ralf-11
Mu-43 All-Pro
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,771
Beware: Fill in Yer text ahead!
Recently there has been an increasing amount of discussion on the demise of micro four thirds and how it is inevitable, mostly because a phone is so much better. These discussions are about as old as the format and go back as far as I can remember being on this forum. However, what’s new is that there seem to be way more current micro four thirds shooters agreeing with this point of view. It seems to me, that the ongoing pressure of review channels and other full frame proponents has led to a change of opinion with many and I am utterly confused why certain sides of the argument for the system are ignored in favor of a single “we must have the very best image quality possible”. I am going to have an in depth look at the cameras/lenses I currently use and how I would replace them in different systems. I’m ignoring the FF systems of Canon/Nikon/Panasonic for the sake of making a better argument even if that is cheating.
Even though equivalency has been discussed to death on this forum, it needs to be mentioned here. The following I hold to be true:
FOV: With the crop factor the FOV changes accordingly. Although we may talk about a 25mm lens in mu43 or a xx in a phone we mean a 46.8° diagonal FOV. When we buy lenses the first thing we usually decide is the FOV we want. We articulate that in focal length millimetres but the FOV is what we mean. In this case a 300mm in FOV is the same as a ...
Aperture: The Aperture (f-value) tells us which exposure we are getting. It does not change with formats. If we need our shutter speed to be above a certain value (wildlife, sports) a faster aperture will provide that regardless of format.
Depth of Field (DoF): Depth of field changes with focal length and aperture. In micro four thirds we use shorter focal lengths for the same FoV. This impacts the DoF. A good rule of thumb is using “equivalent apertures”. This only affects DoF, not image quality. In different kinds of photography more or less DoF may be required, so the often thinner DoF of full frame sensors is a double edged sword.
Low light (high ISO) performance: Generally FF sensors are considered to be about 2 stops better while APS-C sensors are 1 stop better than mu43. This is not a strict rule though and the gap has been smaller or bigger depending on the tech available for different formats. Currently the very best FF sensors are slightly ahead of those two stops – slightly meaning (much) less than 1/3 stop. Despite what many people say about the progress of different formats the variance on this point has always been much lower than what people make out and advantages within a single format have been pretty slim in the last 5 years or even more.
Dynamic Range: Dynamic range tells us the variance of the brightest and darkest points in an image. It is measured in stops. The very best phone sensor currently has <some low value> but computational photography solves that.
Resolution: Resolution is not directly linked to sensor size, but small phone sensors generally allow for fewer pixels. but computational photography solves that too
How much worse is phone image quality really:
As can be seen from the above, phone image quality is worse in three aspects: Low light performance (ISO), Dynamic Range and Resolution. DoF control is a double edged sword. If you are constantly after more deep DoF a phone definitely has the edge, but good blurred backgrounds come as much from wise background choices and in many subjects more DoF is actually required. IF all you do is poston the internet a phone is just fine!
Low light performance can be overcome to a degree by faster lenses. It is likely more economical to buy a faster lens than a complete system swap as often you know exactly the scenarios where low light performance is important for you so a single fast lens may be all that’s needed. but computational photography solves that.
Dynamic range (more often than not 1 stop difference) and Resolution (often double, sometimes the same) are more difficult to assess. Dynamic range can be a problem even on current phone cameras so more is always better. Once again this is a question of analysing if you actually run into problems with this often.
but computational photography solves that.
People generally seem to have problems with the concept of “good enough”. Many (most?) people are not printing at all, and when they are they rarely go larger than 40-60cm which is a size that is absolutely fine with a 20mp sensor. Similarly many photos don’t actually have a huge dynamic range, especially in the area of portraits.
The question of AF
but computational photography solves that.
Video
Video is becoming more important or at least it seems so. Good quality (and I don’t mean image quality) videos are still a rarity on youtube, so I don’t quite get the hype and I still think that photos remain the more accessible medium. However, advances in video have been much more important than in photos in the last years so manufacturers market their video skills more and reviewers look at them more in depth.
Video AF:While Panasonics AF-C (without tracking) is competent the requirements for video AF are harder because the need of smooth focus transitions. Also tracking is much more important in Video.
Video IQ: Video IQ eliminates the question of resolution. 8K is not really a thing (yet) and 4k requires less Mp than everything on the market. Video IQ is therefore mostly a question of codecs and video crop factors. This is the reason that Panasonic has been leading in video IQ despite the smaller sensors, although low light IQ is becoming more important here and better AF systems now open up possibilities with larger sensors and smaller DoF.
phones are advancing on m43 here too
Diversion: Underwater photography
I am for this analysis excluding my underwater photography gear. A system change in underwater cameras can easily cost multiple thousand euros as equipment drops in value drastically basically the instant it touches water the first time. you can do this with a phone too
An actual comparison
All of these definite, but often marginal improvements come at a price. but you already have a phone
PS-C competitor and half the weight of the FF system.
The case for Apple?
it just works (usually)
The case for Samsung?
more advanced I guess
The case for WinPhone?
adds to your museum
Conclusion
m43 is getting squeezed - I'll sell you my m43 system for $99,000 incl. batteries
The original question – has everyone gone mad?
If I had made the same comparison 4 or 5 years ago the results would not have been roughly the same. But even then phones were taking over.
The FF argument
I have seen plenty of people arguing that FF is much better and that that is the reason why mu43 is not cutting it anymore. This, in my view is a completely stupid argument. If you think that your FF is so good enough as an interchangeable lens camera you’re not going to buy m43 either. Phone cameras are about convenience and FF cameras are just not convenient at all. People upgrade from their phones because they want better IQ and they don’t get that from better sensors, but from better and more importantly more varied lenses. Dare to pixel peep on your FF camera pictures, if you already complain about pixel peeing level details on mu43 then you are using the wrong orifice.
TL-DR:
Yes, everyone’s gone mad. Phones have changed, but somehow mu43 is suddenly not good enough anymore as a general photographic device.
Or maybe m3/4 will take off
Or maybe only phones and medium format will be left.
Anyway, who cares? Manfs. care of course, but who else?
Recently there has been an increasing amount of discussion on the demise of micro four thirds and how it is inevitable, mostly because a phone is so much better. These discussions are about as old as the format and go back as far as I can remember being on this forum. However, what’s new is that there seem to be way more current micro four thirds shooters agreeing with this point of view. It seems to me, that the ongoing pressure of review channels and other full frame proponents has led to a change of opinion with many and I am utterly confused why certain sides of the argument for the system are ignored in favor of a single “we must have the very best image quality possible”. I am going to have an in depth look at the cameras/lenses I currently use and how I would replace them in different systems. I’m ignoring the FF systems of Canon/Nikon/Panasonic for the sake of making a better argument even if that is cheating.
Even though equivalency has been discussed to death on this forum, it needs to be mentioned here. The following I hold to be true:
FOV: With the crop factor the FOV changes accordingly. Although we may talk about a 25mm lens in mu43 or a xx in a phone we mean a 46.8° diagonal FOV. When we buy lenses the first thing we usually decide is the FOV we want. We articulate that in focal length millimetres but the FOV is what we mean. In this case a 300mm in FOV is the same as a ...
Aperture: The Aperture (f-value) tells us which exposure we are getting. It does not change with formats. If we need our shutter speed to be above a certain value (wildlife, sports) a faster aperture will provide that regardless of format.
Depth of Field (DoF): Depth of field changes with focal length and aperture. In micro four thirds we use shorter focal lengths for the same FoV. This impacts the DoF. A good rule of thumb is using “equivalent apertures”. This only affects DoF, not image quality. In different kinds of photography more or less DoF may be required, so the often thinner DoF of full frame sensors is a double edged sword.
Low light (high ISO) performance: Generally FF sensors are considered to be about 2 stops better while APS-C sensors are 1 stop better than mu43. This is not a strict rule though and the gap has been smaller or bigger depending on the tech available for different formats. Currently the very best FF sensors are slightly ahead of those two stops – slightly meaning (much) less than 1/3 stop. Despite what many people say about the progress of different formats the variance on this point has always been much lower than what people make out and advantages within a single format have been pretty slim in the last 5 years or even more.
Dynamic Range: Dynamic range tells us the variance of the brightest and darkest points in an image. It is measured in stops. The very best phone sensor currently has <some low value> but computational photography solves that.
Resolution: Resolution is not directly linked to sensor size, but small phone sensors generally allow for fewer pixels. but computational photography solves that too
How much worse is phone image quality really:
As can be seen from the above, phone image quality is worse in three aspects: Low light performance (ISO), Dynamic Range and Resolution. DoF control is a double edged sword. If you are constantly after more deep DoF a phone definitely has the edge, but good blurred backgrounds come as much from wise background choices and in many subjects more DoF is actually required. IF all you do is poston the internet a phone is just fine!
Low light performance can be overcome to a degree by faster lenses. It is likely more economical to buy a faster lens than a complete system swap as often you know exactly the scenarios where low light performance is important for you so a single fast lens may be all that’s needed. but computational photography solves that.
Dynamic range (more often than not 1 stop difference) and Resolution (often double, sometimes the same) are more difficult to assess. Dynamic range can be a problem even on current phone cameras so more is always better. Once again this is a question of analysing if you actually run into problems with this often.
but computational photography solves that.
People generally seem to have problems with the concept of “good enough”. Many (most?) people are not printing at all, and when they are they rarely go larger than 40-60cm which is a size that is absolutely fine with a 20mp sensor. Similarly many photos don’t actually have a huge dynamic range, especially in the area of portraits.
The question of AF
but computational photography solves that.
Video
Video is becoming more important or at least it seems so. Good quality (and I don’t mean image quality) videos are still a rarity on youtube, so I don’t quite get the hype and I still think that photos remain the more accessible medium. However, advances in video have been much more important than in photos in the last years so manufacturers market their video skills more and reviewers look at them more in depth.
Video AF:While Panasonics AF-C (without tracking) is competent the requirements for video AF are harder because the need of smooth focus transitions. Also tracking is much more important in Video.
Video IQ: Video IQ eliminates the question of resolution. 8K is not really a thing (yet) and 4k requires less Mp than everything on the market. Video IQ is therefore mostly a question of codecs and video crop factors. This is the reason that Panasonic has been leading in video IQ despite the smaller sensors, although low light IQ is becoming more important here and better AF systems now open up possibilities with larger sensors and smaller DoF.
phones are advancing on m43 here too
Diversion: Underwater photography
I am for this analysis excluding my underwater photography gear. A system change in underwater cameras can easily cost multiple thousand euros as equipment drops in value drastically basically the instant it touches water the first time. you can do this with a phone too
An actual comparison
All of these definite, but often marginal improvements come at a price. but you already have a phone
PS-C competitor and half the weight of the FF system.
The case for Apple?
it just works (usually)
The case for Samsung?
more advanced I guess
The case for WinPhone?
adds to your museum
Conclusion
m43 is getting squeezed - I'll sell you my m43 system for $99,000 incl. batteries
The original question – has everyone gone mad?
If I had made the same comparison 4 or 5 years ago the results would not have been roughly the same. But even then phones were taking over.
The FF argument
I have seen plenty of people arguing that FF is much better and that that is the reason why mu43 is not cutting it anymore. This, in my view is a completely stupid argument. If you think that your FF is so good enough as an interchangeable lens camera you’re not going to buy m43 either. Phone cameras are about convenience and FF cameras are just not convenient at all. People upgrade from their phones because they want better IQ and they don’t get that from better sensors, but from better and more importantly more varied lenses. Dare to pixel peep on your FF camera pictures, if you already complain about pixel peeing level details on mu43 then you are using the wrong orifice.
TL-DR:
Yes, everyone’s gone mad. Phones have changed, but somehow mu43 is suddenly not good enough anymore as a general photographic device.
Or maybe m3/4 will take off
Or maybe only phones and medium format will be left.
Anyway, who cares? Manfs. care of course, but who else?
