OMG...tell me thiis guy is wrong about micro four thirds

bcalkins wrote:

He is absolutely correct that shooting at the same aperture on MFT gives less background blur than on a full frame sensor. But he makes a common error: comparing 'mirrorless' and dslr, when really he means small sensor versus bigger. This issue is all about sensor size and whether the camera is mirrorless has nothing to do with it. You could compare a SONY Nex 'mirrorless' with a Canon 7D and the SONY would have less DOF (1.5 crop versus 1.6) in a smaller body, due to the larger sensor (not that you could tell that small difference).

The other implied assumption is that a full frame sensor is some kind of 'standard'. There is no magic sensor size that has the right amount of DOF. You can go larger than 'full frame', you can go smaller. It is always a trade off between a number of factors including price, DOF control, noise, size, and handling.

Personally, I've gone from Canon crop bodies to MFT. At the same time, I've switched to faster lenses from f/4 zooms and not really lost much, if anything in the DOF department. I have gained a much smaller system that I do take everywhere with me, the ability to shoot stabilized video with fast primes, and the ability to shoot reliably with my camera at low angles, overhead, etc. Further, I can shoot video through a viewfinder. What good does a full frame camera and f/1.4 50mm lens do you if you reach for the cell phone when you head out with the kids?

If thin DOF is your main technique, smaller sensors are not for you.

Think of it this way - most consumers are told that going to a dSLR from their compact will gain then DOF control. Then they buy it with an f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Less DOF control than they can get with an MFT camera and fast primes.

This is enough DOF for me:



45mm @ f/2.2