M43 and the siren call of FF

[Dave in Wales]

Our major use is wildflower and insect closeups. The high pixel density of our m43 cameras with 16Mpixel sensors make them much better choices than any current FF camera. Small subjects are represented by more pixels at the same optical magnification.

Our other important use is wildlife photography where we often shoot hand held photos at 600mm eq. focal length. A ~2 lb. m43 camera plus lens setup is way better than an FF body with a 3+ or 4+ lb. lens.

Replacing our m43 gear with FF gear would be very stupid.

Some weights I took a while ago.

E-M1+12-40=2lb 10oz.....

Nikon D750+24-85=2lb 14oz.

Neither camera had a grip...!

E-M1 had battery+card+hood....D750 had just a battery, no cards, no hood.

There's interesting View attachment 467379

 

[wjiang]

Some weights I took a while ago.

E-M1+12-40=2lb 10oz.....

Nikon D750+24-85=2lb 14oz.

Neither camera had a grip...!

E-M1 had battery+card+hood....D750 had just a battery, no cards, no hood.

There's interesting

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Not that again...

You're comparing a fast, constant aperture, weather resistant lens with impressive optical performance (except at extreme telephoto):
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40 mm f/2.8 ED PRO review - Summary - LensTip.com

with a slow, variable aperture, non-weather resistant lens, with VERY average optical quality on FX:
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR review - Summary - LensTip.com

At that point you might as well stick a 12-32 / 14-42 EZ / 14-42 PZ on the E-M1 and make the comparison...

 

[tkbslc]

Not that again...

You're comparing a fast, constant aperture, weather resistant lens with impressive optical performance (except at extreme telephoto):
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40 mm f/2.8 ED PRO review - Summary - LensTip.com

with a slow, variable aperture, non-weather resistant lens, with VERY average optical quality on FX:
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR review - Summary - LensTip.com

At that point you might as well stick a 12-32 / 14-42 EZ / 14-42 PZ on the E-M1 and make the comparison...

That's like saying my f2.0 cell phone beats m4/3 with a 17mm f2.8 because the 17mm is mediocre and slow. With a much larger sensor, you don't need the same lens quality or as fast an aperture.

 

[Turbofrog]

That's like saying my f2.0 cell phone beats m4/3 with a 17mm f2.8 because the 17mm is mediocre and slow. With a much larger sensor, you don't need the same lens quality or as fast an aperture.

Well does the 24-85mm resolve significantly more detail on a D750 than the 12-40/2.8 does on an E-M1? I sort of doubt it. Certainly the O12-40 outperforms the Canon 17-40L (different FL ranges, but an example that happened to be tested in real life).

I think the weather-sealing and higher build quality has more to do with the weight than the optical performance. Unless you're looking for shallow depth of field, the 12-32 or 14-42 II may well perform up to the same standard as the 24-85.

(And to be honest, I would be willing to say that my LG G4 shooting DNG may well be competitive with a 17/2.8 in terms of fine detail...)

 

[wjiang]

That's like saying my f2.0 cell phone beats m4/3 with a 17mm f2.8 because the 17mm is mediocre and slow. With a much larger sensor, you don't need the same lens quality or as fast an aperture.

Sure, but it's not a much larger sensor, only 2x. You've got the quantitative comparisons there. I'm halving the LP/mm for m4/3 to compare as we obviously should, and baring in mind the usual aperture/ISO equivalence issues. On top of that though, look at the C/A and distortion %. Then consider constant aperture, close focus, and weather resistance.

As for the phone - exactly how good is that f/2 lens and how big is that sensor? If the sensor is about 2/3 m4/3 size, and that f/2 lens is damned good wide open, and you can get RAWs, then I'm pretty sure it can beat m4/3 with the 17mm f/2.8 (except the obvious high ISO noise limitations of course).

 

[oldracer]

Some weights I took a while ago. ...

Maybe interesting but also irrelevant to the fact that FF devices are inherently larger and heavier than M43 devices of equivalent construction.

It cannot be otherwise. Larger sensor requires larger body. Larger shutter, larger lens flange, ... And if truly reflex (not mirrorless) there is the size and component increase implied by the mirror. On the lens front, same thing. To cover the larger sensor takes a bigger lens. If reflex, the distance from the lens flange to the sensor constrains FF lens design, making some designs larger and heavier than they would have to be in a non-reflex body. So, given the same materials (plastic, magnesium, titanium, brass, etc., whatever you like.) the larger FF devices as a category have to weigh more. Examples where a FF device is lighter weight than an apparently-equivalent M43 device are highly likely to be apples-to-oranges.

 

[AlanU]

The D750 is one of Nikon's beast for high ISO with 24 mega"pickles". The only drawback I see in that camera is 1/4000 max shutter speed. Otherwise that camera is a killer dslr. The 24-85 consumer lens is not utilizing the type of IQ a D750 can produce. Glass makes or break any camera system. For m43 I feel the top teir zooms are great and higher end primes to maximize IQ. Using a dirt cheap 50mm nikon prime on a D750 would produce fantastic IQ very noticeable pixel peeping.

I've owned a Canon 17-40L and with my 5dmk2 and 5dmk3 that lens would destroy the IQ of my em-5 and GH3 with Panny 12-35 zoom. IIRC subjectively speaking the Panny 12-35 is almost on par with an Oly 12-40mm. As I've stepped up my lens to a 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 and also a 16-35L f/4IS the micro contrast is in a totally different league as a M43 zoom with 16 mpx sensor. And as we have well observed there's no big change in the new 20mpx M43 sensors or the old 16mpx.

Even off topic my Fuji X-T10 16mpx camera with 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 kit lens produces extremely pleasing family portraiture and other slow moving subjects. The micro contrast/sharpness surpasses my M43 gear w/ panny 12-35mm "pro" lens...TBH I'm still in shock in quality of the files. The quality gravitates to FF territory not in resolution or ultra thin dof but the lush richness with the fuji body and high quality glass. My M43 gear has ventured easily in the typical crop sensor world of IQ but not equivalent to the affordable fuji line. I own 3 systems for a reason.

I use my iphone 6+ alot at work for documentation purposes. That "OK" picture taking device LOL!!! It actually does a decent job as I use the "Pro Camera" app. To compare a smart phone to a real camera is simply silly However my Note 4 smartphone has very good Macro so it's nice too except the widely known issues of defective camera modules in that phone.

 

[Turbofrog]

The D750 is one of Nikon's beast for high ISO with 24 mega"pickles". The only drawback I see in that camera is 1/4000 max shutter speed. Otherwise that camera is a killer dslr. The 24-85 consumer lens is not utilizing the type of IQ a D750 can produce. Glass makes or break any camera system. For m43 I feel the top teir zooms are great and higher end primes to maximize IQ. Using a dirt cheap 50mm nikon prime on a D750 would produce fantastic IQ very noticeable pixel peeping.

I've owned a Canon 17-40L and with my 5dmk2 and 5dmk3 that lens would destroy the IQ of my em-5 and GH3 with Panny 12-35 zoom. IIRC subjectively speaking the Panny 12-35 is almost on par with an Oly 12-40mm. As I've stepped up my lens to a 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 and also a 16-35L f/4IS the micro contrast is in a totally different league as a M43 zoom with 16 mpx sensor. And as we have well observed there's no big change in the new 20mpx M43 sensors or the old 16mpx.

Even off topic my Fuji X-T10 16mpx camera with 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 kit lens produces extremely pleasing family portraiture and other slow moving subjects. The micro contrast/sharpness surpasses my M43 gear w/ panny 12-35mm "pro" lens...TBH I'm still in shock in quality of the files. The quality gravitates to FF territory not in resolution or ultra thin dof but the lush richness with the fuji body and high quality glass. My M43 gear has ventured easily in the typical crop sensor world of IQ but not equivalent to the affordable fuji line. I own 3 systems for a reason.

I use my iphone 6+ alot at work for documentation purposes. That "OK" picture taking device LOL!!! It actually does a decent job as I use the "Pro Camera" app. To compare a smart phone to a real camera is simply silly However my Note 4 smartphone has very good Macro so it's nice too except the widely known issues of defective camera modules in that phone.

AlanU, I think you may have got a bad copy of your 12-35/2.8. If it's your high quality reference lens, your experiences are quite different from those recorded elsewhere, so I am beginning to think it may be a big part of the foundation of your assumptions.

In the link I posted above, it's clear that it is in fact the Olympus 12-40/2.8 that "destroys the IQ" of the 17-40L on a Canon 6D, not the other way around.

 

[AlanU]

TFrog,

I'm being realistic. I bought my 12-35 brand new and from day one I was amazed how it drastically it improved my M43 IQ for a "zoom". From run/gun video to stills the Panny lens is absolutely fantastic. The 14-45 panny lens I bought for my 6&9yrs old to beat around with my E-m5 (now sold) and Gh3 is a pretty decent zoom but clearly not in the same IQ category of my 12-35mm.

I used my 17-40L for many years with my 5dmk2 and 1dmk3. The IQ truly surpassed my M43 gear but in a heavier package. The 16-35 f/4Is UWA is mind blowing!! I typically do not comment on gear I've never owned or used.

 

[rapier84]

The siren call of FF will always be there, sometime I wonder how much more can a FF camera give me. And I now have my answer

For MFT, I have a GH4 with a 12-35 and 35-100 kit. While it s brilliant for most circumstances and print perfectly well up to A3, the few times I need iso 3200 and up it was... unpleasant. Not horrible, just needed some more work. That said, iso 1600 and below is perfectly fine and it produces great punchy images. And the design and handling of the GH4 is top class, with clearly defined buttons for all important functions and two dials.

I have recently acquired a 5DII, 28-70 L and a 17-40L. Not exactly cutting edge but good enough. What I found, other than better high ISO performance is... nothing much. Maybe a bit more headroom for recovering highlights and shadows, but the GH4's metering is dead on most of the time anyway. Probably a little sharper images with lower contrast that requires more work to handle. Depth of field is much thinner at F2.8 on the 5D for sure, but I do question whether I need that thin DOF.

Whats really surprising, or unsurprising, is that a FF DSLR changes my shooting style. Its become more deliberate and thoughtful, probably something to do with the weight and the OVF of a DSLR. A mirrorless FF like A7 might be closer to MFT in street shooting, but I dread the thought of lugging a huge G-Master lens to get top quality images.

MFT suits me 90% of the time. The compact size, weight, quality of images and great handling makes it my top choice for travel and street photography. I'm having a hard time justifying to bring my Canon kit for an upcoming trip. But for the 10% of the time when I need maximum quality, FF still has the lead just by having a large (4X larger surface area) sensor. Now, if only Canon can put IS into the 24-70mm Mk II...

 

[NCV]

my view on MFT versus FF glass:
Primes or Zooms?

Son had the original Canon 5D with 17-40 L and 70-200L. First he changed the 70-200L for the 70-300, then he stopped taking the 70-300 with him, next he stopped carrying the camera altogether. Sold off the Canon gear and from the proceeds bought the Panasonic GM5 twin lens kit. His interest totally revitalised and is not missing the Canon at all. It is all academic: who is still printing photo's and especially larger than A3 (where 8Mpx are still sufficient)? MFT meets his requirements, what are your requirements that you need full frame for?

I also found the same thing when I changed from Nikon to M43. I found I carried the camera more.

Also as I said in my OP M43 is more than adequate for most tasks like ePubs, Blurb books and prints up to A3.

 

[brettmaxwell]

Some weights I took a while ago.

E-M1+12-40=2lb 10oz.....

According to B&H and camerasize.com the EM1+12-40 combo should be under 2lb, about 900g. The D750 combo weight seems about right. You sure you got that EM1 kit weight right?

Anyway, I have that Nikon combo, the 24-85 is no slouch, and of course the D750 sensor has advantages.

 

[mcumeda]

I have a full frame DSLR, but I love my m4/3 stuff. I use it probably 95% of the time. I think it is easy to always chase ultimate image quality, but I think m4/3 strikes the right balance for me in terms of size, image quality, and being fun to use. I understand the appeal to always go bigger/better, but everything is a trade off. I always think for a second about getting a Sony A7 series, but then I think about the weight of it all. I love that I can take my E-M1 with a 12-40mm, 35-100mm, and my 25 1.4 and feel like I can have everything covered. If the lenses are going to be big and bulky, I would rather carry a DSLR around. The bodies don't make a huge difference, but I do love a good EVF. I find it hard to shoot without one now. I guess it is sort of cheating, but I would rather have the picture than not.

I also checked the specs with a D750 and 24-85mm mounted. According to the official specs by Nikon, this is about 1255 grams or 2.76 pounds, while the E-M1's official weight with the 12-40 mounted is 879 grams or 1.94 pounds. In fact, according to Nikon, the D750 is 840 grams itself with battery and card.

 

[MAubrey]

my view on MFT versus FF glass:
Primes or Zooms?

That's a good post! Thanks for that. Reminds of the Zeiss' articles on reading MFT charts.

It is all academic: who is still printing photo's and especially larger than A3 (where 8Mpx are still sufficient)? MFT meets his requirements, what are your requirements that you need full frame for?

Well, I am. I make a point of printing large regularly--every few months or so. Also the quality of the 8MP matters: 8MP downsampled from 42MP with a good lens always looks sharper than 8MP downsampled from 16MP with a great lens.

Still. These are my needs, not yours or anyone else's. I still love to shoot μ43 and wouldn't trade it for anything.

 

[Mark Ferencz]

M43 saved my interest in photography. I have my camera now. I have a small bag I keep a few lenses in and it comes along always. FF is just too cumbersome. It offers a bit more flexibility and image performance, but that maybe 20% I save in size is a night and day difference for me. Everybody has different wants and needs so this might not be the case for somebody else. I understand that.

 

[Turbofrog]

As soon as someone comes out with a 500g mirrorless full-frame body with weather-sealing, a nice EVF, fully articulated touchscreen, silent shutter option, and IBIS, for under $2000 I'll be in. Heck, I'd settle for those things in an APS-C body (with a commensurate drop in price, of course!), since I can just buy a focal reducer and consolidate my legacy lens collection a bit.

...I feel like I may be waiting for a while! The A7R II gets 5/10 on that list. Oh well, fortunately I already have M4/3 where I can easily find 9/10 of my top priorities with either the E-M5 II or the GX8 should the upgrade itch really grab me...

 

[fredlong]

The hauntingly beautiful song of the Sirens drove sailors mad and lured them to their deaths on the rocks.

Just saying...

Fred

 

[DaveEP]

I've said it before and I guess I'll say it again. It's not the body (FF or M43 or APS-C) that makes the difference to me. It's the lugging around of the FF lenses that kills it. If I could have a FF camera with lenses the size of M43 I'd probably consider it. It was almost that way when I shot with the Leica M8. The lenses were small and lightweight, but the Leica framing sucked, there was no AF and no zooms (except the tri-elmar 3 in one which was soft as mush compared to even M43 zooms).

Sure, you can cherry pick a small FF lens and cherry pick a large M43 lens and show the FF is smaller, but in the end the 'system' is what makes or breaks it.

 

[pdk42]

I've said it before and I guess I'll say it again. It's not the body (FF or M43 or APS-C) that makes the difference to me. It's the lugging around of the FF lenses that kills it. If I could have a FF camera with lenses the size of M43 I'd probably consider it. It was almost that way when I shot with the Leica M8. The lenses were small and lightweight, but the Leica framing sucked, there was no AF and no zooms (except the tri-elmar 3 in one which was soft as mush compared to even M43 zooms).

Sure, you can cherry pick a small FF lens and cherry pick a large M43 lens and show the FF is smaller, but in the end the 'system' is what makes or breaks it.

Totally agree. I can carry around my E-M1 with a 12/2, 25/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 in a small MirrorlessMover bag and still have room for spare battery, remote release and a few filters. Try doing that with the A7rii - even with the Batis lenses (which are quite compact) it'll still need a bag twice the size; and don't even think of the prices!

 

[MAubrey]

I can carry around my E-M1 with a 12/2, 25/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 in a small MirrorlessMover bag and still have room for spare battery, remote release and a few filters. Try doing that with the A7rii - even with the Batis lenses (which are quite compact) it'll still need a bag twice the size; and don't even think of the prices!

I'll take that challenge!

How about use an A7II instead of the A7rII: $1500 new
FE28mm f/2: $425
FE50mm f/1.8: $250
Techart Contax G AF adapter+Contax 90mm f/2.8: $485 (superb PDAF support)
Total: $2635

E-M1 New: $900
12mm f/2: $700
25mm f/1.8: $350
45mm f/1.8: $350
Total: $2300

And you won't need to get a new bag. You can stick with the same size you had before. That's not that different at all.