m43 instead of FF

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Caerolle
Contributing MemberPosts: 729
Like?
Re: Can't change the laws of physics
In reply to stimpy, 5 months ago

stimpy wrote:

mjl699 wrote:

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

Yes, m43 may be improving (so is sensor technology in other formats) but the laws of physics and DOF and its relation to sensor size will never change. Users interested in selective focus and beautiful shallow DOF will mostly either use APS-C, FF or larger.

Or maybe they will simply use their m43 bodies with fast glass such as nokton 25/0.95 (also miles faster and more DoF than fuji equivalent).

Even the other less dramatic glass gives more than enough DoF such as the pan leica 25mm f1.4 or the Oly 75.

Next! Lol

Funny. So, a $1000 lens that is almost a stop slower than a $400 full-frame 50/1.4 (currently on sale for $340, actually), with no electronics or motors or communication with the camera whatsoever. But yes, WAY smaller and lighter, for sure. Maybe we should just all make our own choices about the trade-offs that matter to us?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Can't change the laws of physics
In reply to Caerolle, 5 months ago

stimpy wrote:

mjl699 wrote:

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

Yes, m43 may be improving (so is sensor technology in other formats) but the laws of physics and DOF and its relation to sensor size will never change. Users interested in selective focus and beautiful shallow DOF will mostly either use APS-C, FF or larger.

Or maybe they will simply use their m43 bodies with fast glass such as nokton 25/0.95 (also miles faster and more DoF than fuji equivalent).

Even the other less dramatic glass gives more than enough DoF such as the pan leica 25mm f1.4 or the Oly 75.

Next! Lol

Funny. So, a $1000 lens that is almost a stop slower than a $400 full-frame 50/1.4 (currently on sale for $340, actually), with no electronics or motors or communication with the camera whatsoever. But yes, WAY smaller and lighter, for sure. Maybe we should just all make our own choices about the trade-offs that matter to us?

Do you realise f0.95 is actually faster than f1.4? And glass that fast costs a lot of money.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mr moonlight
Senior MemberPosts: 1,385
Like?
Re: Can't change the laws of physics
In reply to stimpy, 5 months ago

stimpy wrote:

mjl699 wrote:

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

Yes, m43 may be improving (so is sensor technology in other formats) but the laws of physics and DOF and its relation to sensor size will never change. Users interested in selective focus and beautiful shallow DOF will mostly either use APS-C, FF or larger.

Or maybe they will simply use their m43 bodies with fast glass such as nokton 25/0.95 (also miles faster and more DoF than fuji equivalent).

Even the other less dramatic glass gives more than enough DoF such as the pan leica 25mm f1.4 or the Oly 75.

Next! Lol

The DOF you get on a 25/0.95 will always be shallower on your APS-C, and even more so on a FF than your M43 sensor. The argument that you can just use a faster piece of glass to get the same thin DOF on a smaller sensor as a larger one doesn't work unless camera companies start manufacturing much faster glass exclusively for M43 than what exists for APS-C or FF. The real question is, what lens should I get to match the DOF I can get on the 25/.095 when matched with an APS-C sensor for my M43 camera?

To put it simply, they are different formats and you can't really make a blanket statement that one is better than the other. If I'm on a tight budget and want a pocket sized ILC, a FF camera isn't going to work, while an M43 will do nicely.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Caerolle
Contributing MemberPosts: 729
Like?
Re: Can't change the laws of physics
In reply to stimpy, 5 months ago

stimpy wrote:

stimpy wrote:

mjl699 wrote:

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

Yes, m43 may be improving (so is sensor technology in other formats) but the laws of physics and DOF and its relation to sensor size will never change. Users interested in selective focus and beautiful shallow DOF will mostly either use APS-C, FF or larger.

Or maybe they will simply use their m43 bodies with fast glass such as nokton 25/0.95 (also miles faster and more DoF than fuji equivalent).

Even the other less dramatic glass gives more than enough DoF such as the pan leica 25mm f1.4 or the Oly 75.

Next! Lol

Funny. So, a $1000 lens that is almost a stop slower than a $400 full-frame 50/1.4 (currently on sale for $340, actually), with no electronics or motors or communication with the camera whatsoever. But yes, WAY smaller and lighter, for sure. Maybe we should just all make our own choices about the trade-offs that matter to us?

Do you realise f0.95 is actually faster than f1.4? And glass that fast costs a lot of money.

Dude, *you* are the one arguing equivalency. A 0.95 on 4/3 is 35mm equivalent of 1.9. That is almost a stop slower than a 50/1.4 on a 35mm sensor.

My point is, you are paying for reduction of size and weight (and some of the 4/3 cameras aren't light, either). And spending way more on lenses. And losing IQ, for example, a 50/1.4 will have way fewer corner issues than that 25/0.95. And will autofocus, and will store your info in your camera for you. If 4/3 meets your needs best of all the other systems out there, I am happy for you. But some people may prioritize things differently in choosing their camera system, ok?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mr moonlight
Senior MemberPosts: 1,385
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Christof21, 5 months ago

Christof21 wrote:

mr moonlight wrote:

mr moonlight wrote:

What's the advantage of going m43 when you can just crop in?

The pixel density is generally higher. For instance the 55-200 mm might not be sufficient for bird photography. I would rather choose a m43 if it has also 16Mp, it will be equivalent to 270mm.

Wouldn't a better option be to just offer a higher Rez APSC or ff sensor for bird shooters?

More expensive...

Do you know any FF camera which has the same density as 1/2.3" sensors which has let's say 12mp ? The croping advantage of smaller sensors is a reality.

Price is definitely a factor between FF and APS-C/M43, but M43 doesn't offer that much of an advantage. When you look at Fuji's line up, the XA1 kit comes in a few dollars lower than their X20. If Fuji brought out an M43 camera I'm not sure we'd see that much of a price advantage. With the differences between the lowest priced APS-C vs. M43 cameras being less than $100, the price difference is much less of a factor.

As for pixel density and detail. It's a trade off. Lower pixel densities also contribute to achieving a higher level of detail. If you crop a 24MP APS-C camera down to M43 size, you still end up with a 12MP image. I can see an advantage if your APS-C is only 10-12MP to begin with, so cropping down will give you around 5-6MP, but once you hit 16-20MP, that advantage disappears.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stephen787
Regular MemberPosts: 121
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to stimpy, 5 months ago

stimpy wrote:

Stephen787 wrote:

I download photo from the web from review site, like this one, and look at the m4/3 files, i am not happy, too much noise, not enough detail.

Yes, you keep saying that but could you please elaborate on what it is that you're not seeing? - Here are 2 100% crops at low and high ISO.

What details are missing that you need to see?

you cannot be expecting me to comment on m4/3 on two photo at 100% without any metadata.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,396
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to G Rothwell, 5 months ago

G Rothwell wrote:

Fuji are a business and businesses are supposed to make profit and grow.

So far they have done an excellent job of growing in a crowded area of the market. They will analyse everything they can to find a balance that allows them to continue developing new products, increase sales, and increase profits.

The allure of Full Frame (to business) is that it is a more expensive product, which normally means more profit.

There is little benefit to Fuji in creating a m43 system, they already have a competing product which many think is superior.

Maybe they would look into lens adapters so their excellent lenses could be used on m43, making the transition to a Fuji system easier.

Camera companies are not trying to make great cameras, they are trying to make great profits, the cameras themselves are just a necessary evil.

You like to act cynical?

The truth is that no mirrorless company has been making a profit so you are just making up things?

At the moment they are trying to establish market share, which is different from profits.

I take Sony's move for a desperate one, because it couldn't really outdo m4/3. The same goes for Fuji and APS mirrorless.

You clever people should ask yourselves why no one has been able to displace m4/3, but why third parties are flocking to it all the times. Why you can have lenses of all sizes and prices.

You live under delusions and legends, while your technology (focus, IBIS, per pixel sharpness) lags behind just like Sony.

People are not blind, that's what they buy. Sony 35mm might be a short lived experiment, just like the others. Follow the lenses.

Am.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beat Traveller
Regular MemberPosts: 305Gear list
Like?
Re: sensor size
In reply to alexisgreat, 5 months ago

alexisgreat wrote:

That's ridiculous, the sensor size gap between 4/3 and APS-C is very minor, especially if you only shoot for 8x10 prints AND even small sensor cameras that have 1/2" are fine in this regard up to about ISO 400 or so. So what you're seeing with 4/3 sensors must be something other than a sensor size issue. I believe Panasonic has made great strides and now they match the best of the APS-C type cameras.

For me, I will NEVER buy a camera that does not have a sensor that has a 4:3 ratio and I strongly suspect the last of the legacy film owners are dead 3:2 format cameras will die a slow death. Also, Olympus has some amazing features like pixel mapping and direct live histograms that make using full manual mode very easily- I will NOT buy a camera that does not have these features. Whether a larger sensor is made that has the same 4:3 ratio (I think Canon has one in one of their cameras), that's open to debate, it might actually be a good thing for a larger 4:3 sensor to come out. That aspect ratio is MUCH more suited to the digital age than these archaic 3:2 sensors.

-- hide signature --

http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com

3:2 might seem 'archaic' to you, but it's a lot closer to the 'golden rectangle' ratio of 1.618 than 4:3 is. 16:9 is even closer. Given that the golden rectangle is an aesthetic preference for rectangular proportions that goes back to Fibonacci in 1202, or even the Greeks, it's hardly something people should discard.

At any rate, choice is better. You get to enjoy shooting with an aspect ratio you're comfortable with, as do I.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Nikon D60 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mr moonlight
Senior MemberPosts: 1,385
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to amalric, 5 months ago

G Rothwell wrote:

Fuji are a business and businesses are supposed to make profit and grow.

So far they have done an excellent job of growing in a crowded area of the market. They will analyse everything they can to find a balance that allows them to continue developing new products, increase sales, and increase profits.

The allure of Full Frame (to business) is that it is a more expensive product, which normally means more profit.

There is little benefit to Fuji in creating a m43 system, they already have a competing product which many think is superior.

Maybe they would look into lens adapters so their excellent lenses could be used on m43, making the transition to a Fuji system easier.

Camera companies are not trying to make great cameras, they are trying to make great profits, the cameras themselves are just a necessary evil.

You like to act cynical?

The truth is that no mirrorless company has been making a profit so you are just making up things?

At the moment they are trying to establish market share, which is different from profits.

I take Sony's move for a desperate one, because it couldn't really outdo m4/3. The same goes for Fuji and APS mirrorless.

You clever people should ask yourselves why no one has been able to displace m4/3, but why third parties are flocking to it all the times. Why you can have lenses of all sizes and prices.

You live under delusions and legends, while your technology (focus, IBIS, per pixel sharpness) lags behind just like Sony.

People are not blind, that's what they buy. Sony 35mm might be a short lived experiment, just like the others. Follow the lenses.

Am.

No one has been able to displace M43 because it's a really great format. If offers good IQ and low light performance, has the ability to achieve relatively thin DOF, is compact, and is economically priced.

The argument isn't about weather or not Fuji should enter the M43 market, it's that M43 is not a viable replacement for APSC or FF, nor does it offer any optical/IQ advantages over the two.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,004
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Stephen787, 5 months ago

Stephen787 wrote:

stimpy wrote:

Stephen787 wrote:

I download photo from the web from review site, like this one, and look at the m4/3 files, i am not happy, too much noise, not enough detail.

Yes, you keep saying that but could you please elaborate on what it is that you're not seeing? - Here are 2 100% crops at low and high ISO.

What details are missing that you need to see?

you cannot be expecting me to comment on m4/3 on two photo at 100% without any metadata.

Actually he can, because photography is a visual art and craft and therefore, all you need in order to evaluate a photograph is using your eyes only. He asked you a simple question, why don't you just answer it instead of using all kind of irrelevant excuses.

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
G Rothwell
Forum MemberPosts: 94Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to mr moonlight, 5 months ago

I agree with everything you wrote, but the argument is about weather or not Fuji should enter the M43 market

"If I were Fuji...

I would go to m43 instead of going FF !

Here is the list of reasons:..."

 G Rothwell's gear list:G Rothwell's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Jardine
Senior MemberPosts: 1,183Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to stimpy, 5 months ago

stimpy wrote:

Sounds like someone is genuinely surprised how close they are, or how small APSC and M43 are to FF perhaps?

One doesn't even need a chart to see the difference, just look at crop factor.  If FF is 1, APSC is (typically) 1.6, and M43 is 2.

The thing about APSC is this: there is only one reason to use APSC over FF, and that is for sports or extreme telephoto photography. There are no size advantages.

On the other hand, when you step down, the M43 makes perfect sense because the average body and lens is 50% the size of APSC/FF.  So, you can 'take it with you'.

And yes, I have all three: D800, D7000, E-M1.

-- hide signature --

--

Michael
www.Qamera.com
www.Qamera.Tumblr.com
www.Pinterest.com/Qamera

 Michael Jardine's gear list:Michael Jardine's gear list
Nikon D800 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus E-M1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
G Rothwell
Forum MemberPosts: 94Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to amalric, 5 months ago

amalric wrote:

G Rothwell wrote:

Fuji are a business and businesses are supposed to make profit and grow.

So far they have done an excellent job of growing in a crowded area of the market. They will analyse everything they can to find a balance that allows them to continue developing new products, increase sales, and increase profits.

The allure of Full Frame (to business) is that it is a more expensive product, which normally means more profit.

There is little benefit to Fuji in creating a m43 system, they already have a competing product which many think is superior.

Maybe they would look into lens adapters so their excellent lenses could be used on m43, making the transition to a Fuji system easier.

Camera companies are not trying to make great cameras, they are trying to make great profits, the cameras themselves are just a necessary evil.

You like to act cynical?

The truth is that no mirrorless company has been making a profit so you are just making up things?

At the moment they are trying to establish market share, which is different from profits.

I take Sony's move for a desperate one, because it couldn't really outdo m4/3. The same goes for Fuji and APS mirrorless.

You clever people should ask yourselves why no one has been able to displace m4/3, but why third parties are flocking to it all the times. Why you can have lenses of all sizes and prices.

You live under delusions and legends, while your technology (focus, IBIS, per pixel sharpness) lags behind just like Sony.

People are not blind, that's what they buy. Sony 35mm might be a short lived experiment, just like the others. Follow the lenses.

Am.

Sorry if I've offended you in some way, I was just trying to look at the question from Fuji's perspective.

Is there any part of my post that you think is incorrect?

I have no knowledge of the companies profits, but I do not claim to.

You make a good point about market share, with so many companies doing this there is a tremendous amount of development an innovation which is great for the consumer.

I think you've made the assumption that I don't like m4/3, you are mistaken, I'm glad it exists, it's not for me, but it has a positive effect on the whole industry.

I also guess that you think I have some allegiance to Canon (from my gear list) I don't.  I'm planning on selling some of my gear to buy a Fuji x100s.  But I'm not buying it because it is a Fuji Camera, but because it is a camera I'll enjoy using.

 G Rothwell's gear list:G Rothwell's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,396
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to G Rothwell, 5 months ago

I find people find it v. difficult to separate their personal preferences from the economics of the industry.

Since you argued about the latter I answered about that, not judging about any distinct Fuji camera, OC.

The only time when the two considerations come together is the future of a particular system. I.e. do I do well to invest money in it?

Personally I would be v. wary with Sony, but it might be that it would precipitate a shakeout in the mirrorless world.

Consider that a shakeout in the Japanese camera industry is forecast by the WSJ so we all live on borrowed time.

My take is that m4/3 is the least likely to take a sudden downfall, because of the larger penetration (in Asia) but its companies are still not making profits.

Fuji OTH isn't either, although the company is known to have vast funds. But it can't go on losing money. So would a move to FF improve its cashflow?

I am v. skeptical: consider that we are talking about v. expensive equipment, with high performance restricted to v. special uses. Because of the critical combination short distance to flange/big sensor.

So I am not really judging Fuji in terms of present camerasbut of future directions, and more in general where mirrorless is at.

Am.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beat Traveller
Regular MemberPosts: 305Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Michael Jardine, 5 months ago

Michael Jardine wrote:

stimpy wrote:

Sounds like someone is genuinely surprised how close they are, or how small APSC and M43 are to FF perhaps?

One doesn't even need a chart to see the difference, just look at crop factor. If FF is 1, APSC is (typically) 1.6, and M43 is 2.

The thing about APSC is this: there is only one reason to use APSC over FF, and that is for sports or extreme telephoto photography. There are no size advantages.

On the other hand, when you step down, the M43 makes perfect sense because the average body and lens is 50% the size of APSC/FF. So, you can 'take it with you'.

And yes, I have all three: D800, D7000, E-M1.

Firstly, one reason you might use APS-C over 35mm is because you can't afford 35mm.

Secondly, your comparison only works because you're comparing APS-C DSLRs to mirrorless M43 cameras. Try comparing your E-M1 to an X-E1, an NEX-6 or an EOS-M. Better yet, try comparing it to the A7.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the smallest mirrorless bodies have very few physical controls, so everything becomes some form of trade-off.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Nikon D60 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Jardine
Senior MemberPosts: 1,183Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Beat Traveller, 5 months ago

Beat Traveller wrote:

Firstly, one reason you might use APS-C over 35mm is because you can't afford 35mm.

True.

Secondly, your comparison only works because you're comparing APS-C DSLRs to mirrorless M43 cameras. Try comparing your E-M1 to an X-E1, an NEX-6 or an EOS-M. Better yet, try comparing it to the A7.

I looked closely at NEX-6 before finally deciding on M43 format.  Generally, Sony's lenses are much larger than M43, and one year ago, the selection was quite limited.  That is changing...

I also looked at Fuji but the camera bulk, slow focusing, and retro thing kind of turned me off.  All completely subjective, of course  

It's also worth noting that a lot of the smallest mirrorless bodies have very few physical controls, so everything becomes some form of trade-off.

True.  I dipped my toe in the water with the E-PL5 but the lack of controls drove me crazy.  The E-M1 changes all that.  I call it my 'Mini D800'.

Here are some snap shots taken during my first few days with the camera...

-- hide signature --

Michael
www.Qamera.com
www.Qamera.Tumblr.com
www.Pinterest.com/Qamera

 Michael Jardine's gear list:Michael Jardine's gear list
Nikon D800 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus E-M1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
georgehudetz
Regular MemberPosts: 318Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Christof21, 5 months ago

If Fuji wanted to extend the X-brand beyond ASP-C, my preference would be for a sensor size even smaller than u4/3.  Something more along the lines of Nikon 1 - a small sensor in a light body with "good-enough" IQ that leveraged the X series lenses to get something like a 3x crop factor.  u4/3rds is just too similar to make a meaningful difference in zoom IMO.

I do love the idea of a super-light body that I could carry in my kit that doubles (or more) the effective zoom range of my lenses.  I'd only pull it out when I need that zoom factor, as I assume it would be much lighter than carrying a 200-400 (for example) to compliment the 55-200.

As long as they give that body the cool Fuji UX it would be a great addition to the line.  But I'd like to see a few more lenses first.  

 georgehudetz's gear list:georgehudetz's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beat Traveller
Regular MemberPosts: 305Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Michael Jardine, 5 months ago

Michael Jardine wrote:

Beat Traveller wrote:

Firstly, one reason you might use APS-C over 35mm is because you can't afford 35mm.

True.

Secondly, your comparison only works because you're comparing APS-C DSLRs to mirrorless M43 cameras. Try comparing your E-M1 to an X-E1, an NEX-6 or an EOS-M. Better yet, try comparing it to the A7.

I looked closely at NEX-6 before finally deciding on M43 format. Generally, Sony's lenses are much larger than M43, and one year ago, the selection was quite limited. That is changing...

I also looked at Fuji but the camera bulk, slow focusing, and retro thing kind of turned me off. All completely subjective, of course

It's also worth noting that a lot of the smallest mirrorless bodies have very few physical controls, so everything becomes some form of trade-off.

True. I dipped my toe in the water with the E-PL5 but the lack of controls drove me crazy. The E-M1 changes all that. I call it my 'Mini D800'.

Here are some snap shots taken during my first few days with the camera...

Sexy photos. I don't know that there's much more bulk to an EM-1 than to the X-E1, but the IQ of both cameras is fantastic.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Nikon D60 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Can't change the laws of physics
In reply to Caerolle, 5 months ago

Caerolle wrote:

stimpy wrote:

stimpy wrote:

mjl699 wrote:

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

Yes, m43 may be improving (so is sensor technology in other formats) but the laws of physics and DOF and its relation to sensor size will never change. Users interested in selective focus and beautiful shallow DOF will mostly either use APS-C, FF or larger.

Or maybe they will simply use their m43 bodies with fast glass such as nokton 25/0.95 (also miles faster and more DoF than fuji equivalent).

Even the other less dramatic glass gives more than enough DoF such as the pan leica 25mm f1.4 or the Oly 75.

Next! Lol

Funny. So, a $1000 lens that is almost a stop slower than a $400 full-frame 50/1.4 (currently on sale for $340, actually), with no electronics or motors or communication with the camera whatsoever. But yes, WAY smaller and lighter, for sure. Maybe we should just all make our own choices about the trade-offs that matter to us?

Do you realise f0.95 is actually faster than f1.4? And glass that fast costs a lot of money.

Dude, *you* are the one arguing equivalency. A 0.95 on 4/3 is 35mm equivalent of 1.9. That is almost a stop slower than a 50/1.4 on a 35mm sensor.

f0.95 is the same 'speed' (light gathering ability) on any format. f0.95 is still f0.95 on 35mm.

I just don't get why the sensor size obsessed guys are so fixed on equivalency, half the time your facts are wrong anyway, and the rest really doesn't matter.

Try reading this: http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

I like the note about Ansel Adams shooting on what was then a 2 X crop factor camera - hoho if only there were DPreview members to save him from his terrible mistake.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Stephen787, 5 months ago

Stephen787 wrote:

you cannot be expecting me to comment on m4/3 on two photo at 100% without any metadata.

Why not? You said you look at images online, and do not like the lack of detail in m43 photos.

Stephen787 wrote:

I download photo from the web from review site, like this one, and look at the m4/3 files, i am not happy, too much noise, not enough detail.

So now you have been provided with a couple of m43 photos, cropped at 100% (to make it even easier for you) and provided in both high and low iso. One is a studio shot at iso 200, the other under incandescent lighting at 6400.

All I am asking is what specific details are lacking that putting you off using m43?

Perhaps I'll try rephrasing the question, which would be of benefit to me: what would I be seeing if I had an APSC?

It really is a very basic question.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads