Now it's medium format to M43 ...

Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by wolfie, Jun 13, 2017.

  1. wolfie

    wolfie Mu-43 All-Pro

    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Print is a very leveling medium. It's pixel peeking that drives GAS.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 2
  3. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    If they want to see something truly amazing, use the hi res mode on one of the newer Olympus m43 cameras. It is really quite awesome how far technology has gone.
  4. pondball

    pondball Mu-43 All-Pro

    @wolfie@wolfie Just took a peek at the review... nice link, btw!

    Question: I keep hearing about how we should find the best f/# for our camera/lens combo because in some cases "this or that" will happen if the aperture is closed down or open up completely.. and in this review he shoots his identical comparative shots at two different f-stops and two different speeds... vastly different imo...

    is the reason because he believed they were the valid optimum settings for the camera/glass combos he used? otherwise is a comparison with such different settings really valid? ISO is the same but there is a 3 stop difference in his f-stop and over 2 second difference in speed.

    Pentax 645D, Pentax SMC-A 645 35mm, ISO 200, f16 and 2 seconds:
    Panasonic GX85, Panasonic Leica Summilux 15mm f/1.7, ISO 200, f5.6 and 1/6 of a second:
  5. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    Hmmmm... the shutter speed could have been an issue if there was any wind causing leaves to move, but it doesn't look like there was to me.

    As to aperture, it's a balance between getting the depth of field he wanted and not introducing diffraction. Both of those aspects would result in different optimal settings depending on the sensor size. There is also a sweet spot before diffraction kicks in which yields a lens' optimal sharpness. In m4/3, for example, f/5.6 is a pretty good bet. I've never shot medium format, but maybe for it, f/16 is the equivalent to f/5.6?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. skellington

    skellington Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 4, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    So 3 f-stops slower with a sensor roughly 3 stops bigger will give you roughly the same DoF.

    Which leads to an exposure 8x slower. (Not sure why he went 2 seconds; maybe it only had 1 or 2 second options?)
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    I recently bought a Fuji XT20. It's a great second camera, but it does make you appreciate Olympus performance in terms of SAF and IBIS. Just to note, I'm only citing Olympus and not Panasonic because of my more extensive experience with the former.
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. wimg

    wimg Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 10, 2016
    Could be caused by the Panasonic being slightly more WA than the 35 on the Pentax, and capturing more sky. It could also be because base ISO is not the same.

    Kind regards, Wim
  9. wimg

    wimg Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 10, 2016
    There is roughly 3 stops difference in exposure wrt shutter speed, just assume 1/6 is about 1/4 of a second, and you're there.

    As to the comparison, assuming that all of the images are processed the same, what is interesting that at magnification the medium size images have just a tad more detail, the mft image has more microcontrast. It is something one can also see in the full images.

    Kind regards, Wim
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. mjgraaf

    mjgraaf Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 9, 2014
    Every time the surface of the sensor halfs, the aperture where diffraction will happen or where we have a comparable DOF goes down one stop. Therefore typically 2 stops difference between m4/3 and FF, I would expect a stop or slightly more between medium and FF. It looks to me that the guy knows what he is doing when comparing the two systems...
  11. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Micro 4/3 wasn't the first. Luminous Landscape in 2008 wrote an article comparing a Canon G10 vs a medium format back. And the results were? Half of the professionals couldn't even tell the difference between the G10 or the medium format back.

    And the reason is..

    Most printers today really are not able to re-produce authentically the exact tonality and dynamic range that is required from medium format or cameras with high dynamic range and tonal range. So what happens is when people print using these printers, you are NOT going to see a difference because the printers can not reproduce them. It's not that the medium format can not do their job and beat m43. They easily can, BUT you need super expensive printers to print museum quality prints that are and can be extremely cost prohibitive for a particular print size, that most people don't or never venture into. A friend of mine used to sell museum quality prints and his cost of one large print was $5000 Cad at cost and he sells it for $15,000 to $20,000 Cad. He shoots with a Hasselblad and he always frowns upon people writing articles like how full frame or m43 are enough to print museum quality prints.

    Take a Ferrari and a Prius. Put them in the middle of New York city rush hour and both will go at the same speed no matter how powerful the engine is in the Ferrari. The traffic is the limiter. One might argue that in this traffic, the Prius can equal a Ferrari and you can not see a difference in speed. However, place both a Ferrari and the Prius in the German Autobahn, where there usually isn't any traffic jam nor a conservative speed limit and you can really see the Ferrari fly! The same with medium format.

    Which is the reason WHY people still shoot medium format and why Ming Thien is championing medium format and works for Hasselblad. It's because, Ming's demanding prints which he called Ultraprints is as close as pixel peeping m43 files. In this case like the Autobahn, m43 will loose against any medium format.

    In reality, most people will not sell $15,000 and up prints and are not printing simply to be displayed in museums and in private or public galleries. They just want to print good quality big prints and for that, a m43 system is more than capable.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    This has to be the worst comparison of two different formats I've seen. I don't think the samples on the site are indicative of why you'd use a medium format camera in the first place.
  13. wolfie

    wolfie Mu-43 All-Pro

    Thanks for coverage of the printing technology - especially that is is a real levelling factor between formats. I have seen Ming's writing on ultra prints and the cost was a bit depressing!

    The arguments over equivalence and bigger format superiority are something I am over with personally. I am ultimately happy with the quality of M43 images and the size/cost of the gear, especially as it prints fine up to A3 for magazine publishing which the editor is perfectly happy with. When I see the quality images that Diego Garin Martin has produced with successive camera models over the years I realise that my efforts are not in danger of pushing the limits of my current gear.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Wolfie, I don't think you are in any danger of pushing the limits of the latest Olympus gear. We truly have come a very long way from the film days and we should be very thankful that we are able to harness the power and print out of the m43 in such a small, compact package with little weight. :) 
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  15. MarkRyan

    MarkRyan Instagram: @MRSallee Subscribing Member

    May 3, 2013
    Interesting comparison and a bit refreshing to see someone acknowledge the benefit of deeper depth of field, rather than just bemoaning the reduction in bokeh. (Bokeh is nice for some applications, of course, but a lot of online discourse might have you believe that bokeh = image quality.)

    I put together a little tool for comparing the images on top of each other, just hover left and right (sorry mobile): MF v MFT

    I like the contrast & the angle better in the Pentax image, but those are not limits of the sensor.

    Of course there are advantages to a larger sensor, but they're not not absolutes -- depending on what's being photographed, a smaller camera's advantages may be more easily realized. Unfortunately it's not the easy answer people are looking for when shopping for camera equipment, and at this point the easy answer has tended to be bigger = better.
  16. Gerard

    Gerard Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 12, 2015
    Vleuten, Utrecht
  17. wolfie

    wolfie Mu-43 All-Pro

    Presume that is Eye recognition, the next step up from face detection. On Olympus you can further select right, left or nearest eye ... some people love it for portraits.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  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.