Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
Tom2572
Contributing MemberPosts: 922
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to MrFlash, 10 months ago

MrFlash wrote:

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

+1

Physics don't care about popularity contests or soothing feelings of insecurity over camera purchases. Physics just is

I wonder if the OP realizes that if he took his hypothesis and thought it out further, he would eventually have to ask: "Is m43 really better than cell phones? and why?"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sean Nelson
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,413
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to norland, 10 months ago

norland wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

Is it still under guarantee?

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

I bought that lens new in 1980 so no, I don't think it's still under warranty...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joe Ogiba
Senior MemberPosts: 2,866
Like?
Re: if you told me you used a cell phone . . .
In reply to tko, 10 months ago

Photo taken with Google Glass

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TB Rich
Forum MemberPosts: 55Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 I doff my cap to you sir, very well done indeed. 7 pages and not one person called troll.

You know if the art of trolling was to be compared to cameras themselves, you would in fact be the FF of trolls....oh the irony

 TB Rich's gear list:TB Rich's gear list
Canon PowerShot G10 Canon EOS 650D Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 HTC One +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just Having Fun
Senior MemberPosts: 3,869
Like?
Another funny "richard" post.
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Richard wrote:

A pro FF body...

As so many others have pointed out, you also tell Canon and Nikon users that ONLY a Canon 1D (or equivalent Nikon) is a "pro" FF body.    So basically the only way you can make a point is compare an M43 camera (like the $399 E-PM2) to a $6700 camera like the Canon 1D-X.  Which I guess is OK since even DxO says the the M43 sensors are better than Canon APS sensors. 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 14,837
Like?
Smashingly Brilliant Compositions ...
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

... like this one validate the age old sayling that, "it's not the format, it's the photographer" ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kim Letkeman
Forum ProPosts: 31,920Gear list
Like?
actually ...
In reply to Tom2572, 10 months ago

Tom2572 wrote:

MrFlash wrote:

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

+1

Physics don't care about popularity contests or soothing feelings of insecurity over camera purchases. Physics just is

I wonder if the OP realizes that if he took his hypothesis and thought it out further, he would eventually have to ask: "Is m43 really better than cell phones? and why?"

"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."

Which has zilch to do with density and everything to do with the increase in the light gathering capacity of the sensor. It is the "larger area" that matters, not the pixel density. This has been proven time and again.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!

The 16mp sensors all stomp the 12mp sensors in the m4/3 world despite their higher pixel density. The 24mp APS sensor stomps the 16mp m4/3 sensor despite having the same density, because of the larger area. It really is all about the total light sensitive area on the sensor.

 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
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 12,497
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Kim Letkeman, 10 months ago

Kim Letkeman wrote:

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

Glad to. Personally I don't think the OP's sample photo at the top of the thread is even as good as m43, never mind FF. To quote the Peggy Lee song, "Is that all there is?"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Whoa, away for a day, raw nerve or Xenophobia?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

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

Wow, that touched a "raw" nerve LOL. All I asked was a simple question, wanting to understand a bit more of what makes the FF brigade tick. Man did I get it with both barrels. There are some seriously insecure FF shooters lurking in these forums. I don't know if they are jealous or just plain xenophobic. And btw, yes the above is not real, to those who answered rationally it was concocted to produce debate but to some it proved offensive, oh well.

Happy shooting all

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
veroman
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,042
Like?
Re: Whoa, away for a day, raw nerve or Xenophobia?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

..... All I asked was a simple question, wanting to understand a bit more of what makes the FF brigade tick. Man did I get it with both barrels. There are some seriously insecure FF shooters lurking in these forums. I don't know if they are jealous or just plain xenophobic ....

I've not read all of the posts, mostly because I don't understand why there would be so many. Yes, you did ask a simple question, and the simple answer is that full frame is better for reasons that have been explained, documented, demonstrated and supported a million times over during the past dozen years or so.

So it wasn't just a simple question ... it was also a rather silly one, as if to suggest that M4:3 IQ has come so far in its development, it can now easily compete with full frame, which is, of course, nonsense.

-- hide signature --

SteveG
'When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece.'
— Found in a Chinese Fortune Cookie
www.stephenmichaelgarey.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Whoa, away for a day, raw nerve or Xenophobia?
In reply to veroman, 10 months ago

veroman wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

..... All I asked was a simple question, wanting to understand a bit more of what makes the FF brigade tick. Man did I get it with both barrels. There are some seriously insecure FF shooters lurking in these forums. I don't know if they are jealous or just plain xenophobic ....

I've not read all of the posts, mostly because I don't understand why there would be so many. Yes, you did ask a simple question, and the simple answer is that full frame is better for reasons that have been explained, documented, demonstrated and supported a million times over during the past dozen years or so.

So it wasn't just a simple question ... it was also a rather silly one, as if to suggest that M4:3 IQ has come so far in its development, it can now easily compete with full frame, which is, of course, nonsense.

The evidence actually suggests otherwise, and not one poster has posted anything apart from "comment" to support any such thing.

-- hide signature --

SteveG
'When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece.'
— Found in a Chinese Fortune Cookie
www.stephenmichaelgarey.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just another Canon shooter
Contributing MemberPosts: 949Gear list
Like?
Re: Whoa, away for a day, raw nerve or Xenophobia?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

Wow, that touched a "raw" nerve LOL. All I asked was a simple question, wanting to understand a bit more of what makes the FF brigade tick. Man did I get it with both barrels.

It is called trolling, and you just confirmed it.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Samsung Galaxy S III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom2572
Contributing MemberPosts: 922
Like?
Re: Whoa, away for a day, raw nerve or Xenophobia?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

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

Wow, that touched a "raw" nerve LOL. All I asked was a simple question, wanting to understand a bit more of what makes the FF brigade tick. Man did I get it with both barrels. There are some seriously insecure FF shooters lurking in these forums. I don't know if they are jealous or just plain xenophobic. And btw, yes the above is not real, to those who answered rationally it was concocted to produce debate but to some it proved offensive, oh well.

Happy shooting all

Wow, played the "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a xenophobe" card. That's sure to win you lots of fans......

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xxbluejay21
Regular MemberPosts: 337
Like?
.
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

Simple answer: IT ISN'T. I'm quite annoyed by the full frame obsession people have. There's nothing special about full frame. If you want such a large sensor, you should be saving up for a medium format camera, but noone ever mentions those. These days APS-C and M43 have quality that is negligible (under most cases) from FF sensors, and some APS-C cameras even surpass modern 35mm sensors (as is the case with the D5200 and 5D3). Seriously, having a little more DOF can be nice, but FF isn't a magical format.

"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."

And that is absolute BS. Is that why the D800 has better color, dynamic range, AND low light (at high and low ISO's) than the 5D3, which has much bigger pixels? Is that why cameras today with the same megapixels take way better pictures than cameras of 10 years ago? It's about the quality of pixels, not the pixel density or number. You're talking science vs common sense. Obviously, in this case, common sense is dead wrong.

People have so many misconceptions and fantasies about 35mm and it's ridiculous how much they glorify it as the ultimate image format.

Of course, all things equal a bigger sensor would be better, and the D800 has the best digital sensor ever made, but things aren't that simple with today's technology.

-- hide signature --

Clark Kent

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 10,903Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to Sean Nelson, 10 months ago

Sean Nelson wrote:

norland wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

Is it still under guarantee?

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

I bought that lens new in 1980 so no, I don't think it's still under warranty...

Hardly. The corners are in the oof area and therefore might seems soft to some people. This is a high quality longer FL manual lens. The subject is nicely isolated...good picture.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-3 Nikon 1 S1 NEX5R Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re:If it was trolling it would of been pulled
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, 10 months ago

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Wow, that touched a "raw" nerve LOL. All I asked was a simple question, wanting to understand a bit more of what makes the FF brigade tick. Man did I get it with both barrels.

It is called trolling, and you just confirmed it.

Appears not, appears FF shooters are very insecure?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A2T2
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: Whoa, away for a day, raw nerve or Xenophobia?
In reply to Tom2572, 10 months ago

Tom2572 wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

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

Wow, that touched a "raw" nerve LOL. All I asked was a simple question, wanting to understand a bit more of what makes the FF brigade tick. Man did I get it with both barrels. There are some seriously insecure FF shooters lurking in these forums. I don't know if they are jealous or just plain xenophobic. And btw, yes the above is not real, to those who answered rationally it was concocted to produce debate but to some it proved offensive, oh well.

Happy shooting all

Wow, played the "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a xenophobe" card. That's sure to win you lots of fans......

I guess not, but the truth is hard to swallow too, maybe the aggressors amongst us will think on too?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ollie 2
Contributing MemberPosts: 995Gear list
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to captura, 10 months ago

captura wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

norland wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

Is it still under guarantee?

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

I bought that lens new in 1980 so no, I don't think it's still under warranty...

Hardly. The corners are in the oof area and therefore might seems soft to some people. This is a high quality longer FL manual lens. The subject is nicely isolated...good picture.

I believe the commenting poster was being ironic.

 Ollie 2's gear list:Ollie 2's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P2 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom2572
Contributing MemberPosts: 922
Like?
Re: Whoa, away for a day, raw nerve or Xenophobia?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

A2T2 wrote:

Tom2572 wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

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

Wow, that touched a "raw" nerve LOL. All I asked was a simple question, wanting to understand a bit more of what makes the FF brigade tick. Man did I get it with both barrels. There are some seriously insecure FF shooters lurking in these forums. I don't know if they are jealous or just plain xenophobic. And btw, yes the above is not real, to those who answered rationally it was concocted to produce debate but to some it proved offensive, oh well.

Happy shooting all

Wow, played the "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a xenophobe" card. That's sure to win you lots of fans......

I guess not, but the truth is hard to swallow too, maybe the aggressors amongst us will think on too?

Do you even know what xenophobe means?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 12,497
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to A2T2, 10 months ago

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.

Per dpreview it has poor focus tracking - like the moving subjects Lights referred to.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads