Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions
Just Having Fun
Senior MemberPosts: 3,869
Like?
Re: Bad post processing
In reply to Photo Pete, Jun 10, 2013

Photo Pete wrote:

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

Strangely, that is the part of the image that is completely original (OOC).  The grass was really long.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kim Letkeman
Forum ProPosts: 32,764Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

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.

No surprise in that response ... puerile and fauous ... a fetching combination.

 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
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,356
Like?
Better for some, worse for others things.
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

Trapper John pointed out the main differences as I see them.

My personal experience is this : I shoot FT and µFT and am fully aware of the things that I could do differently (or "better") with FF.  But I have yet to encounter a situation in which I found my gear totally lacking, and was thinking to myself "God I wish I was carrying a FF camera now."

The thought just never occurs to me, because I have made my choices and am happy with them, and in situations where I could have approached subjects differently, I just made the gear I have, work for me, instead of agonizing over other options.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just another Canon shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 2,862Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to BozillaNZ, Jun 10, 2013

BozillaNZ wrote:

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!

Good catch! BTW, faking it is art by itself.   Next time, let the OP try lens blur rather than Gaussian one.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Samsung Galaxy S III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kim Letkeman
Forum ProPosts: 32,764Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

Seriously no crusade

Your comments might be laughable, but they are still a crusade.

but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If you know that, then you know nothing John Snow lol ....

 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
MrScorpio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,351Gear list
Like?
Pointless discussion...
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

Does the omd IS also freeze motions of people, cars, animals, or other moving subjects?

If it does not, and you want ultimate IQ, a tripod will always be superior for stills, and short shutter speeds for moving subjects.

The omd is, and will always be, a compromise. Albeit a very good one...

A2T2 wrote:

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.

OMD has 2-4 stops better stabilisation, iso 1600 OMD vs iso 6400 FF, plus 2 stops dof better, I think you'll need iso12800 in low light mostly? to match this hand-held you'd be at iso25600 lol.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

-- hide signature --
 MrScorpio's gear list:MrScorpio's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ollie 2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,364Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

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

Oh dear...he's drunk the Kool Aid.

You've gone from being mildly silly to utterly absurd...but please don't let that stop you from continuing.

Popcorn, please.

 Ollie 2's gear list:Ollie 2's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Olympus PEN E-P2 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MrScorpio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,351Gear list
Like?
If you ask me...
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

Personally I think it is a horrible shot with poor bokeh and very distracting colors in the background.

I thing a FF with 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 would do a much better job, but also some better PP is needed IMO!

BR

Marcus

A2T2 wrote:

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

-- hide signature --
 MrScorpio's gear list:MrScorpio's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald Chin
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,268Gear list
Like?
Re: YES! However, not today...
In reply to The Photo Ninja, Jun 10, 2013

The Photo Ninja wrote:

My main camera is a 5D Mark III.  Its focus is amazing, the fps blistering, the lenses astounding, the noise performance is amazing.  However, it's a monster to carry around.  This weekend, my wife was off visiting her sister and I decided to take our 5.5 and 1.5 year old girls to the zoo.  No stroller - they are a pain.  So, I grabbed my Thinktank backpack which usually stores a 5DIII with a 24-70 or a 70-200mm, a flash, smaller lens, batteries, etc. and made it into a diaper bag.  Today I was able to pack an epl5 with 17mm 1.8 with flash attached, diapers, wipes, ointment, 2 peaches, an apple, granolla bars, seed and nuts, raisons, and goldfish crackers.  I haven't seen the pics yet, but they will not be nearly as good as a well done shot composed with a 5D III which has more field of view and better optics.  The new Sigma 35mm 1.4 beats the Olympus 17mm 1.8 as does the Canon 50mm 1.2.  However, there is NO WAY I would have been able to manage today with a DSLR!  Today it was all point and shoot style with facial autofocus.  Today is the day that the Micro 4/3 format was designed for!

My main system camera is FF, and my P&S is also FF, I don't see MFT has real size & weight advantage these day.

A day in the park with FF DC

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hindesite
Senior MemberPosts: 1,254
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

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?

If you are not aware of what capabilities FF brings, you need to widen your experience before making such comments.

As I said, Sean is right on the money. The same comments would equally apply to medium and large format cameras.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald Chin
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,268Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

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.

OMD has 2-4 stops better stabilisation, iso 1600 OMD vs iso 6400 FF, plus 2 stops dof better, I think you'll need iso12800 in low light mostly? to match this hand-held you'd be at iso25600 lol.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

Nothing special about Olympus IS, any modern DC can do the job, here's an example of a superzoom @ 1200mm (EQV) handheld, 1/20s ISO 1250.

and here is another example of an FF DC shot @ ISO 2000 which show the difference of IQ.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Photo Ninja
Senior MemberPosts: 1,653
Like?
Re: YES! However, not today...
In reply to Donald Chin, Jun 10, 2013

Which point and shoot do you use?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald Chin
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,268Gear list
Like?
Re: YES! However, not today...
In reply to The Photo Ninja, Jun 10, 2013

The Photo Ninja wrote:

Which point and shoot do you use?

Sony RX1.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eilivk
Senior MemberPosts: 1,467Gear list
Like?
Re: YES! However, not today...
In reply to cosmonaut, Jun 10, 2013

cosmonaut wrote:

Yes it is certainly. I have shot with the OMD EM-5. The biggest difference is in dynamic range. I no longer struggle to keep the highlights under control. Then there is color depth. The a99 has a wider range of colors. Not to forget lower noise at high ISO. I am not convinced that the full frames have less noise due to the sensor being bigger or that full frame sensors just have much more R&D in them or something. The Xpro1 pretty much proved to me a cropped sensor can have low noise.

Then there is the DOF. Say what you will I just like DOF on full frames. I don't have to think about equivalent focal lengths and full frame just looks right to me.

-- hide signature --

www.gregmccary.com

Have not seen any answers to this. Can understand why. What I can't understand is why it is so important to prove that mft is above it's level. A nagging doubt that there are better things? Then so what? Mft is a miracle compared to what used to be. Walking around with G3 + 20mm, perfect in the city. But being obsessed with low light, night clouds, looking forward to smaller FF (with EVF), maybe fixed lens for best quality. FF don't stand still, check serious reviews of RX1.

Not thinking of my G3 as "mft", just a very good camera. Enjoy what you got!

 eilivk's gear list:eilivk's gear list
Canon PowerShot G10 Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Canon PowerShot SX20 IS Ricoh CX4 Sony RX1 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Photo Ninja
Senior MemberPosts: 1,653
Like?
Re: YES! However, not today...
In reply to Donald Chin, Jun 10, 2013

I'm sure it's cool, but too much money for me.  I already spend that on my 5d3.  Heck, if I were to spend that much, I'd just go 1dx and carry it everywhere size being large or not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Husaberg Grok
Regular MemberPosts: 393
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

Nothing like a pointless discussion to complete the weekend.

Quite simply put, if one format or system or brand was better in every conceivable aspect, that system/format would be the only one on the market. That goes for all consumer goods. The hardest part of a purchasing decision these days is defining your needs. I have enough retail experience to know that consumers generally fall into three distinct groups.

The know-it-all, usually simply looking at price.

The person with some experience and a bit of research under their belts, looking for the last bits of info to make their decision.

The person has made an impulse decision to buy because their friend just showed off his new shiny toy.

The latter group are the majority of the buyers.

-- hide signature --

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Conskiz
Junior MemberPosts: 42
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

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.

Yes and no. It really depends on how much work you are going to put in and the experience you have. A simple lens blur, field blur, radial blur, Gaussian blur will not do it. You have to mask, how much to blur, where to blur, and if needed paint in your own bokeh balls.

Btw I am not knocking PP, I do it all the time for clients. It is just a lot of more work to do.

I came up from P/S and cell phone cameras to an OMD. Never have shot FF, but I am glad with my current kit with the OMD. I don't have to paint my own bokeh balls anymore.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Klaus dk
Senior MemberPosts: 2,323Gear list
Like?
Freedom of choise!
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

[...]   But to imply that what's good enough for you and me must therefore be good enough for everyone is simply wrong.

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. 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.

A2T2: Why is it unacceptable to you that others have different preferences than you?

I have a hard time understanding why so many MFT photographers are insisting that "their" system is the only right system and that everybody should use the same. I use an APS-C DSLR and a 1/1.7" compact, and is perfectly happy with both, but that does not mean I think all other formats should be removed from the surface of the earth.

The main fault with MFT seems to be, that it installs an inferiority complex in it's users.

In politics, there's a word for your attitude, and I don't like that at all!

 Klaus dk's gear list:Klaus dk's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Freedom of choise!
In reply to Klaus dk, Jun 10, 2013

Klaus dk wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

[...]   But to imply that what's good enough for you and me must therefore be good enough for everyone is simply wrong.

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. 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.

A2T2: Why is it unacceptable to you that others have different preferences than you?

I have a hard time understanding why so many MFT photographers are insisting that "their" system is the only right system and that everybody should use the same. I use an APS-C DSLR and a 1/1.7" compact, and is perfectly happy with both, but that does not mean I think all other formats should be removed from the surface of the earth.

The main fault with MFT seems to be, that it installs an inferiority complex in it's users.

In politics, there's a word for your attitude, and I don't like that at all!

Klaus, FF is a sledgehammer to a nut, in the main its not required.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MatsP
Senior MemberPosts: 1,019Gear list
Like?
It doesn't prove anything
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

I'm sorry to say this is no good example to illustrating that a m4/3 camera is able to perform as an FF. An OM-D E-M5 can do better than that. I have an E-M5, it's an excellent camera, and in most situations I can take the pictures I want. But I would be lying to myself if I thought it always, in all situations, is as good as an FF. Because it simply isn't. Generally an FF camera is better. Of course it is. It's ridiculous to say anything else. But, that said, I can take fantastic pictures with my E-M5 (if I only was a good photographer). The m4/3 format limits me, I realize that and have to adapt to it, but with that in my mind I can live with it because the E-M5 is good enough in most situations and it has the very important advantage to be much more portable.

I think it's totally meaningless for m43 owners to try to fool themselves that their gear is similar to FF. Be happy with your camera, use it as the very fine photographic tool it is, but don't envy FF owners or try to convince them that their gear is worse.

 MatsP's gear list:MatsP's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Canon Pixma MG8150 DxO Optics Pro Standard +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads