Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
Lights
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,405Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

OK. I shoot mostly M43 and am very satisfied with it.

But this guy isn't running toward you on a football field. Or flying toward you at 30mph. Someday the tracking focus might be there (maybe soon) but it isn't there yet. My old Canon 6mp APS-C tracks better, and has slightly better dynamic range than my M43 12mp sensor (but not better than the 16mp sensors, but close). I'm not even comparing from my own experience to a full frame camera, just to an APS-C DSLR and an old one at that of less resolution. Like I say I find my M43 is good enough..and it certainly is light enough (and I carry it with me way more than ever my old DSLR beast), and I can use more manual focus lenses on it...but there's a reason that FF cameras, even full frame mirrorless (Lieca etc.) exist, and cost more. There is no way in the world I can match the resolution in B&W of a Leica Monochrom for example or a big Nikon or Canon in color (or in noiselessness). Yes I can limit DOF with a fast lens, yes software can blur some backgrounds, but no M43 isn't as good at the very extremes of exposure, and yes it 'is' most often 'good enough'. And oftentimes it is just as good if we shoot within it's limits which are somewhat more confining, since it's our interpretation of a photo as photographers, rather than the technicalities of a system that limit us mostly.

-- hide signature --

My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
.New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow