressing thought.

These are the things I learned so far:
- Prime shooters don't benefit as much from the smaller size of mu43. While the f1.8 primes are small the FF primes are not that huge.
- Some people do not care at all about telephoto beyond perhaps an 85mm prime. For me this is unimaginable but I people have different styles.
- Tamron 2.8 zooms exist. While they are certainly larger than many mu43 lenses they are small enough that they can be considered compact.

I wrote my whole post with amateur photographers in mind. Most people buying cameras are not professionals. Obviously people whose main income comes from Photography have to stay ahead of the pack in terms of image quality despite the costs.

Not all pros are on the constant upgrade train. Or, at least I'm not. And truth be told, it's the non-pro advanced amateurs that I know who all have far better and much more expensive gear than any of the pros that I hang out with. Most high end advertising pros rent when they need it. However working stiffs like me, well we just don't make as much money as a dentist, or either a tech or financial wizard.

I like and will continue to use m4/3 because it's a very rational format. It's light enough to carry all day with focal lengths ranging from ff eq 20-400 mm, along with two fast primes, a 42.5 and 75 to go with my fast 10-25. I can have ultimate flexibility with the zooms, and enough light gathering ability to work inside or in poorly lit situations. The image quality is more than sufficient for my needs, and the needs of my clients. And it's an affordable system. I've been using m4/3 gear exclusively since 2013 to make my living, and it hasn't let me down yet.

There is no full frame equivalent to the zooms that I carry that are not stupid heavy, and large. Unless of course they are two stops slower, which of course nullifies the fact that ff sensors are two stops better. Only with primes can you take advantage of the better sensor, but have you compared the 42.5 Nocticron size and weight to any ff 85 1.2 or 1.4 lens? Also, at 1.2 I get thin enough dof that is rational, compared to the dof that you get out of an actual 85 1.2, which is almost unusable under most circumstances, to the point where it becomes a gimmick rather than a useful aperture.

My only hope is that m4/3 continues to exist.

 

[PakkyT]

My drift towards FF came when I decided to take my architecture photography a step forward. I wanted to us shift lenses. The only viable shift lenses on the used and new market are in 135 format.

I have mentioned that here in the past. Besides Lensbaby stuff or adapting old film lenses, no one has made a proper shift lens for m43 and I think there would be enough interest that Olympus might have gained a customer or two by doing a shift lens for m43. They had one back in the OM days, so they knew how to do it. I know speciality lenses are just that and don't result in significant sales for a camera or lens company, but it would have added something to their catalog that would have made the m43 system maybe something to consider for some people who may have passed it over.

With the new company, there probably is no way it will happen now.

 

[Hypilein]

Native specialty lenses for FF are still a long way off. Sony might be the first. They still don't even have an OEM Fisheye. Micro four thirds has two different ones (the Oly lens being an absolute stunner).

 

[shreebles]

Great thread, perfect summary of how most hobby and enthusiast photographers should approach the full frame argument.

That said, maybe you can update the Fujifilm side with the new XS-10 camera announced today. I'm not considering switching but if I were, that would be the camera to get. Small, light, good grip, IBIS, USB-C charging. PASM dial, twin custom control dials == Olympus layout!
No weather sealing...

Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-S10: Small camera, great grip: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 

[Hypilein]

Just saw a first impressions video. No weather sealing on the Fuji, but then many slower zoom lenses also don't have WR so it definitely wouldn't matter with the lenses I chose for this comparison.

I don't get why they have so few lenses with WR but some of the slower primes have it. Makes no sense to me.

 

[NCV]

Native specialty lenses for FF are still a long way off. Sony might be the first. They still don't even have an OEM Fisheye. Micro four thirds has two different ones (the Oly lens being an absolute stunner).

Shift and Tilt/Shift have been available in Nikon F mount and Canon mounts for many years. With the FTZ adaptor they work seamlessly with my Z7 too. Nikon introduced their first PC-Nikkor lens back in 1962. Olympus OM had one too. So to say they are a long way off is not true, quite the opposite.

I am not sure which mounts Samyang does for their 24TS, but I believe they do a Sony mount.

Using the FTZ adaptor does not penalise in any way these lenses as they were uncoupled mechanical lenses anyway.

I have a Nikon 16mm fisheye that works perfectly on my Nikon FF D810. That too is a superb lens. The F mount cameras and lenses are still in production BTW.

I would say that speciality lenses are far more present in the 135 format compared to M43. One of the big plusses about the Z7 with the FTZ adaptor is that I can use a hurge array of Nikon Ai glass with the intended field of view. My Nikkor 180 2.8 and 300 2.8 have been able to come out of retirement and have gained IBIS stabilization.

 

[NCV]

I have mentioned that here in the past. Besides Lensbaby stuff or adapting old film lenses, no one has made a proper shift lens for m43 and I think there would be enough interest that Olympus might have gained a customer or two by doing a shift lens for m43. They had one back in the OM days, so they knew how to do it. I know speciality lenses are just that and don't result in significant sales for a camera or lens company, but it would have added something to their catalog that would have made the m43 system maybe something to consider for some people who may have passed it over.

With the new company, there probably is no way it will happen now.

A 14mm shift lens in M43 mount coupled with the very good IBIS in Olympus cameras would have been brilliant for my hand held photography in dark old Italian monuments.

 

[Aristophanes]

Native specialty lenses for FF are still a long way off. Sony might be the first. They still don't even have an OEM Fisheye. Micro four thirds has two different ones (the Oly lens being an absolute stunner).

Canon RF may get a TS in 2021. Architecture and product photography.

FE is primarily a hobbyist item. That’s why third party brands make a play for them. Gone are the days when a clever magazine cover was FE. Gone are most magazines, and where necessary anyway, Photoshop can get you there.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Fine , all move to Fuji. I have 2 friends with Fuji cameras. All they complain about is the lack of IBIS and the cost of lenses. Small, robust, always behind the curve with software, not directly Photoshop compatible without another bit of software. Every owner has complaints.

 

[Macroramphosis]

The more I use m4/3, the more I appreciate the size and the value. One example would be my wife's G6 (£150 from eBay), attached to a P45-175mm (£150 from eBay again) makes for a very light but efficient 350mm equivalent outfit that I can carry in a simple soft camera skin, or in a small shoulder bag with other EDC items. There is no way whatsoever you can do that with FF, and the images I get out of the gear are more than sufficient for my needs. This is the one side of m4/3 which shines compared against other systems - those medium to long telephoto set-ups where you're not printing huge or trying to make front covers.

The other side that m4/3 is good at is macro in the field, where the DOF is a huge advantage if you want to use it. Stills taken from 4K and 6K bursts are also popular with some people. It's decent macro on the cheap, and again it suits a lot of people's budgets and purposes. Both of these aspects will keep me in m4/3 for the foreseeable future, even though I admit I'd be happy enough to pick up a FF outfit for landscapes if I felt it would help. Bang for buck there is little to compete with the system for the enthusiast, IMO. Sure, spend more money for those FF advantages outlined earlier in the thread, but it amazes me that m4/3 should be dying, it has so much going for it.

 

[Aristophanes]

The more I use m4/3, the more I appreciate the size and the value. One example would be my wife's G6 (£150 from eBay), attached to a P45-175mm (£150 from eBay again) make for a very light but efficient 350mm equivalent outfit that I can carry in a simple soft camera skin, or in a small shoulder bag with other EDC items. There is no way whatsoever you can do that with FF, and the images I get out of the gear are more than sufficient for my needs. This is the one side of m4/3 which shines compared against other systems - those medium to long telephoto set-ups where you're not printing huge or trying to make front covers.

The other side that m4/3 is good at is macro in the field, where the DOF is a huge advantage if you want to use it. Stills taken from 4K and 6K bursts are also popular with some people. It's decent macro on the cheap, and again it suits a lot of people's budgets and purposes. Both of these aspects will keep me in m4/3 for the foreseeable future, even though I admit I'd be happy enough to pick up a FF outfit for landscapes if I felt it would help. Bang for buck there is little to compete with the system for the enthusiast, IMO. Sure, spend more money for those FF advantages outlined earlier in the thread, but it amazes me that m4/3 should be dying, it has so much going for it.

Telephoto and macro and tilt-shift and fish-eye are tiny, tiny parts of the photography spectrum and market. They don’t “make” a system, at least not an economically viable one. Prosumer or enthusiast or hobbyist photography is still overwhelmingly vernacular in the normal photo lengths for just above average (i.e. smartphone) photography.

Given the massive market share conceded to smartphones and their dominance of the vernacular market, the title of this thread should be “Has everyone gone...?”

 

[amit]

Great thread, perfect summary of how most hobby and enthusiast photographers should approach the full frame argument.

That said, maybe you can update the Fujifilm side with the new XS-10 camera announced today. I'm not considering switching but if I were, that would be the camera to get. Small, light, good grip, IBIS, USB-C charging. PASM dial, twin custom control dials == Olympus layout!
No weather sealing...

Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-S10: Small camera, great grip: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Looks nice , the problem with fuji is the lenses.
Only the 16-55 f2.8 can compete with oly 12-40 and it is huge.
F2 primes are very close to f1.7-1.8 m43 primes but double the price.
F1.4-1.2 fuji lenses are more expansive and heavy.

At least they get ibis as a standard now .

 

[Macroramphosis]

Telephoto and macro and tilt-shift and fish-eye are tiny, tiny parts of the photography spectrum and market. They don’t “make” a system, at least not an economically viable one.

I didn't say they did. You're reading far too much into my personal view of why I like m4/3 and will stay in it.

Given the massive market share conceded to smartphones and their dominance of the vernacular market, the title of this thread should be “Has everyone gone...?”

If you have any stats about the concession of the market share I'd love to see them - I think the number of photographers who have totally given up 'real' cameras in favour of just a smartphone is not as large as you think.

 

[Hypilein]

FE is primarily a hobbyist item.

You don't know any underwater photographers. It is a niche item the same way that TS lenses are. Professionally needed by a (very) small subset of photographers. Underwater photographers even use fisheye zoom lenses.

 

[exakta]

But even if the brand does fail, I will still use my Olympus gear for years to come. It would be a long time before I‘d look to switch systems, and by then some of the other current brands might be long gone too.

I'm the poster child for buying into failed systems

-- Bought an Exakta VX1000, the final true Exakta to be made (after that they were Cosinas with Exakta mounts), 2 years before Ihagee went under.

-- Bought a Pen F and Pen FT. Enough said there

-- Bought an OM-1 and continued using it long after Olympus had abandoned it.

Now proudly going down with the ship one more time!!

 

[pake]

They say the same in the sony forum, but I think the oposite.
This camera is not for Pros , they can argue about a7iii , riii or 9 .
For someone who looks for an upgrade or even his first real camera- a small FF could be tempting.
It will fight over the crowd of a6xx , fuji xt30 ,canon m and so...
No front dial is a downgrade, but I think you can rotate the arrow dial as well. For non pro -family use -it could work.
The evf is not so different then the em10.

Anyway,the hard part is to make it so small, they can come with an a7c2 with front dial and larger evf later.

Then why compare it to the E-M5III then? Then the more appropriate comparison would between the E-M10IV or even GX800. And then the price and size differences are huge again.

Also the a7c shoots 10 fps. G9 does twice as many and E-M5III three(!!!) times. If that's not comparing apples to oranges I don't know what is.

 

[amit]

Then why compare it to the E-M5III then? Then the more appropriate comparison would between the E-M10IV or even GX800. And then the price and size differences are huge again.

Also the a7c shoots 10 fps. G9 does twice as many and E-M5III three(!!!) times. If that's not comparing apples to oranges I don't know what is.

All true , and also , em5iii ibis is way better ,olympus colors are better , lenses are cheaper ,telephoto and macro options are wider, pro capture ,HR , WR,stacking ,bracketing and many more .
But some users will trade all these goods for big sensor in a small body.
That is why I think Sony made a very smart move.

 

[John King]

All true , and also , em5iii ibis is way better ,olympus colors are better , lenses are cheaper ,telephoto and macro options are wider, pro capture ,HR , WR,stacking ,bracketing and many more .
But some users will trade all these goods for big sensor in a small body.
That is why I think Sony made a very smart move.

Sorry, but your reasoning doesn't make any kind of sense.