SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
woof woof
Senior MemberPosts: 1,437
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to azazel1024, Apr 26, 2013

I have a 5D and some nice lenses and I have a G1 and some nice lenses.

I initially bought into MFT because i wanted a smaller form body and lens combination that would better my compact cameras and produce images that are close to the 5D. I've largely not been disappointed

I shoot RAW and process each shot for best effect and at low to middling ISO settings G1 shots are easily lost amongst 5D shots both on screen and in prints up to A3. I've had little fun challenges and the people taking part couldn't tell G1 shots from 5D shots any better than by chance. Some people will look for clues and assume that shallower DoF shots must be from the 5D but that's not a reliable criteria as we all should know that DoF is influenced by several factors and it's perfectly possible to get shallow DoF from Micro Four Thirds.

My G1 does lack dynamic range when compared to my 5D but this can be counteracted to a degree in post capture processing and is helped by the in view histogram so it's not as big a deal as I'd have initially thought.

Format size wars are (IMVHO) largely irrelevant for a great many people.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,287Gear list
Like?
If they are explained correctly, then nobody disputes facts
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

dinoSnake wrote:

DigiMatt wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

News flash: EVERYONE who bought into their systems KNOWS that their chosen format - CX, FT, mFT, APS-C and yes, even FF - will simply not give the same results as the next format size up.  It was a WILLFUL decision: a cost vs benefit ratio in terms of advantages versus disadvantages for exact and every camera format.

LOL, this so wrong its comical. I have a NEWSFLASH for you: The overwhelming majority of photographers DO NOT understand that their chosen format is an image quality compromise. There are hoards of m4/3, APS-C, and FF users here on DPReview who will go to the grave not understanding equivalence and the impact of sensor size on image quality. It's like Galileo Galilei  defending Nicolaus Copernicus ideas on heliocentrism to the Catholic church. It's not going over well.

So, is this true?

No.

There may be some people who do not understand simple geometry and ratios, but there would be few.

Using FT / mFT users as a test, do you understand "the impact of sensor size on image quality"?

Yes.  I also understand that this is a shifting target.

What was your knowledge of this topic at the time you made your purchase decision of the cameras you are now using?

If I had unlimited money I would likely have bought a Canon 135 system as it would duplicate my film system.

Then later I would have likely bought a FourThirds system to get smaller high-quality lenses.

How did your purchase decision go in regards to this?

I bought FourThirds with the view to trying it out then buying HG lenses later if it was suitable.  It was and I did.

Presently I use an E-5 and 50-200 / 12-60, paired with an E-M5 12-50 / 45.  I will certainly consider an 'E-7', and / or any MicroFT body that can properly use my HG lenses.

Please post your replies and thoughts on this topic, I could use feedback urgently.

Thank you!

If you are arguing about 'equivalence' with Joe the "Great Bustard", then simply ask him why, after he started to sufficiently explain what he meant, nobody took issue with what he was saying.

The problem is not that most people are ignorant fools, the problem is that some people tend to make simple things convoluted and indecipherable (then resist fiercely when you try to get them to explain what they are on about in comprehensible terms).

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-5 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian Wadie
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,440Gear list
Like?
Re: Brian...
In reply to Jeff Tokayer, Apr 26, 2013

no, the Mayflower was the Old Man's car (my grandad had one )

I always wanted a Triumph Roadster but could never afford one

I did drive a souped up Zodiac Mk2 with a tuned engine and some of the very first steel-braced Pirrelli Radials. Bright Orange it was with a white roof. I was always getting stopped by the traffic police ('cos it looked dead dodgy ) but within a couple of minutes we always had our heads under the bonnet looking at what I had done to it!

 Brian Wadie's gear list:Brian Wadie's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bass Rock
Forum MemberPosts: 67
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to AllMankind, Apr 26, 2013

AllMankind wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

Please post your replies and thoughts on this topic, I could use feedback urgently.

There is a huge difference in knowing/not knowing about the impact of sensor size/aperture/focal length and equivalence, and actually CARING about it.

I understand it, I just don't care and this whole equivalence arguement is nothing more than noise to me.

Oh, so true !! 

Let the m43 pictures speak for themselves.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sigala1
Senior MemberPosts: 3,358
Like?
I don't know difference between LX7 sensor and m43
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

dinoSnake wrote:

DigiMatt wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

News flash: EVERYONE who bought into their systems KNOWS that their chosen format - CX, FT, mFT, APS-C and yes, even FF - will simply not give the same results as the next format size up.  It was a WILLFUL decision: a cost vs benefit ratio in terms of advantages versus disadvantages for exact and every camera format.

LOL, this so wrong its comical. I have a NEWSFLASH for you: The overwhelming majority of photographers DO NOT understand that their chosen format is an image quality compromise. There are hoards of m4/3, APS-C, and FF users here on DPReview who will go to the grave not understanding equivalence and the impact of sensor size on image quality. It's like Galileo Galilei  defending Nicolaus Copernicus ideas on heliocentrism to the Catholic church. It's not going over well.

So, is this true?  Using FT / mFT users as a test, do you understand "the impact of sensor size on image quality"?  What was your knowledge of this topic at the time you made your purchase decision of the cameras you are now using?  How did your purchase decision go in regards to this?

Please post your replies and thoughts on this topic, I could use feedback urgently.

Thank you!

I can't tell that there's any difference in quality between the sensor on my Panasonic LX7, and the sensor on any of the 12MP m43 cameras. Even though the m43 sensors are nearly 6 times bigger.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just Having Fun
Senior MemberPosts: 3,869
Like?
Trolling post read like an urban legend e-mail...
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

Everything about it is designed to sucker people into responding and believing it is a real question.

He only forgot to add...

Please forward this to as many people as possible!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dinoSnake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,000
Like?
Re: Replies wanted !!
In reply to Detail Man, Apr 26, 2013

Detail Man wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

Please post your replies and thoughts on this topic, I could use feedback urgently.

Thank you!

Pathetic ploy.

Hi DM,

I think it's all about getting feedback info to get into an argument with Joe. No point in doing that as Joe will win. Looks a bit hit and run though at this stage, doesn't it?

DigiMatt summed up the medicine show many posts ago on an active Open Talk Forum thread where the OP continues to have every opportunity to attempt to reply directly to DigiMatt's post found here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51357625

And yet, the point is I DON'T often respond.  I make up only a small number of replies to the threads on these topics, and will continue to do so.  I certainly DON'T feel that I must constantly have the last word, but I certainly DO want to hear others opinions...as well as letting THEM have "the last word".

If the truth was otherwise, I'd be replying constantly to this thread.  The POINT of this thread was to let YOU - yes, YOU - say your minds about this topic.  Notice that I did NOT open the conversation with a statement of *my* personal thoughts?  And that I (tried) to word the question in a objective manner?

The posts here speak for themselves as to the topic of discussion.  What more can I / would I be able to add?  Nothing, thank you, so I'm shutting up.  When I constructed this topic I intended NOT post my personal thoughts on the subject inside this thread, and that's the way I intend to keep it.  It is all about YOU.

So keep posting guys (and gals), your own words will say it all.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elemental Photography
Contributing MemberPosts: 629Gear list
Like?
SURVEY - fatally flawed due to selection bias and other issues
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

dinoSnake wrote:

So, is this true?  Using FT / mFT users as a test, do you understand "the impact of sensor size on image quality"?  What was your knowledge of this topic at the time you made your purchase decision of the cameras you are now using?  How did your purchase decision go in regards to this?

Please post your replies and thoughts on this topic, I could use feedback urgently.

Thank you!

You won't gain any empirical evidence by asking a group of photo geeks about their knowledge- at best you will get a collection of anecdotal responses, likely full of confirmation bias.

That said, I did a lot of research and testing when switching formats, and I've shot film from 35mm to 120 to 4x5 formats and digital sensors from tiny compacts to m4/3 to aps-c to aps-h to 135 formats. I spent a lot of time researching the pros and cons of each, so I knew what I was getting in to in terms of the inevitable compromise.

-- hide signature --

A photograph is a creative interpretation of reality.

 Elemental Photography's gear list:Elemental Photography's gear list
Pentax Optio WG-2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
benarden
Contributing MemberPosts: 563Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

In labortory test situations, usiong test instrumentation,  full frame sensors will have a slight edge;
In real life, the difference is minimal.
When moving around, I think M43 due to it's size, has the edge

In terms of price and performance, it's all M43.
IMHO, The next "horizon" will probably be " In camera HDR " rendering sensor size almost mute.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GeorgianBay1939
Senior MemberPosts: 2,276Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

dinoSnake wrote:

SNIP

Using FT / mFT users as a test, do you understand "the impact of sensor size on image quality"?  What was your knowledge of this topic at the time you made your purchase decision of the cameras you are now using?  How did your purchase decision go in regards to this?

Please post your replies and thoughts on this topic, I could use feedback urgently.

Thank you!

Assuming that the OP is sincere in asking the 3 questions, here are my answers as a Compact user, to a GF1, to a GH2 user.:

1   Yes, but not as much I now understand, largely to the contribution of THIS FELLOW. , for which I am very grateful.

2   When I made the decision, 3 years ago, I tried out FF, APS-C, MFT and more compacts.  I also read about the POTENTIAL of the above and was impressed with the optics/physics (I have a background in that stuff) of Mirrorless Cameras.  From that it was evident that MFT had the greatest POTENTIAL as a system so I bought a GF1.

3   It was a good decision but I upgraded to a GH2 because I needed the ergonomics and the EVF.  As an old f@rt, I suspect that MFT will be my last camera system.  It works fine for what I want to do.

I trust that the above provides useful feedback to you.


The stuff below is optional context:


I used to hang around with a good friend who passed away last year.   He lived in the city, drove big Buicks, had a 17" MacBookPro, and always expected "nothing than the best".  ( I live "in the sticks", drive 1980s AMC Eagle Station Wagons (and one truck, now), use a 15" MBP, and get by with good tools.)

We coincidentally changed our camera gear at the same time.

He bought a nice camera with kit lens.   I bought an "itty-bitty" camera with several lenses.

He used to take his camera out of his car and leave it on the table in the restaurant that we frequented.  I left mine in the car with my trusty doggies.  He ragged me about my crappy cars, inadequate computer and "bridge camera".

He knew virtually nothing about optics, camera operation, or technique.   He kept his camera set up as per the Instruction:

Instruction:  Line up the two yellow arrows.

He sorta reminds me of the folks on DPR who crap on those who dare to use formats other than their favorites.   They display their ignorance of basic geometrical optics, physical optics, and sensor characteristics.  In so doing they display their unwillingness (or maybe incapability) to learn more about their photographic tools.  Too bad.


The good news is that it stopped snowing this morning.  In a few weeks we'll be able to photograph this sort of stuff:

captured in JPEG ....  Looking forward to using my new skills in shooting RAW this time around.

Finally, THIS seems to make a lot of sense to me.

t

AHA!  DPG Website Editor.

I beat you this time.... I Ctl-C'd my post before hitting "Post" this time!!!

 GeorgianBay1939's gear list:GeorgianBay1939's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sunny Caribe
Contributing MemberPosts: 515
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

Yes I know.

One thing I have noticed about m43 is that this system is popular (at least as far as one can tell from discussion groups) among people with a long history of FF or APS-C dslrs behind them.  On the other hand many users among the more popular systems (or at least among discussions thereof) arrived at their camera choice via a department store sale.

Personally I migrated up from compact cameras after doing a great deal of research, but I took comfort from the fact that many more seasoned photographers migrated to m43 from another system for reasons I could almost always understand.  The reasons one initially chooses a system are less instructive than the reasoning behind why one would change systems, generally speaking, of course.

-- hide signature --

Rick
Cornmeal, gunpowder, hamhocks, guitar strings.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nekrosoft13
Regular MemberPosts: 340Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

currently i'm a FF 5DIII and  OM-D MFT shooter, and I completely understood the difference between sensors sizes, I had Crop 7D before.

I understood the benefits since I tried 20D long long time go.

I still preffer image quality I get from FF, but MFT is perfect when I want/need to travel light.

On the flip side, I do believe that majority of people shooting, don't have a clue about sensor size, DOF, ISO, Apeture, shutter etc...

 nekrosoft13's gear list:nekrosoft13's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Husaberg Grok
Regular MemberPosts: 393
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

These circular discussions have occurred since film. As the film quality improved, the reasons for the larger formats became less compelling.

Digital is following a similar path. In ten years I wouldn't be overly surprised to see results from tiny sensors approaching the results of current dslr offerings. Don't worry abot DOF. It's already possible to electronically generate as shallow a DOF as you want and the bokeh you prefer.

It's going to be an interesting ride!

-- hide signature --

Must....Think.....of something......Clever........

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skeeterbytes
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,281
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

As a Hasselblad owner I declare everything smaller than 6cm x 6cm to be "less than full frame."

Somehow, my 4/3 gear sleeps comfortably in the same cabinet with my roll-film gear. I can only shake my head at its naiveté.

Cheers,

Rick

-- hide signature --

"Whiskey is for drinking, digicams are for fighting over."
—Mark Twain

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 16,822Gear list
Like?
Yes.
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JosephScha
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,226Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 26, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

JosephScha wrote:

yes, I do know. I used to actually join in equivalence discussion but gave up when told that despite equal light intensity at the sensor f stops were not equivalent on m43 because total light was less... so wrong.

It's a shame that you can't understand that f/2.8 on mFT puts the same amount of light on the sensor as f/5.6 on FF for a given shutter speed, which, in turn, results in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Let's see.  f/2.8 on mFT puts the same amount of light on a 1/4 ff size sensor, which means the light per unit area is quadrupled, compared to f/5.6 on FF.  I get that.  What I don't get is why you and many others care about total light instead of light per unit area.  I read your post "DPR mans up and nails it".

A 12MP 4/3 sensor is 4000x3000 light sensitive sights.  If I remember correctly, they are about 4 micro inches square.  An "equally efficient" full frame sensor with the same light sensitive element size, if it's 4x larger, would be about 48MP. But no one makes that.  FF cameras have larger sensor sights, I claim THAT is why they have better dynamic range: because they get more light per sensor element.   More light in total over the sensor I claim does not matter.

As a thought experiment, let's assume that Nikon goes nuts and decides to make a 256MP FF sensor.  The photo sites would be tiny - much smaller than m43. Even at the same f/stop, there is less light falling on each of those small photo sites than on a 16MP m43 sensor's photo slites.   Would you still claim that that FF sensor will have better dynamic range than an m43 sensor because in total it receives more light?  Or will it have less because each photo sensor receives far less light?

Obviously, I think the latter (less dynamic range because less light at each photo site).  I suppose in software you could average pixels together, to compensate ... but why would you have to do that if it's total light on the sensor that matters?  I think it's light on each photo site that matters.  I think it is just too simple to say f/2.8 on mFT is "equaivalent" for noise to f/5.6 on FF for a given shutter speed.

But what REALLY bothers me about saying f/2.8 on mFT is "equivalent" to f/5.6 on FF is that is misleads too many people who somehow think this talks about exposure.  I think the more important point is that at the same ISO, and the same shutter speed, f/2.8 on mFT gives the same exposure as f/2.8 on any other sized sensor.  This does not consider dynamic range effects.

I used to have a pany FZ7 with a 1/2.5" sensor that had pretty poor dynamic range and egregious noise at is 200.

That's because so little light fell on the sensor compared to larger sensor systems for a given exposure.

Well... you must know I think it's because very little light fell on each of the very tiny photo sites on that 6MP teeny sensor.  Given the same total light, I'll bet a 1MP sensor (which wouldn't have been a sellable product) would have had significantly better dynamic range, because each photo site would collect a lot more "signal" (photons).  Dynamic range is basically signal to noise ratio.

I was looking for a similar size and weight camera with better image quality and m43 fit my needs. ...

Makes perfect sense.

Thanks.

I honestly do look forward to your reply.  I want to understand why total light on the sensor means more than light per photo site, which if photo sites are the same size on the sensors being compared means we can compare light per unit area.

-- hide signature --

js

 JosephScha's gear list:JosephScha's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
walkaround
Senior MemberPosts: 1,035Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 26, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

It's a shame that you can't understand that f/2.8 on mFT puts the same amount of light on the sensor as f/5.6 on FF for a given shutter speed...

This is wrong. There is a lot of magical thinking about equivalence on this forum.

And to that other guy, "F-stop" is not an "artificial construct". It is focal length divided by the aperture opening. It has nothing to do with format.

A 135 format camera with a 50mm lens that opens to a max diameter of 35mm requires the same exposure as a compact camera with a 14mm lens that opens to 10mm. Both are "f/1.4" lenses. They are equivalent. Any given part of the frame that is exposed will be the same density in both formats. The only difference between them is the size of the image circle projected.

 walkaround's gear list:walkaround's gear list
Canon PowerShot S110 Nikon Coolpix P310 Canon ELPH 310 HS Olympus PEN E-PL5 NEX5R +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ergo607
Senior MemberPosts: 1,192Gear list
Like?
Re: "Courage"?
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 26, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

Lay it to rest. There is no way you can win this dissuasion, and frankly I don't come to this forum to read about this silly discussions.

And yet, you're the first to reply.

Sue me.

If you want my short answer: I knew about the strengths (!) and weaknesses of the MFT format.

Excellent.

Txs.

If you want the long answer: I am a salesperson, and by definition 90% of the people don't have a clue what they are buying into.

Did you mean to say "my experience is" instead of "by definition"?

I don't see what's your point, but not being a native English speaker, let me say what I meant, which is that a lot of people believe (or want to believe) that they know what they are buying, when in fact they don't...

More so if they are C*n*n or N$k$n users. Because it takes courage to buy into a system that is less popular, you will find more informed people in the FT/MFT world.

Hmm, so I guess it takes "courage" to buy a Suzuki over a Honda or Nissan, for example?

If Suzuki is less popular than honda or Nissan, then exactly. You wouldn't believe how many people buy into mass market because they feel more comfortable with it.

That said: there is no such thing as full frame, because by the very definition of it, there is no lens that I know of that uses the whole frame of the sensor (quite rightly so, because it would have severe vignetting.)

Funny you say "because by the very definition of it":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR

A full-frame digital SLR is a digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) fitted with an image sensor that is the same size as a 35 mm (36×24 mm) film frame

That definition is plain wrong, and someone should rewrite it, and you know it.

Probably the least informed people buy 135mm format anyway, because they have the money, don't know what the are buying, but because they can and because they want to show off they buy a 135mm format camera.

So it's the "least informed" that buy Ferrari and Lamborghini?

Quite rightly so.

Sth like most people who buy an iPhone: they don't know sh*t what it can do, but they buy it to stand out in the crowd...

But those who buy, say, an S3, know all about it?

I think that people who buy and use a Fuji S3 (I had that camera, loved it) know a lot about good gear...

All I wanted to say is that the discussion between 135 format and smaller formats is fairly clinical and still only exists because people want to defend what they bought even if (I say that from my 'experience' as a salesperson) that was overkill for them.

I see it like this (also speaking from my experience as a sales person): a lot of people (and I let others decide how many that would be) buy gear because they want to show of; others follow because they want to belong to the crowd. Taking your example of Lamborghini/Ferrari, if you think about it objectively no one in his right mind would buy a car of those: they are far from comfortable, there is no room for luggage, you can't take more than one person with you, the things burn gasoline like hell and you cannot enter a garage park, because they sit too close to the ground. As for speed: where exactly can you run these cars at full throttle? And how much exactly do you have to pay for these privileges? You don't have to agree with me, but every time I see sth like that I can't help but think that the person behind the wheel has something serious to compensate for...

I don't think the same way about 135mm format because in the hands of an experienced person it will deliver some astonishing results. But you will agree with me that is not the majority of 135mm format users, and you will also agree that it also comes with its compromises.

And to conclude: yes, MFT comes also with its compromises; we know them. Sure enough we know them, because if we don't there will always be some sort of 135mm format user which just has to pay us attention to our compromises. These kind of people I would categorize as the Ferrari riders described here above...

-- hide signature --
 Ergo607's gear list:Ergo607's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
azazel1024
Senior MemberPosts: 1,093Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to woof woof, Apr 26, 2013

Yeah, part of my want of a 5d was to reuse all of my OM lenses I had sitting in my camera bags. The OM-D E-M5 made me sit up and notice m4/3 in a big way. It had better high ISO noise, awesome IBIS (I was a little reluctant on the 5d because I did want a camera with IBIS after experiencing the IBIS in my wife's E-PL1), better or equal DR, much smaller size and weight, higher ISO, faster burst rate and larger buffer. Oh and tilting screen and weather resistant.

I decided to suck up having to buy all new lenses instead of just getting an adapter and I haven't looked back. Still stinging on having to buy all new lenses. 11 months in now and I FINALLY have something wider than a 28mm equivelent lens (I just got a Zuiko 12mm f/2 a couple of days back). I still don't have anything longer than a 90mm equivelent lens unless you count my 40-150...which I usually don't as I rarely use it (I don't really like zooms).

That said, I am not sad I moved to digital and I am not sad that I choose the system I did. It does still sting everytime I "have to" go buy a new lens to expand out my kit. I still at a minimum need the Zuiko 17/1.8 and 75/1.8. Even considering selling my Zuiko 17/2.8, that is more than another $1,000 worth of lenses I need to get, to get my kit basically to where I need it to cover 99.8% of any shooting I'd want to do like my film kit could cover.

It'll get there some year. Just not for another couple of years.

My OM-1 was pretty small and light for a film SLR and Zuiko OM lenses are pretty small for 35mm SLR lenses...but the m4/3 stuff cuts at least a 1/3rd of the weight and a bit of the size from my previous kit. Compared to if I had gone 5d, let alone 5d and started getting EOS lenses...the whole kit is maybe half the weight and size of all that. I like my light kit. I likei that much more that it performs so darned well.

-- hide signature --

Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/

 azazel1024's gear list:azazel1024's gear list
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mr.NoFlash
Senior MemberPosts: 2,154Gear list
Like?
Yes i know that reducing a system to one parameter is stupid
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 26, 2013

There are so many parameters like Aperture and number of Lenses, IBIS, Antidust, Sensor manufacturer, processing, AF Accuracy, AF speed, Flash system, sensor size, Viewfinder, lens quality variance, lens performance wide open, color quality, # of manufacturers, dynamic range ( one shot and support for bracketing HDR ).

I definitively know that people who reduce the performance of a system to only one parameter are either stupid or trolls.

 Mr.NoFlash's gear list:Mr.NoFlash's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W1 Samsung NX300 Leica Digilux 3
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads