Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions
Kendunn
Contributing MemberPosts: 748
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

I shoot with a FF and a m4/3, FF is better, no question.  M4/3 is light and fun and can produce great results, and Panasonic has mopped the floors with anything else as far as video, but when its on the line, I want my FF. That doesn't mean that when I am in Disney World in a week I will have my 5D.

What I hate is the price of m4/3 lenses, we were promised that would be an advantage of the format when it was introduced and that is a joke.  Sure the lenses are top notch, but the sensors, at least so far, can't fully take advantage of it and may never.  They want their cake and eat it, too.  If it benefits them to charge for the equivalent focal length, they do.  If charging more for actual focal length increases the price, they do.  I came from medium format, those lenses cost more than 35mm, and 35mm were better as far as resolution per mm.  Don't even feed me the BS.

Keep this in mind, too.  I love Olympus, I started with Olympus in the early 80's with my grandfathers OM1 that I still have and is a prized position.  I have no emotional attachment to any of my Canon stuff, its just a sack of tools.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Conskiz
Junior MemberPosts: 42
Like?
Re: Using the right tool for the job...
In reply to papillon_65, Jun 10, 2013

papillon_65 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.

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/

Here, here. You're preaching to the choir! +1 and like!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photo Pete
Senior MemberPosts: 1,796
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to knickerhawk, Jun 10, 2013

knickerhawk wrote:

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.

Thank you for that comment. True I have plenty of experience, but I would say far from outstanding compared to the many excellent photographers who post here!

It just seems a shame that this thread is trying to gloss over some of the weaknesses of M43 when compared to FF, when it actually should be trumpeting the strengths of M43 and mirrorless cameras:-

  • Size and weight of kit
  • Accuracy of on-sensor focus compared to reflex PDAF (which is annoyingly temperamental and dependent on mirror and AF module alignment and on software for lenses and camera).
  • Lack of mirror slap / vibration.
  • The ability of the electronic viewfinders to help composition in low light
  • The ability of the electronic viewfinders to overlay shooting information, enabling it to be viewed and changes to be made without removing your eye from the viewfinder
  • Increased depth of field at wide apertures
  • The benefits of increased depth of field for shooting scenarios such as macro photography.
  • The potential for greatly increased burst speeds (such as on the Nikon V2) due to the removal of reflex mirror blackout time.
  • Reduced sensitivity to damage and mechanical wear (the reflex  mirror systems of FF dSLRs are a manufacturing and maintenance burden)
  • Seamless integration of video shooting
  • Potential to use legacy lenses and lenses from different manufacturers with adapters.

Even a thread which discussed ways to help overcome the weaknesses of M43 would be more useful:-

  • Software techniques to help replicate shallow depth of field effects
  • Techniques for natural looking HDR or image stacking to increase dynamic range
  • Pre-focus techniques and camera focus settings to get the best results from focus tracking
  • Discussion of the best exposure and in-camera settings to minimise noise at High ISO and the best software to deal with it

No doubt I could find reference to all of the above somewhere in this forum from the large number of truly experienced and helpful posters, but you can never have too much of a good thing.

-- hide signature --

Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,831
Like?
Double post ignore..
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,831
Like?
An m43rds is a toy by comparison.
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

A pro FF body will walk circles around any m43rds camera

But you have to realize what do you mean by better? Is a pro FF body good for snapshot when you are limited by what you can carry? No. Is a pro FF the best camera for grandma and grandpa to take on vacation with them? Probably not. Is a pro FF camera good for a person who uses the green mode or changes to sports mode when they are taking pics of the kids at a soccer game. No.

So is a pro FF good for what you are doing below, sure, it would do it much better in the right hands but for beginner photographers like yourself, it would be better for you to have a toy like an m43 instead of a pro FF camera.

A2T2 wrote:

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

For portraiture, (like the image you posted) FF will allow you go get better DOF control, and blow out the background without using extremely large apertures or without having to move extremely close to your subject.

I'm guessing that you also did some post processing to your image as 112mm @ f6.3 on m43, the man's left eye is OOF, as are his right ear and shoulder.

So I'm assuming you used a some kind of Gaussian Blur in Photoshop, but the layer mask you used didn't fully protect the subject.

Post work is fine, but can be extremely time consuming and even when done well, it almost never looks as good as natural bokeh. For example there is no way to get "bokeh balls" will a blur filter in Photoshop.  And as in your image, it's easy to blur part of the subject if you are not careful.

On FF, it's easy to get subject/background separation with the equivalent of what you used (i.e., 100mm @ f5.6-8 as the three images below show).  None of these are masterpieces, but I attached  them because they use a similar aperture and focal length as the OPs image.

110mm @ f5

105mm, 1/40 @ f5.6, ISO 6400.  This kind of bokeh would not be possible with a simple Gaussian Blur in PS, AFAIK.

f/7.1 @ 130mm and good subject/background separation with both eyes are in focus (even though she's squinting in the Athens sun).

Body Design:

There are other reasons to use FF like bright 100% Pentaprism VFs, larger more robust weather sealed bodies built for the rigors of outdoor use, and can be operated easily with gloves on in the winter.

Image Quality:

The IQ advantages of FF are obvious. m43 has closed the gap somewhat, but it's still lags behind the best of APS-C.  FF cameras provide in some cases 1 1/2 to a full 2 EV better high ISO ability, better DR and color depth.  So depending on what you shoot, this may be significant.  A wedding shooter for example, will benefit not only from the great DOF control, but will be able to get cleaner files with richer colors at any given ISO in natural light (Churches are not known for the good light).

Resolution:  other than Medium Format, the current highest resolving cameras are the FFs.  m43 will have a bit of a problem in upping it's resolution beyond 16 mp, as the small sensor jam packed with pixels will see diffraction earlier in the aperture scale than now (Thom Hogan in his review of the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 talks about diffraction limitations 1 EV from wide open.  On a potential 24 mp m43 sensor, this kinds of issues will only get worse.  Of course all formats have to deal with this problem, but the large FF sensor has more real estate to add pixels).

Lenses: There are simply more FF lenses than any other format with the exception of APS-C, a crop format that has the advantage of being able to mount both dedicated APS-C lenses like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and FF lenses like the Nikon or Canon 50 1.4.  But FF has available every lens imaginable including specialty lenses like Tilt-Shift, 3 focal lengths of macro (60mm, 105mm, 200mm), fish-eye (circular and 180 degree), etc.

Wide angle and Ultra-Wide Angle lenses are far more plentiful than in m43 what has only a few rectilinear wide angle lenses - Panasonic 14 f/2.5, Olympus 12 f/2 and Panasonic 7-14 f/4, both of which are quite expensive (SLR Magic makes a 12 f/1.6, a good lens, but MF and fairly expensive).

Telephoto lenses benefit from the 2 times crop factor of m43, but choices in telephotos are limited to slow speed variable aperture zooms, i.e., f/4-5.6 lenses.  (There is no such thing as a pro-grade 300 f/4, 300 2.8 and up telephoto prime in m43, which could be a problem depending on what you shoot).

Anyway, I enjoy my m43 cameras, which are great for certain applications like for travel, street photography, and in the case of the GH2, video.  But for the ultimate IQ, or for the most important photo trips and travel locations, I always have my FF DSLR with me.

Cheers and happy shooting, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lindsay D
Regular MemberPosts: 353
Like?
Re: YES! However, not today...
In reply to The Photo Ninja, Jun 10, 2013

The Photo Ninja wrote:

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.

I would have to dispute that I'm afraid, it is simply untrue.

I can shoot at the same locations using the Mkiii and the OMD, under the same conditions, and I can compare the images. Surprisingly, it's not unusual for me to prefer the photographs taken with the OMD ( using some of the excellent Micro 4/3 lenses). I find the white balance more pleasing and more consistent on the Olympus, and the Oly images have a wonderful level of detail. The only advantage one might see with the Mkiii are the occasions where you might need the extra bit of resolution (rarely necessary) or if you have to shoot in very low light. But all too often the so-called advantages are lost because on the MkIII in low light I'll be shooting at very wide apertures and suffering some issues associated with very shallow depth of field. Of course on the OMD that is far less of an issue and I can shoot wider than I would dare on the MkIII which somewhat obviates the ISO advantage (because I would need to stop down a little on the MkIII). Therefore, for me, the OMD is often proving to be the most versatile camera. I now use it for virtually all of my professional assignments. If you want to see both cameras shot together, at an animal sanctuary, then they are compared here in this post: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/choosing-the-right-kit-for-nature-photography/

Note that I deliberately shot at similar apertures so that viewers could see the depth of field difference, but I could easily have matched the depth of field had I wished to. I recall having to do some white balance adjustments to the Canon images, and I almost never have to make such adjustments on the Oly.

The out of camera RAW files are compared at the bottom of the article.

For my portrait work I would normally be shooting the MkIII and L glass at around f5.6 (70-200 lens) since this gives shallow depth of field but the smaller margin should the subject moves slightly. On the OMD with the 35 to 100 I could shoot at f2.8 and gain the same subject isolation should I wish to.

EDIT: however ergonomics are important and very small cameras are not for everyone.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,298
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Photo Pete, Jun 10, 2013

Photo Pete wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

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.

Thank you for that comment. True I have plenty of experience, but I would say far from outstanding compared to the many excellent photographers who post here!

You're too modest.  You obviously know your way around a camera.

It just seems a shame that this thread is trying to gloss over some of the weaknesses of M43 when compared to FF, when it actually should be trumpeting the strengths of M43 and mirrorless cameras:-

  • Size and weight of kit
  • Accuracy of on-sensor focus compared to reflex PDAF (which is annoyingly temperamental and dependent on mirror and AF module alignment and on software for lenses and camera).
  • Lack of mirror slap / vibration.
  • The ability of the electronic viewfinders to help composition in low light
  • The ability of the electronic viewfinders to overlay shooting information, enabling it to be viewed and changes to be made without removing your eye from the viewfinder
  • Increased depth of field at wide apertures
  • The benefits of increased depth of field for shooting scenarios such as macro photography.
  • The potential for greatly increased burst speeds (such as on the Nikon V2) due to the removal of reflex mirror blackout time.
  • Reduced sensitivity to damage and mechanical wear (the reflex  mirror systems of FF dSLRs are a manufacturing and maintenance burden)
  • Seamless integration of video shooting
  • Potential to use legacy lenses and lenses from different manufacturers with adapters.

Even a thread which discussed ways to help overcome the weaknesses of M43 would be more useful:-

  • Software techniques to help replicate shallow depth of field effects
  • Techniques for natural looking HDR or image stacking to increase dynamic range
  • Pre-focus techniques and camera focus settings to get the best results from focus tracking
  • Discussion of the best exposure and in-camera settings to minimise noise at High ISO and the best software to deal with it

No doubt I could find reference to all of the above somewhere in this forum from the large number of truly experienced and helpful posters, but you can never have too much of a good thing.

Really well said.  This responsive post is SO MUCH MORE instructive than the original post (including its deceptive image with the ugly faked background).  Your bulleted issues are the topics we should be discussing, instead of sweeping, pointless generalizations about one format vs. another.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 13,749
Like?
Why do you ask?
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'm connected remotely to my PC at home and can't see the photo well enough to comment specifically, but really that looks like a very un-challenging photo to take. Narrow DR, strong lighting and the ability to shoot at low ISO, any camera could do a very good job of it.

But it seems to me like another thread about 'please reassure me that my camera is as good as DSLR / full frame / whatever.'

Stop worrying about other cameras. Use what you have and enjoy it, or get rid of it and get one you are happier with.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 13,749
Like?
Over-generalization
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

A2T2 wrote:

Klaus dk wrote:

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.

In your case that is quite true, assuming your gallery has your typical favored types of shooting. And I am not insulting or minimizing your taste in shooting, but flowers, people standing still, scenic photos, subjects like that are not difficult to capture well with many kinds of cameras.

Pretty clearly FF would go beyond your needs but you can't generalize and say it's not required by others based on your own kind of shooting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 13,749
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Kim Letkeman, Jun 10, 2013

Kim Letkeman wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

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 ...

Welcome to another 'Help me reassure myself that my kind of camera is The Very Best Kind For Everyone, and one would be a fool to buy any other kind' thread.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 13,749
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Kim Letkeman, Jun 10, 2013

Kim Letkeman wrote:

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 ..

"Nice to know"... more like 'ignorance is bliss'.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Josh152
Senior MemberPosts: 1,192
Like?
Re: Freedom of choise!
In reply to Donald Chin, Jun 10, 2013

Donald Chin wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

The Trouble is it is the MFT photographers that are the most vocal about it.  You would never see at thread like this, one that the only purpose of is to hate on a different format,  in the Nikon FX forum for example.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mferencz
Regular MemberPosts: 233Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to marike6, Jun 10, 2013

You must have blessed us with the same line of self contrived bologna a dozen times already.  It just takes different shapes in the different opportunities presented you.  Sure some of what you say is right, but most of your opinions on M43 revolve around you clinically tearing it apart while at the end putting the cherry on top by saying (I have M43 and I like it).

Question why on earth do you have M43 if you can't find one positive thing to say about it?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kim Letkeman
Forum ProPosts: 32,966Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Midwest, Jun 10, 2013

Midwest wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

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 ...

Welcome to another 'Help me reassure myself that my kind of camera is The Very Best Kind For Everyone, and one would be a fool to buy any other kind' thread.

I didn't want to be that blunt but am very glad you said it

 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: 1,796
Like?
Re: Freedom of choice!
In reply to Josh152, Jun 10, 2013

Donald Chin wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

The Trouble is it is the MFT photographers that are the most vocal about it.  You would never see at thread like this, one that the only purpose of is to hate on a different format,  in the Nikon FX forum for example.

That's true to a degree, but the FX forums tend to reserve their competiveness and insecurity for posts bashing other FX brands... the Canon vs Nikon wars. It's a part of the human psyche unfortunately.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MrFlash
Contributing MemberPosts: 615Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

Higher pixel density = Lower quality. It just does.

Not that manufactures can't make a high density sensor that delivers good results - they can and do, but if they take the same number of pixels and spread it across a larger area the results will have better color, lower noise and higher quality - every time.

-- hide signature --

MrFlash

 MrFlash's gear list:MrFlash's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm XQ1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robgo2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,531
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

To put the question of whether FF is better than m43 in proper context, you have to specify "better for what?"  In terms of greater resolution with less noise--yes.  Dynamic range--yes.  Control of DOF--yes.  Basic photography to be printed small or displayed on the web--probably no.

The OP posted a nice portrait that shows off the fine picture taking qualities of his E-M5, but I can guarantee that if he took the same picture with a FF Sony RX1, the difference would be so striking that anyone could see it.  So the question really boils down to whether m43 is good enough, not whether it is as good as FF.  That is something for each individual photographer to answer based on his or her own standards and needs.

Rob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nexu1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,811
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Martin.au, Jun 10, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

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

Glad to see some rational MFT posters.

People like the OP are giving MFT a bad name.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to mferencz, Jun 10, 2013

mferencz wrote:

You must have blessed us with the same line of self contrived bologna a dozen times already.

The points I made were true the first time I said then, and the 12th.

It just takes different shapes in the different opportunities presented you. Sure some of what you say is right, but most of your opinions on M43 revolve around you clinically tearing it apart while at the end putting the cherry on top by saying (I have M43 and I like it).

How did I tear anything appart? I'm quite certain that m43 fans here are quite aware of the capabilities of the format, of each body and each lens, what they can and cannot do.  Most here don't need me to confirm what a capable system m43 is.  That is obvious.

I don't understand this weird "cherry on top" nonsense you mention as I've been using m43 since close to the beginning.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5543808958/albums

If I didn't like m43, I wouldn't use it, plain and simple.  But no, I don't think it's as good a FF.  It should be fairly obvious that in many ways it's not.  But if you lack so much confidence in your choice of gear to the point that you need every single post to reference how great it is, how wonderfully small it is, how good the glass is, etc, then I will try to remember that.  But I thought you knew all that.  Next time I be sure to adequately praise m43.  

But if someone is going to ask for a comparison with top-of-the-line FF cameras, you should expect that replies are not always going to be exactly what you want to hear. The laws of physics have not been altered and advances in sensor technology are happening to all image formats at the same time.  Other formats aren't standing still while m43 improves.   The OP asked specifically about DOF as he seems to have blurred the background of his image, AFAIK, and then asked a fairly loaded question to which there really is only one answer (if you are talking about shallow DOF for portraiture).

Question why on earth do you have M43 if you can't find one positive thing to say about it?

I can find a ton of positive things about m43, but they are all said here on a daily basis.  m43 has some of the best lenses in mirrorless, some great video cameras like the GH2 and GH3, the flagship OMD is an excellent camera, and the format is an excellent compromise between size and IQ.  All that said, that doesn't mean it's gotten to the level of FF in IQ, DOF control, or equaled F and EF mount for variety of glass.   It hasn't.

It puzzles me to this day is why some here feel the need to ignore APS-C and go straight for FF. Perhaps with more modest goals, like comparisons to APS-C cameras and DOF, the topic wouldn't be such an uphill battle, a David vs Goliath fight as it were, and you would get more pleasing answers.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads