Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions
Ridethelight
Regular MemberPosts: 194Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Ulric, Jun 9, 2013

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

 Ridethelight's gear list:Ridethelight's gear list
Nikon D610 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to hindesite, Jun 9, 2013

hindesite wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

FF cameras give you a wider envelope of shooting conditions - for example a wider choice of DOF (depending on the lens, of course) and lighting conditions under which you can get the same shot.

M43 cameras have a smaller shooting envelope.   If you can take an acceptable picture with an M43 camera, then of course an FF camera can also take a similar image.   So a comparison of acceptable pictures taken with M43 and FF is bound to show more similarities than differences.  It's when you get outside the range of what's possible with M43 where the differences show up.

You pay more for FF in terms of bulk and weight, and if you usually shoot pictures that fall within the capabilities of M43 then there's really no good reason to put up with that.   You can take terrific pictures within that M43 shooting envelope that are essentially just as good as if you had a FF camera.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for FF cameras for the photographers who need their expanded capabilities.

No to all of the above, answer the question? dof blur is all acheivable now in post, the envelope you talk about is in your head.

I think you are completely wrong and Sean is right on the money and explained his viewpoint clearly.

Some people seem to have this hangup, that everything is about DOF. If you widen your experience you'll soon learn that this fascination with DOF is an artefact of this forum.

Sean did not mention DOF in his reply, yet that is the only thing you focussed on.

Well because it has no noise or dr advantage either, or expanded capability, whatever expanded capability is?

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Ridethelight, Jun 9, 2013

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rens
Senior MemberPosts: 1,469Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

Seriously?  This isn't worth taking seriously.

-- hide signature --

Rens
There are optimists and there are realists

 Rens's gear list:Rens's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ridethelight
Regular MemberPosts: 194Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

LOL

 Ridethelight's gear list:Ridethelight's gear list
Nikon D610 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
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
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,919
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Lights, Jun 9, 2013

Lights wrote:

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). 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. 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.

-- hide signature --

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

Do you use an OMD, its actually very fast.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lights
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,405Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

Lights wrote:

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). 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. 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.

-- hide signature --

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

Do you use an OMD, its actually very fast.

No not yet the 16mp sensor cams, and I know they are fast, but they don't track as fast as big CanNikons, or most sports photogs and BIF photogs would be using them. Yes you can do BIF or sports...but not nearly as easily. Yes there are work arounds.

-- hide signature --

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,919
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

Lights wrote:

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). 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. 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.

-- hide signature --

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

Do you use an OMD, its actually very fast.

Do you use full frame DSLRs? They are actually much faster!
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Photo Pete, Jun 9, 2013

Photo Pete wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Pete, OMD has better DR than a 5dmk3, much better and the 6d, did Canon stop selling FF cameras? d800 isnt the only game in town.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,919
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

Photo Pete wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Pete, OMD has better DR than a 5dmk3, much better and the 6d, did Canon stop selling FF cameras? d800 isnt the only game in town.

Not the only game in town... but it demonstrates quite clearly the ways in which full frame is better than M43.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Photo Pete, Jun 9, 2013

Photo Pete wrote:

Lights wrote:

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). 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. 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.

-- hide signature --

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

Do you use an OMD, its actually very fast.

Do you use full frame DSLRs? They are actually much faster!

Nope, they are not, OMD has 9fps burst!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
offtheback
Regular MemberPosts: 464Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

Grasshopper:It is never the camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Photo Pete, Jun 9, 2013

Photo Pete wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Pete, OMD has better DR than a 5dmk3, much better and the 6d, did Canon stop selling FF cameras? d800 isnt the only game in town.

Not the only game in town... but it demonstrates quite clearly the ways in which full frame is better than M43.

Not really.

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to offtheback, Jun 9, 2013

offtheback wrote:

Grasshopper:It is never the camera.

Correct answer

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kim Letkeman
Forum ProPosts: 33,128Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

I'm shooting m4/3 now after selling off first my FF D700 and then my APS-C D7000 .... but it is plain silly to pretend that m4/3 makes images that look like FF ... they do not. You shot this at f/6.3 ... my D700 should get an identical image at f/13 at double the focal length. But I would use f/2.8 or 4 and get a far less distracting background. Of course, you could have done that too with a wider aperture, but the 2 stop advantage never goes away ...

Are you for real, far less distracting background, its completely blurred. You need to shoot f2.8 FF to get a similar image.

Sigh ... completely blurred ... you shot at 56mm f/6.3 ... which is equivalent where DOF is concerned to 112mm f/13 on FF ...

Your assertion that FF requires 4.5 more stops of aperture for a similar image is so spectacularly incorrect that you must be simply having us on. Spend more time looking at images from FF cameras before misjudging them so badly ...

And by the way ... as I mentioned earlier, I shoot m4/3 despite this 2 stop disadvantage. For other reasons ... but I will one day get a FF camera again just for the wonderful bokeh ...

-- hide signature --
 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,919
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

Photo Pete wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Pete, OMD has better DR than a 5dmk3, much better and the 6d, did Canon stop selling FF cameras? d800 isnt the only game in town.

Not the only game in town... but it demonstrates quite clearly the ways in which full frame is better than M43.

Not really.

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Ah! I understand why you don't get it. You are finding it difficult trying to evaluate different cameras with your head buried in the sand!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kim Letkeman
Forum ProPosts: 33,128Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

offtheback wrote:

Grasshopper:It is never the camera.

Correct answer

But for reasons much different from yours ... your understanding of what matters appears extremely rudimentary and your aggressive yet defensive attitude screams beginner ...

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,919
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 9, 2013

Photo Pete wrote:

Lights wrote:

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). 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. 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.

-- hide signature --

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

Do you use an OMD, its actually very fast.

Do you use full frame DSLRs? They are actually much faster!

Nope, they are not, OMD has 9fps burst!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

With only the first of those 9 frames in focus. Personally I'd save card space and just take the first shot with it.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads