Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions
DragosJianu
Regular MemberPosts: 143
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!

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald Chin
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,422Gear 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

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

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TORN
Contributing MemberPosts: 742
Like?
Is driving from LA to NY really better then walking? Why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

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

Do whatever you like most and have fun with it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,883Gear list
Like?
Using the right tool for the job...
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.

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
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP1 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm FinePix X100 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald Chin
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,422Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to DragosJianu, Jun 10, 2013

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 --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald Chin
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,422Gear list
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!

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wayfarers
Regular MemberPosts: 211
Like?
May I seriously suggest...
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

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?

...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,639
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

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 --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
enrique santa
Contributing MemberPosts: 734Gear list
Like?
Re: Is medium format really better than FF? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

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
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RoelHendrickx
Forum ProPosts: 22,783
Like?
GREAT post. Haha.
In reply to wayfarers, Jun 10, 2013

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Landscapephoto99
Senior MemberPosts: 2,526
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Sean Nelson, Jun 10, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,442
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AndyMulhearn
Regular MemberPosts: 402Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Lights, Jun 10, 2013

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 EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GingerBread
Regular MemberPosts: 373Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Donald Chin, Jun 10, 2013

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 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
norland
Forum MemberPosts: 97
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Sean Nelson, Jun 10, 2013

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. 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mpgxsvcd
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,941Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

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 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
norland
Forum MemberPosts: 97
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to MAubrey, Jun 10, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cptrios
Senior MemberPosts: 1,347
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to mpgxsvcd, Jun 10, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DanielBme
Regular MemberPosts: 493
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to knickerhawk, Jun 10, 2013

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 6,594Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to DanielBme, Jun 10, 2013

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 E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads