Listen to an experienced photographer parting with some great wisdom....

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Not that this forum need any help to enjoy the MFT format....it is still great see somebody using both formats talking about the merits of both..... I get so tired listening to the bigger is better wow factor crowd...

 
Last edited:

hoggdoc

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
247
Location
Longview, Washington USA
Real Name
Wayne
How many times have we heard the same kind of response from full frame shooters when they try MFT. To me it really boils down to the tye of shooting you really do. The cost and weight benefits outweigh the two advantages the full frame bodies bring to the table.

The depth of field argument falls short to me, and the low light performance advantages of full frame bodies only really shows itself if you are in really low light conditions. As the MFT bodies keep evolving and firmware gets better these full frame advantages become less and less relevant. IMHO.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,357
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
. . .
The depth of field argument falls short to me . . .

HA, let me reverse the common DoF argument, to our benefit.
I have a client that want opposite. They want LOTS of DoF. 3 feet to infinity is just fine.
This is the school yearbook. If there is a face in the pic, they want to SEE the face, not a blurr.
It is about seeing and remembering as many of their classmates as possible. Because, simple stats, most of the students will not be in any other pic other than their class portrait pics.
 

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
233
Location
Ireland
I was using a Sony A7 here in Ireland for quite some time, 99% for street or landscapes or streetscapes. I found in my Sony, that even with OIS, I would get blurry shots at 1/250 of a second on the street if I wasn't careful. Any decent landscape photo required a tripod.

With FF, landscapes are an F8-F16 affair and street photography is an F8 affair. This means you are forced to use higher ISO's on a full frame most of the time due to the soft light of Ireland, unless you have it on a tripod, or want to have a narrow DOF. Narrow DOF is for subjects, not scapes. Some folks say that is the price you pay - and I paid that price for decades. But, then I came to my senses.

On an MFT, all these limitations disappear. You can leave it at F4 for everything for good DOF and set the iso lower and shutter speed higher. You can pan for people if you need to and the camera actually ends up with something usable, unlike with an A7. You can hand hold it at f4 even at night without having to see stupid ISO numbers. Need a bit faster shutter speed? Go to F1.7 - f2.8, and you still have good DOF for street and some landscapes with cheap high quality lenses that won't weigh a ton. That blurry f8 1/250 photo is now a sharp f4 1/1000 photo. Or a sharp f2.8 1/1000 at half the ISO, but with the same DOF the FF has at f5.6, great for night shooting and some landscape stuff.

The camera is half the size and weight, and half the cost, or even less. And you can carry several F1.7 - F2.0 primes in your coat pockets without hardly noticing, or have a 24-80mm f2.8 FF equiv lens on the camera all day long without having to worry about accidentually hitting someone with it or needing a chiropractor's #. I mean, folks on the A7 forum replace their stock lens mount(at considerable cost in some cases) with ones that are more robust to take all the additional weight of fast glass. And if you think your MFT has shutter shock, you need to check out the complaints on the A7 forums. I thought I was losing my mind.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57028126

Some folks want to talk prints when it comes to MFT vs FF. I'll be the first to tell you a pro is going to want higher resolution. I sort of do, too. But, the good news is pros won't be buying your photos, and nor will I(sry). We have our own photos. In real life, it will be amateurs looking at your photos. And the bigger your print is, the further away these amateurs will be from it. Pixel peeping an A1 print is profoundly stupid unless you are making a bus stop billboard that requires people see the small print at 20 feet away for a bank advert. In a home, an appropriately placed A1 frame is not going to be viewed at arms length. You will have such a frame in a large room, and will be looking at it from a good distance. 16-20mp is more than enough. Amateurs will be far more impressed with the subject than the small print. If someone is noticing the resolution more than the subject, you may have chosen the wrong pic to print.
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,479
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I was using a Sony A7 here in Ireland for quite some time, 99% for street or landscapes or streetscapes. I found in my Sony, that even with OIS, I would get blurry shots at 1/250 of a second on the street if I wasn't careful. Any decent landscape photo required a tripod.

With FF, landscapes are an F8-F16 affair and street photography is an F8 affair. This means you are forced to use higher ISO's on a full frame most of the time due to the soft light of Ireland, unless you have it on a tripod, or want to have a narrow DOF. Narrow DOF is for subjects, not scapes. Some folks say that is the price you pay - and I paid that price for decades. But, then I came to my senses.

On an MFT, all these limitations disappear. You can leave it at F4 for everything for good DOF and set the iso lower and shutter speed higher. You can pan for people if you need to and the camera actually ends up with something usable, unlike with an A7. You can hand hold it at f4 even at night without having to see stupid ISO numbers. Need a bit faster shutter speed? Go to F1.7 - f2.8, and you still have good DOF for street and some landscapes with cheap high quality lenses that won't weigh a ton. That blurry f8 1/250 photo is now a sharp f4 1/1000 photo. Or a sharp f2.8 1/1000 at half the ISO, but with the same DOF the FF has at f5.6, great for night shooting and some landscape stuff.

The camera is half the size and weight, and half the cost, or even less. And you can carry several F1.7 - F2.0 primes in your coat pockets without hardly noticing, or have a 24-84mm f2.8 FF equiv lens on the camera all day long without having to worry about accidentually hitting someone with it or needing a chiropractor's #. I mean, folks on the A7 forum replace their stock lens mount(at considerable cost in some cases) with ones that are more robust to take all the additional weight of fast glass. And if you think your MFT has shutter shock, you need to check out the complaints on the A7 forums. I thought I was losing my mind.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57028126

Some folks want to talk prints when it comes to MFT vs FF. I'll be the first to tell you a pro is going to want higher resolution. I sort of do, too. But, the good news is pros won't be buying your photos, and nor will I(sry). We have our own photos. In real life, it will be amateurs looking at your photos. And the bigger your print is, the further away these amateurs will be from it. Pixel peeping an A1 print is profoundly stupid unless you are making a bus stop billboard that requires people see the small print at 20 feet away for a bank advert. In a home, an appropriately placed A1 frame is not going to be viewed at arms length. You will have such a frame in a large room, and will be looking at it from a good distance. 16-20mp is more than enough. Amateurs will be far more impressed with the subject than the small print. If someone is noticing the resolution more than the subject, you may have chosen the wrong pic to print.
All very true, but I'd go further and point out that even large prints won't badly show up m43. Printing is a fairly forgiving format and will level the field across sensor sizes. It's pixel peaking at 100% on large monitors that will reveal differences - but once you get into buying gear for this reason, you're already drowning.
 
Last edited:

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
233
Location
Ireland
All very true, but I'd go further and point out that even large prints won't badly show up m43. Printing is a fairly forgiving format and will level the field across sensor sizes. It's pixel peaking at 100% on large monitors that will reveal differences - but once you get into buying gear for this reason, you're already drowning.

I wonder how many FF owners even have an 8k or 6K monitor.
 

Shortsonfire79

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
212
Location
Bay Area, California
I mean, folks on the A7 forum replace their stock lens mount(at considerable cost in some cases) with ones that are more robust to take all the additional weight of fast glass.

Some folks want to talk prints when it comes to MFT vs FF. I'll be the first to tell you a pro is going to want higher resolution. I sort of do, too.

Agreed here. I have an a7ii and tried a 150-600mm lens and it was 4.5 lbs (2 kg) and about the size of my calf. Even when supporting under the tripod mount I was weary about the lens mount. Definitely not a lens to take backpacking. I plan to take the PL100-400 instead, sitting at 2.2 lb (<1 kg).

And agreed with prints too. Printed a friend's astro pic off his EM10ii at 24" x 18" and it looks great. Only if you get really close so your eyes go crosseyed can you see any bit of pixelation. And if you print on canvas the texture negates it all. I do wish I had great resolution so I could crop tighter with wildlife, though.
 
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