Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
Just Having Fun
Senior MemberPosts: 3,869
Like?
Bad post processing
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

The Jacal wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

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

I would because I can see the exif. 

And, 56mm f6.3, ie 100mm f12.6 FF, no way hey!

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.

You can easily tell because parts of the image that are the same distance away as the face are blurry.  It looks like you did a simple radial blue.

Check this out.... F/8....not the best but it has fooled many my friends.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dotborg
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,277
Like?
Yes, and no.
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

It really depends on what you want.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367
Like?
Re: Bad post processing
In reply to Just Having Fun, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

The Jacal wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

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

I would because I can see the exif. 

And, 56mm f6.3, ie 100mm f12.6 FF, no way hey!

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.

You can easily tell because parts of the image that are the same distance away as the face are blurry.  It looks like you did a simple radial blue.

Check this out.... F/8....not the best but it has fooled many my friends.

OMG the pitch has eaten her foot!!
--
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 Kim Letkeman, 10 months ago

Kim Letkeman wrote:

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 ...

That's right, you are a beginner.

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Photo Pete, 10 months ago

Photo Pete wrote:

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.

Pete, you are showing your inexperience again, sigh!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to MAubrey, 10 months ago

MAubrey wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

Bump the ISO up by two stops and close your aperture by two stops and then its taken care of. A D600 has two stops better ISO than the E-M5...and if you downsize the images to the 16MP of the E-M5, then its even better. The one eye in focus issue is only a problem if you're shooting the eight year old 5Dc.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

In theory, that's correct. In practice it doesn't actually appear to work that way, as sensor performance doesn't scale exactly with size.

There was an experiment done here a while ago testing this, shooting a D800 at ISO 6400, against an Oly shooting at 1600, with equivalent lenses and apertures.

The Oly had a much better image, with less noise. Easily visible difference, without pixel peeping.

So, it is possible that if you're shooting for a larger DoF, that a smaller sensor may have some advantages. However, this is a somewhat rare situation so I don't think it balances in any way the larger shooting envelope at larger apertures.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,649
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

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.

Pete, you are showing your inexperience again, sigh!

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

But the OM-D does only focus the first shot in 9fps burst mode.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sean Nelson
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,405
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson 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.

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.

You can level the playing field a bit with software blurring, but it's very difficult to use for some kinds of subjects such as the one below and it can result in some very unnatural looking edges.

Sean, that's an aps-c image, its a breeze with OOC m43 to do that, the point with m43 and really I am talking the OMD is the IBIS and primes.

I didn't say you couldn't take the picture below with M43 (which is closer to APS-C than FF), I used that image as an example of a subject for which its difficult to use software to blur the background.   You basically said "FF is irrelevant for shallow DOF because you can do it with software".   The image is an example of the kind of subject for which the software approach is very problematic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

Kim Letkeman wrote:

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 ...

That's right, you are a beginner.

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Oh dear. Time for me to bow out of this thread. You are resorting to childishness, which I guess should have been expected based on your original post and your subsequently blinkered responses to what other posters were trying to tell you.

Your original post was a partly succesful demonstration of how the limitations of small sensors can be overcome with a bit of extra effort. Just leave it like that and don't try to make it into something that will embarrass you.

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just another Canon shooter
Contributing MemberPosts: 948Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

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

No. But I would seriously dispute that all photos in your gallery are taken with FF, not to mention all photos which you took with your m43 and I have not seen.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Samsung Galaxy S III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Photo Ninja
Senior MemberPosts: 1,495
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

Whatever. This is stupid! Of course the camera makes a difference. Otherwise, we'd all be using pinholes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrapperJohn
Forum ProPosts: 10,033Gear list
Like?
Better at some things
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

It has much greater latitude in controlling shallow DOF, and generally speaking, the bokeh is of a more pleasing quality, though that's for the individual to decide.

The latest M43 sensors offer enough performance to keep the average enthusiast quite satisfied, so the sensor performance gain tends to be more theoretical than something one can really put to use in the real world. Cue the 'discriminating enthusiast' on that one...

FF can be shot at higher F stops, whereas M43 hits diffraction limitation quicker. One can work around this with ND filters, but they aren't always convenient.

FF has quite a few fast zooms. M43 has two, and they're pricey for what you get.

The system in general is quite mature, having been in active development for about 15 years, based on a system that's been developed for over 50 years. Service and support is more widespread.

On the other hand...

FF setups are quite a bit larger by the time you get a decent lens selection. More to carry, higher profile for the person doing the carrying. This is becoming especially noticable as more public events restrict high end cameras.

They're still expensive, by the time you've added a few lenses good enough to do justice to the larger sensor.

Not always true, but FF systems tend to lose the lowest stop or two to overall softness. While you can shoot a 4/3 F2 lens wide open without noticable softness, the same can't be said for a lot of FF F4 lenses (or F2 for that matter). While FF has a two stop advantage in DOF control, it also has a two stop deficit in sharpness.

Long telephoto - M43 beats the pants off of FF in that area. Not only do you get more magnification out of a given focal length, that shallow DOF that looks so good in portraits becomes a problem - it's too shallow, meaning one has to stop down to get enough DOF. You can crop a FF image for more magnification, but it's so much better when you compose to the view, than compose to an imaginary crop you'll be doing later.

So, it's the right tool for the right job. I'd love to pick up an older FF setup to play around with, but just can't see replacing the OMD with a FF body. I've become spoiled on the portability, and save portraits and other short focal length compositions, current M43 is close enough.

I don't spend much time on the FF fora, so perhaps someone can tell me - do the FF discussions get as many M43 zealots jumping into conversations to 'set the record straight' as we get around here going the other way? Do you think they're compensating for something?

 TrapperJohn's gear list:TrapperJohn's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 10,893Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Sean Nelson, 10 months ago

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.

The same thing is true with APS-C cameras, but to a lesser degree.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-3 Nikon 1 S1 NEX5R Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367
Like?
Re: Better at some things
In reply to TrapperJohn, 10 months ago

It has much greater latitude in controlling shallow DOF, and generally speaking, the bokeh is of a more pleasing quality, though that's for the individual to decide.

The latest M43 sensors offer enough performance to keep the average enthusiast quite satisfied, so the sensor performance gain tends to be more theoretical than something one can really put to use in the real world. Cue the 'discriminating enthusiast' on that one...

FF can be shot at higher F stops, whereas M43 hits diffraction limitation quicker. One can work around this with ND filters, but they aren't always convenient.

FF has quite a few fast zooms. M43 has two, and they're pricey for what you get.

The system in general is quite mature, having been in active development for about 15 years, based on a system that's been developed for over 50 years. Service and support is more widespread.

On the other hand...

FF setups are quite a bit larger by the time you get a decent lens selection. More to carry, higher profile for the person doing the carrying. This is becoming especially noticable as more public events restrict high end cameras.

They're still expensive, by the time you've added a few lenses good enough to do justice to the larger sensor.

Not always true, but FF systems tend to lose the lowest stop or two to overall softness. While you can shoot a 4/3 F2 lens wide open without noticable softness, the same can't be said for a lot of FF F4 lenses (or F2 for that matter). While FF has a two stop advantage in DOF control, it also has a two stop deficit in sharpness.

Long telephoto - M43 beats the pants off of FF in that area. Not only do you get more magnification out of a given focal length, that shallow DOF that looks so good in portraits becomes a problem - it's too shallow, meaning one has to stop down to get enough DOF. You can crop a FF image for more magnification, but it's so much better when you compose to the view, than compose to an imaginary crop you'll be doing later.

So, it's the right tool for the right job. I'd love to pick up an older FF setup to play around with, but just can't see replacing the OMD with a FF body. I've become spoiled on the portability, and save portraits and other short focal length compositions, current M43 is close enough.

I don't spend much time on the FF fora, so perhaps someone can tell me - do the FF discussions get as many M43 zealots jumping into conversations to 'set the record straight' as we get around here going the other way? Do you think they're compensating for something?

I don't think people on the FF Fora generally mention M43. I'm sure something can be deduced from that!

Seems silly to try and make out that either system is something it isn't though. They both have a lot going for them, just different strengths and weaknesses.

I will probably need to sell up my FF kit and move to M43 due to health reasons and stumbled on this thread which I thought might help show what the differences between the systems were. Posters that deny differences exist are no help to anyone.

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GingerBread
Regular MemberPosts: 365Gear list
Like?
Re: define "better"
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

I say m43 is better actually, in every way, size, weight is important to me and so is an evf, so apart from the a99 I say m43 is better. The better everyone talks about with FF is DOF, which basically I say is utter nonsense. But I asked the question, what do you think?

Better in every way?  For your uses, that may be true.  But, there are differences between them and there are certainly uses for each that would be better than the other.  My OMD can't come close to the same keeper rate as my D700 when it comes to sports.  But is is much more pleasant to carry around, and there are I times I don't want super shallow depth of field.

-- hide signature --

Ging

 GingerBread's gear list:GingerBread's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon D700 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,893
Like?
if you told me you used a cell phone . . .
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

I wouldn't dispute it either. After all, a F2.8 cell lens is just as good as F2.8 M43rd lens, right?

The mere fact that you have to ask this points to your inexperience . . .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jhinkey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

Silly discussion.  I have a D800 and a GH-2 and use them as I need to for the occasion.  Each has their own strengths and weaknesses over each other.

 jhinkey's gear list:jhinkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
offtheback
Regular MemberPosts: 308Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to The Photo Ninja, 10 months ago

The Photo Ninja wrote:

Whatever. This is stupid! Of course the camera makes a difference. Otherwise, we'd all be using pinholes.

And still be making magnificent images.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,367
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to offtheback, 10 months ago

The Photo Ninja wrote:

Whatever. This is stupid! Of course the camera makes a difference. Otherwise, we'd all be using pinholes.

And still be making magnificent images.

You say I'll make magnificent images with a pinhole camera? That must be what I've been doing wrong. Where can I buy one?
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BozillaNZ
Regular MemberPosts: 289Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

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

Your lame post processing fake blur is so bad, that I'd dig my eyes out looking at it for more than 10 seconds. If that's what you're trying to achieve then congratulations, you made it!

I remember when I was a kid with a P&S camera and didn't understand what this background isolation was all about, I did just similar things but now look back I am ashamed.

 BozillaNZ's gear list:BozillaNZ's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads