Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
DragosJianu Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

A2T2 wrote:

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

Now you are just being remarkably childish.

As for the pic that started this thread, it looks fake. I would have less of a problem believing it was taken with an ultrazoom P&S rathern then a M43. Certainly not FF. It's not even making M43 justice. M43 can achieve far better subject separation, and without cheap Gaussian Blur tricks.

Donald Chin
Donald Chin Veteran Member • Posts: 5,506
Re: YES! However, not today...

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

There is no miracle for cropped sensor, Fujifilm Xpro 1 ISO is overrated by almost one stop.

-- hide signature --
TORN Senior Member • Posts: 1,089
Is driving from LA to NY really better then walking? Why?

If I said I prefer to walk would you dispute it, seriously?

Do whatever you like most and have fun with it.

 TORN's gear list:TORN's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,114
Using the right tool for the job...
4

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.

To suggest that you just post process every file (where you want the dof effects given to you by a FF camera) is just time-consuming and silly. You use the correct tool for the job. A full frame portrait shooter is never going to painstakingly spend hours messing about trying to get every one of his/her shoots looking like they should. There are plenty of situations where post processing is tricky and time consuming. It's like having to defish a fisheye lens to give you an UWA view, it's a kludge. The easy and sensible solution is just to use the right tool for the job and save yourself time and hassle.

There is no "better" or "worse" format, or even a one size fits all. There is only what's best for the individual. I use both FF and m4/3's and in certain scenario's either will "beat" the other.
Just use what's best for you and don't try and tell others what they need, that's just a pointless exercise.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
Donald Chin
Donald Chin Veteran Member • Posts: 5,506
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
1

DragosJianu wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

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

Now you are just being remarkably childish.

As for the pic that started this thread, it looks fake. I would have less of a problem believing it was taken with an ultrazoom P&S rathern then a M43. Certainly not FF. It's not even making M43 justice. M43 can achieve far better subject separation, and without cheap Gaussian Blur tricks.

Yes, it indeed is a fake, the embed thumbnail show the original should look like this

But OP has a similar shot in his album which indicate that the original should had been taken with an E-M5 with 14-150mm F4-5.6 shot at 46 mm Aperture-priority AE, 1/200 sec, f/6.3, ISO 200

This one was taken with an E-M5 with 14-150mm F4-5.6 shot at 34 mm Aperture-priority AE, 1/1000 sec, f/6.3, ISO 200, EC-1

-- hide signature --
Donald Chin
Donald Chin Veteran Member • Posts: 5,506
Re: Freedom of choise!
1

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!

People tends to think they are smarter than the others with their purchase, it isn't just a problem of MFT photographers, similar things happened in Fujifilm X forum too, and there is a group of D800E owners always claim their camera is far superior to MF.

wayfarers Regular Member • Posts: 211
May I seriously suggest...
3

May I respectfully suggest looking up this page:

check this please

A2T2 wrote:

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

...

Moti Veteran Member • Posts: 6,788
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
2

A2T2 wrote:

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

I wouldn't dispute it bcause it is a result of bad photograpy and bad photography can be done with any camera.

About which is better, I can comment from my personal experience because I have switched lately FF gear to m43.  Although my OMD is a great camera with lots of advantages compared to my FF gear (5Dll) there are few things I miss very much, that the FF does better.

Focussing speed in low ligh situation is much faster on the FF.

Cleaner high ISO files. My FF is at least 1 stop better.

ETTL flas mode on the OMD is almost useless due to the very long shutter lag.

I also miss the OVF which is great for action shots but I'm getting used.

With all the rest I can easily live.

Moti

-- hide signature --
enrique santa
enrique santa Senior Member • Posts: 1,397
Re: Is medium format really better than FF? and why?
1

No sense question. Ask yourself what system better suits your needs.
--
All we need is love
http://www.flickr.com/photos/montoablasa1/

 enrique santa's gear list:enrique santa's gear list
Leica X Vario
RoelHendrickx
RoelHendrickx Forum Pro • Posts: 24,399
GREAT post. Haha.

wayfarers wrote:

May I respectfully suggest looking up this page:

check this please

A2T2 wrote:

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

...

-- 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

Landscapephoto99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,734
Re: No

There are very few differences and they are getting smaller by the year.  Lenses with 0.95 f stop can take as razor think a dof as most would ever need. As soon as PDAF is successfully implemented, the last reason for most to use FF will be gone except for specialty studio or ultra high resolution uses.

Many of the negative responses here are by people with gear envy, not true phoyographers.

knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 4,350
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
2

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!

Judging from his gallery, Pete is anything but "inexperienced".  He's actually an outstanding photographer and, based on the quality of his posted images compared to yours, one that you should listen to.

As a fellow OM-D user, I'm embarrassed by threads like this.   I shoot M43 because of its convenience, size and relative cost effectiveness, not because I'm deluded into believing it can equal the IQ of larger formats of the same sensor generation.

AndyMulhearn Regular Member • Posts: 453
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
1

Lights wrote:

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.

One workaround being to use the greater DOF to get around slow/poor focus on moving objects. I see a large number of "Look mFT can do sport/BIF/whatever" shots where the aperture is so small you could fit the whole of the solar system in the shot.

But yes, with skill and perseverence and anticipation of motion you can get decent sport shots or BIFs but why struggle when you could use something like a 7D (rough equivalent price of the OMD) which is much better suited to the task?

 AndyMulhearn's gear list:AndyMulhearn's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +2 more
GingerBread Regular Member • Posts: 384
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
1

tricks.

Yes, it indeed is a fake, the embed thumbnail show the original should look like this

But OP has a similar shot in his album which indicate that the original should had been taken with an E-M5 with 14-150mm F4-5.6 shot at 46 mm Aperture-priority AE, 1/200 sec, f/6.3, ISO 200

This one was taken with an E-M5 with 14-150mm F4-5.6 shot at 34 mm Aperture-priority AE, 1/1000 sec, f/6.3, ISO 200, EC-

Has anyone else with a color calibrated monitor noticed how all these people have skin tones so warm they appear ready to burst into flames?

-- 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 +3 more
norland Forum Member • Posts: 97
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
2

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.

And none of that says anything about the ability of FF cameras to capture lower-noise images in poor lighting conditions.

M43 is perfectly adequate for many people and it certainly sounds like you're very happy with it - I'm glad.   It's perfectly adequate for me, too.   But to imply that what's good enough for you and me must therefore be good enough for everyone is simply wrong.

Is it still under guarantee?

... that lens seems nicely sharp in the centre, but a bit soft towards the edges. 

mpgxsvcd Veteran Member • Posts: 8,092
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
3

A2T2 wrote:

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

I would say that he is standing in front of a painting or that you did some really bad post processing. The out of focus area is not good.

 mpgxsvcd's gear list:mpgxsvcd's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +4 more
norland Forum Member • Posts: 97
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

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

So except at infinity, the FF's higher ISO capability is largely useless since it has to be diverted into compensating for FF's shallow depth of field.

cptrios Senior Member • Posts: 1,352
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
2

DPR needs to work up a script that automatically deletes first posts that contain a brash statement followed by an image that directly contradicts that statement (or at least does nothing to support it).

And when did full frame's only advantage become DoF control? Did I miss a memo? Every system has its positives and negatives, and it does nobody any good whatsoever to continue arguing that one is better than the other.

DanielBme
DanielBme Contributing Member • Posts: 673
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

knickerhawk wrote:

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!

Judging from his gallery, Pete is anything but "inexperienced".  He's actually an outstanding photographer and, based on the quality of his posted images compared to yours, one that you should listen to.

As a fellow OM-D user, I'm embarrassed by threads like this.   I shoot M43 because of its convenience, size and relative cost effectiveness, not because I'm deluded into believing it can equal the IQ of larger formats of the same sensor generation.

+1

-- hide signature --

'Not all those who wander are lost.'
- J.R.R Tolkein

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 10,257
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

DanielBme wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

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!

Judging from his gallery, Pete is anything but "inexperienced".  He's actually an outstanding photographer and, based on the quality of his posted images compared to yours, one that you should listen to.

As a fellow OM-D user, I'm embarrassed by threads like this.   I shoot M43 because of its convenience, size and relative cost effectiveness, not because I'm deluded into believing it can equal the IQ of larger formats of the same sensor generation.

+1

-- hide signature --

'Not all those who wander are lost.'
- J.R.R Tolkein

+2

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads