Four-thirds vs. APS-C

[Captive18]

Hi there!

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

 

[BG454]

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

IF all things being equal: price/camera size/ lens size/af performance, then I always favor the Bigger Sensor.

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

 

[007peter]

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

No, I didn't missed anything. Have you checkout the Sony lens prices? or How much Fuji lens cost? M43 lens definitely is not significantly more than Sony or Fuji.

 

[mosswings]

Hi there!

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

Now, if you want to get equivalent performance out of a u4/3 system, you have to get faster lenses...those f2.8 pro Oly lenses are equivalent to f3.5-f4.0 APS-C lenses, and they're just about as big. But much more expensive.

There is about a 2/3rds stop difference between M43 and APS, so F/2.8 is about F/3.5 for Depth of Field, but not exposure (TheManWhoWas was correct). For things like Dynamic Range it depends on the ISO you are using and at many ISOs an E-M1 is about identical to the best APS cameras (and better than some too) so F/2.8 equals F/2.8 give or take a little.

Since there aren't too many F/3.5 zooms for mirrorless and F/4 zooms like the Sony 70-200mm are $1500, you can't say the M43 zooms are "much more expensive".

Bottom line: M43 has the smallest lenses with the fastest apertures when comparing APS and M43 zooms. You won't see a real difference in real life between sensors, but a fast, small lens that is sharp wide open will make a difference.

I knew I'd get into trouble by not defining precisely what I meant by equivalence, and there are a lot of dimensions to that term:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

From the "equivalent lenses" section of that definitive work:

The definition of an equivalent lens is a lens that produces an equivalent image that another lens produces on another format. In other words, equivalent lenses will have the same aperture diameter (as opposed to f-ratio) for the same AOV. For example, the 135 / 2L on 35mm FF is equivalent to an 85 / 1.2L on 1.6x and a 70-200 / 4L (IS) on 35mm FF is equivalent to a 35-100 / 2 on 4/3. Many people very much dislike this terminology and consider it "misleading" and even "dishonest". Typically, they feel that it is sufficient to think in terms of AOV and exposure, and ignore the importance of DOF, as well as the significance of difference between exposure and total light. To this end, we often hear people saying "f/2 is f/2 is f/2" regardless of format. However, that statement is every bit as misleading as saying "50mm is 50mm is 50mm" regardless of format. Just as 50mm yields different AOVs on different formats, f/2 will result in a different [aperture diameter] for a given AOV and thus a different DOF as well as admitting a different total amount of light onto the sensor which will result in different quantities of noise density.

So an APS-C sensor will, at the frame level, still give 2/3 stop more DR, 2/3 stop lower noise, 2/3 stop color depth, etc. The sensors in the best u4/3 cameras are at the same bulk level of performance as the best APS-C sensors, so the fundamental difference in potential image quality that is related to sensor size still accrues.

Similarly with aperture - relative aperture (f-number) is useful for exposure, but exposure is sensor-normalized and isn't the same as total light on the subject, nor does it provide similar DOF.

So my point still stands - for equivalent image quality and DOF you have to open up the lens 2/3 stop at equivalent FL(AOV). That means that an f2.8 u4/3 lens is doing the same work as an f3.5 lens on DX. And, not unexpectedly, an f2.8 u4/3 lens is rather similar in size to an f3.5 DX lens. Now - it is indeed true that an f4 70-200 FX lens is $1500, but the equivalent u4/3 lens is an f2 40-100, and won't cost any less (when it comes out). You can buy an f4-f5.6/6.3 variable kit zoom for u4/3, and it will be inexpensive, but will be equivalent to an f4-5.6 DX zoom only in the limited sense of exposure and AOV when shot wide open. About sharpness: u4/3 lenses are sharper (in absolute terms) in part because they have to be...smaller image circle means more LP/mm for the same LP/PH. But u4/3 lenses do run quite sharp wide open, and again there are intentional as well as situational reasons for that.

I agree, however, with your bottom lines: for most purposes it just doesn't matter, and if you don't care about DOF or equivalent DF/NL/CD, then the size advantages of u4/3 accrue fully. And that the f2.8 PRO zooms and many u4/3 primes are every bit as good or better, even normalized to sensor size, to their FX "equivalents" (careful, that word again).

Remember, the OP wondered why one would choose one format over the other if the camera body size is essentially the same. I suggested reasons why some folks might go for the larger format in those cases. Not that those reasons would be of great practical significance.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

IF all things being equal: price/camera size/ lens size/af performance, then I always favor the Bigger Sensor.

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

There will be variations in specific lenses in that regard, but I remember how much an EF 24-70/2.8L costs/weighs, and I know how much an Olympus 12-40/2.8 or a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 costs/weighs. Do you?

I could care less what others use, but the FUD on either side is rather ridiculous.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.

 

[Lab D]

Hi there!

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

Now, if you want to get equivalent performance out of a u4/3 system, you have to get faster lenses...those f2.8 pro Oly lenses are equivalent to f3.5-f4.0 APS-C lenses, and they're just about as big. But much more expensive.

There is about a 2/3rds stop difference between M43 and APS, so F/2.8 is about F/3.5 for Depth of Field, but not exposure (TheManWhoWas was correct). For things like Dynamic Range it depends on the ISO you are using and at many ISOs an E-M1 is about identical to the best APS cameras (and better than some too) so F/2.8 equals F/2.8 give or take a little.

Since there aren't too many F/3.5 zooms for mirrorless and F/4 zooms like the Sony 70-200mm are $1500, you can't say the M43 zooms are "much more expensive".

Bottom line: M43 has the smallest lenses with the fastest apertures when comparing APS and M43 zooms. You won't see a real difference in real life between sensors, but a fast, small lens that is sharp wide open will make a difference.

I knew I'd get into trouble by not defining precisely what I meant by equivalence, and there are a lot of dimensions to that term:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

From the "equivalent lenses" section of that definitive work:

The definition of an equivalent lens is a lens that produces an equivalent image that another lens produces on another format. In other words, equivalent lenses will have the same aperture diameter (as opposed to f-ratio) for the same AOV. For example, the 135 / 2L on 35mm FF is equivalent to an 85 / 1.2L on 1.6x and a 70-200 / 4L (IS) on 35mm FF is equivalent to a 35-100 / 2 on 4/3. Many people very much dislike this terminology and consider it "misleading" and even "dishonest". Typically, they feel that it is sufficient to think in terms of AOV and exposure, and ignore the importance of DOF, as well as the significance of difference between exposure and total light. To this end, we often hear people saying "f/2 is f/2 is f/2" regardless of format. However, that statement is every bit as misleading as saying "50mm is 50mm is 50mm" regardless of format. Just as 50mm yields different AOVs on different formats, f/2 will result in a different for a given AOV and thus a different DOF as well as admitting a different total amount of light onto the sensor which will result in different quantities of noise density.

So an APS-C sensor will, at the frame level, still give 2/3 stop more DR, 2/3 stop lower noise, 2/3 stop color depth, etc. The sensors in the best u4/3 cameras are at the same bulk level of performance as the best APS-C sensors, so the fundamental difference in potential image quality that is related to sensor size still accrues.

Similarly with aperture - relative aperture (f-number) is useful for exposure, but exposure is sensor-normalized and isn't the same as total light on the subject, nor does it provide similar DOF.

So my point still stands - for equivalent image quality and DOF you have to open up the lens 2/3 stop at equivalent FL(AOV). That means that an f2.8 u4/3 lens is doing the same work as an f3.5 lens on DX. And, not unexpectedly, an f2.8 u4/3 lens is rather similar in size to an f3.5 DX lens. Now - it is indeed true that an f4 70-200 DX lens is $1500, but the equivalent u4/3 lens is an f2.8 40-150, and will cost about the same (when it comes out).

OK, but this conflicts with the "much more expensive" statement. The price is about the same, but the M43 is still smaller because there are not too many F/3.5 DX zooms (if any).

The next argument is that smaller sensor are more efficient, so once you account for DoF, the smaller sesnor almost always performs better. This is true with the Sony RX100 and RX10 too. They perform better than M43 (and APS and FF) when you change apertures to account for DoF.

 

[mosswings]

Hi there!

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

Now, if you want to get equivalent performance out of a u4/3 system, you have to get faster lenses...those f2.8 pro Oly lenses are equivalent to f3.5-f4.0 APS-C lenses, and they're just about as big. But much more expensive.

There is about a 2/3rds stop difference between M43 and APS, so F/2.8 is about F/3.5 for Depth of Field, but not exposure (TheManWhoWas was correct). For things like Dynamic Range it depends on the ISO you are using and at many ISOs an E-M1 is about identical to the best APS cameras (and better than some too) so F/2.8 equals F/2.8 give or take a little.

Since there aren't too many F/3.5 zooms for mirrorless and F/4 zooms like the Sony 70-200mm are $1500, you can't say the M43 zooms are "much more expensive".

Bottom line: M43 has the smallest lenses with the fastest apertures when comparing APS and M43 zooms. You won't see a real difference in real life between sensors, but a fast, small lens that is sharp wide open will make a difference.

I knew I'd get into trouble by not defining precisely what I meant by equivalence, and there are a lot of dimensions to that term:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

From the "equivalent lenses" section of that definitive work:

The definition of an equivalent lens is a lens that produces an equivalent image that another lens produces on another format. In other words, equivalent lenses will have the same aperture diameter (as opposed to f-ratio) for the same AOV. For example, the 135 / 2L on 35mm FF is equivalent to an 85 / 1.2L on 1.6x and a 70-200 / 4L (IS) on 35mm FF is equivalent to a 35-100 / 2 on 4/3. Many people very much dislike this terminology and consider it "misleading" and even "dishonest". Typically, they feel that it is sufficient to think in terms of AOV and exposure, and ignore the importance of DOF, as well as the significance of difference between exposure and total light. To this end, we often hear people saying "f/2 is f/2 is f/2" regardless of format. However, that statement is every bit as misleading as saying "50mm is 50mm is 50mm" regardless of format. Just as 50mm yields different AOVs on different formats, f/2 will result in a different for a given AOV and thus a different DOF as well as admitting a different total amount of light onto the sensor which will result in different quantities of noise density.

So an APS-C sensor will, at the frame level, still give 2/3 stop more DR, 2/3 stop lower noise, 2/3 stop color depth, etc. The sensors in the best u4/3 cameras are at the same bulk level of performance as the best APS-C sensors, so the fundamental difference in potential image quality that is related to sensor size still accrues.

Similarly with aperture - relative aperture (f-number) is useful for exposure, but exposure is sensor-normalized and isn't the same as total light on the subject, nor does it provide similar DOF.

So my point still stands - for equivalent image quality and DOF you have to open up the lens 2/3 stop at equivalent FL(AOV). That means that an f2.8 u4/3 lens is doing the same work as an f3.5 lens on DX. And, not unexpectedly, an f2.8 u4/3 lens is rather similar in size to an f3.5 DX lens. Now - it is indeed true that an f4 70-200 DX lens is $1500, but the equivalent u4/3 lens is an f2.8 40-150, and will cost about the same (when it comes out).

OK, but this conflicts with the "much more expensive" statement. The price is about the same, but the M43 is still smaller because there are not too many F/3.5 DX zooms (if any).

The next argument is that smaller sensor are more efficient, so once you account for DoF, the smaller sesnor almost always performs better. This is true with the Sony RX100 and RX10 too. They perform better than M43 (and APS and FF) when you change apertures to account for DoF.

The "much more expensive" statement apparent contradiction comes from the selection of lens involved and the way that manufacturers build their products. Purchasers have come to expect that an f2.8 lens will not only be faster than an f4 lens, but it will yield significantly better image quality and better build quality. I.E., below f4 is "pro" grade, particularly in zooms. If we are going to invoke absolute equivalence, as I have done, it is not possible to match an f4 consumer grade DX zoom with a similar quality f3 or f2.8 u4/3 zoom; the u4/3 zoom is built to a higher standard and does cost more. There are a few situations in which there is a suitable matchup - the 70-200 range telezooms and the 12-40 f2.8 (17-70 f2.8-4 DX) midrange, for example, and there we find that the pricing is more comparable.

 

[Lab D]

Bottom line: M43 has the smallest lenses with the fastest apertures when comparing APS and M43 zooms. You won't see a real difference in real life between sensors

DPreview wrote: Its Four Thirds sensor is smaller than the APS-C imagers of its Nikon D7100 and Canon EOS 70D peers, but we think the difference it makes in real world shooting is hard to spot.

You (DPREVIEW) repeated that often enough that it's becoming comical. If you can't tell the difference we can just feel a little sorry for you and turn away.

Instead of listen to DPReview, you fell for the urban legend where people cherry pick files and images to make a point didn't you! btw, I know Nigerian Prince and if you send him money he will give you millions later.

An equipment-focused forum is not the place to dismiss differences between equipment so high handedly.

Right. We look at measured results for the ISO we use most and compare reall numbers. We don't fall for arbitry "overall" ratings or meaningless biased opinions. For example, when comparing M43 to some of the latest APS sensors we find...



This means that even before adjusting apertures to account for DoF, the E-M1 will have more DR at the ISOs I use most (200-3200). If you use apertures to give you the same DoF and FoV, then the M43 image DR advantage will increase by 2/3rds stops.

 

[Lab D]

Hi there!

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

Now, if you want to get equivalent performance out of a u4/3 system, you have to get faster lenses...those f2.8 pro Oly lenses are equivalent to f3.5-f4.0 APS-C lenses, and they're just about as big. But much more expensive.

There is about a 2/3rds stop difference between M43 and APS, so F/2.8 is about F/3.5 for Depth of Field, but not exposure (TheManWhoWas was correct). For things like Dynamic Range it depends on the ISO you are using and at many ISOs an E-M1 is about identical to the best APS cameras (and better than some too) so F/2.8 equals F/2.8 give or take a little.

Since there aren't too many F/3.5 zooms for mirrorless and F/4 zooms like the Sony 70-200mm are $1500, you can't say the M43 zooms are "much more expensive".

Bottom line: M43 has the smallest lenses with the fastest apertures when comparing APS and M43 zooms. You won't see a real difference in real life between sensors, but a fast, small lens that is sharp wide open will make a difference.

I knew I'd get into trouble by not defining precisely what I meant by equivalence, and there are a lot of dimensions to that term:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

From the "equivalent lenses" section of that definitive work:

The definition of an equivalent lens is a lens that produces an equivalent image that another lens produces on another format. In other words, equivalent lenses will have the same aperture diameter (as opposed to f-ratio) for the same AOV. For example, the 135 / 2L on 35mm FF is equivalent to an 85 / 1.2L on 1.6x and a 70-200 / 4L (IS) on 35mm FF is equivalent to a 35-100 / 2 on 4/3. Many people very much dislike this terminology and consider it "misleading" and even "dishonest". Typically, they feel that it is sufficient to think in terms of AOV and exposure, and ignore the importance of DOF, as well as the significance of difference between exposure and total light. To this end, we often hear people saying "f/2 is f/2 is f/2" regardless of format. However, that statement is every bit as misleading as saying "50mm is 50mm is 50mm" regardless of format. Just as 50mm yields different AOVs on different formats, f/2 will result in a different for a given AOV and thus a different DOF as well as admitting a different total amount of light onto the sensor which will result in different quantities of noise density.

So an APS-C sensor will, at the frame level, still give 2/3 stop more DR, 2/3 stop lower noise, 2/3 stop color depth, etc. The sensors in the best u4/3 cameras are at the same bulk level of performance as the best APS-C sensors, so the fundamental difference in potential image quality that is related to sensor size still accrues.

Similarly with aperture - relative aperture (f-number) is useful for exposure, but exposure is sensor-normalized and isn't the same as total light on the subject, nor does it provide similar DOF.

So my point still stands - for equivalent image quality and DOF you have to open up the lens 2/3 stop at equivalent FL(AOV). That means that an f2.8 u4/3 lens is doing the same work as an f3.5 lens on DX. And, not unexpectedly, an f2.8 u4/3 lens is rather similar in size to an f3.5 DX lens. Now - it is indeed true that an f4 70-200 DX lens is $1500, but the equivalent u4/3 lens is an f2.8 40-150, and will cost about the same (when it comes out).

OK, but this conflicts with the "much more expensive" statement. The price is about the same, but the M43 is still smaller because there are not too many F/3.5 DX zooms (if any).

The next argument is that smaller sensor are more efficient, so once you account for DoF, the smaller sesnor almost always performs better. This is true with the Sony RX100 and RX10 too. They perform better than M43 (and APS and FF) when you change apertures to account for DoF.

The "much more expensive" statement apparent contradiction comes from the selection of lens involved and the way that manufacturers build their products.

But the lenses involved in this discussion I thought were the M43 F/2.8 and the other F/4 zooms. The 35-100mm is about the same price as all the F/4 70-200mm zooms. This is apples to oranges though because (liek you mention below) on APS the 70-200 is longer, but there is nothing else I can find to compare. Olympus will soon have a 40-150mm F/2.8, but we don't yet know the price.

Purchasers have come to expect that an f2.8 lens will not only be faster than an f4 lens, but it will yield significantly better image quality and better build quality. I.E., below f4 is "pro" grade, particularly in zooms. If we are going to invoke absolute equivalence, as I have done, it is not possible to match an f4 consumer grade DX zoom with a similar quality f3 or f2.8 u4/3 zoom;

Agree

the u4/3 zoom is built to a higher standard and does cost more.

More than what? We just agreed there is nothing to match, so we can't say one costs more than the other.

There are a few situations in which there is a suitable matchup - the 70-200 range telezooms and the 12-40 f2.8 (17-70 f2.8-4 DX) midrange, for example, and there we find that the pricing is more comparable.

I agree.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

No, I didn't missed anything. Have you checkout the Sony lens prices? or How much Fuji lens cost? M43 lens definitely is not significantly more than Sony or Fuji.

Sony 24-70/4 is $1200. How much is an m43 12-35/2 again?
Sony 70-200/4 is expected to be $1500. How much is m43 35-100/2 again?
Sony 55/1.8 is $1000. How much is an m43 27/0.9 again?
Sony 85/1.8 can be expected to be about $1000, how much is a m43 42/0.9 again?

Understand the systems. Its not as simple as saying "most lenses".

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

IF all things being equal: price/camera size/ lens size/af performance, then I always favor the Bigger Sensor.

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

There will be variations in specific lenses in that regard, but I remember how much an EF 24-70/2.8L costs/weighs, and I know how much an Olympus 12-40/2.8 or a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 costs/weighs. Do you?

I could care less what others use, but the FUD on either side is rather ridiculous.

 

[Lab D]

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

No, I didn't missed anything. Have you checkout the Sony lens prices? or How much Fuji lens cost? M43 lens definitely is not significantly more than Sony or Fuji.

So the point is M43 are not signifcantly MORE than Sony or Fuji.

Sony 24-70/4 is $1200. How much is an m43 12-35/2 again?

about the same

Sony 70-200/4 is expected to be $1500. How much is m43 35-100/2 again?

About the same

Sony 55/1.8 is $1000. How much is an m43 27/0.9 again?

The 25/0.95 is about the same or little less

Sony 85/1.8 can be expected to be about $1000,

It is hard to beat the price of an imaginary lens.

So over all, you agree with the point being made though. "M43 lenses are not signifcantly MORE than Sony or Fuji."

 

[Lab D]

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

IF all things being equal: price/camera size/ lens size/af performance, then I always favor the Bigger Sensor.

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

There will be variations in specific lenses in that regard, but I remember how much an EF 24-70/2.8L costs/weighs, and I know how much an Olympus 12-40/2.8 or a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 costs/weighs. Do you?

I could care less what others use, but the FUD on either side is rather ridiculous.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

No, I didn't missed anything. Have you checkout the Sony lens prices? or How much Fuji lens cost? M43 lens definitely is not significantly more than Sony or Fuji.

So the point is M43 are not signifcantly MORE than Sony or Fuji.

Sony 24-70/4 is $1200. How much is an m43 12-35/2 again?

about the same

Sony 70-200/4 is expected to be $1500. How much is m43 35-100/2 again?

About the same

Sony 55/1.8 is $1000. How much is an m43 27/0.9 again?

The 25/0.95 is about the same or little less

Sony 85/1.8 can be expected to be about $1000,

It is hard to beat the price of an imaginary lens.

So over all, you agree with the point being made though. "M43 lenses are not signifcantly MORE than Sony or Fuji."

I was unaware. Where can I see the specs and prices for these m43 lenses?

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

IF all things being equal: price/camera size/ lens size/af performance, then I always favor the Bigger Sensor.

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

There will be variations in specific lenses in that regard, but I remember how much an EF 24-70/2.8L costs/weighs, and I know how much an Olympus 12-40/2.8 or a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 costs/weighs. Do you?

I could care less what others use, but the FUD on either side is rather ridiculous.

 

[Sergey_Green]

OK, but this conflicts with the "much more expensive" statement. The price is about the same, but the M43 is still smaller because there are not too many F/3.5 DX zooms (if any).

So with one you pay for smallness, with the other for output. Whatever rocks your boat.

The next argument is that smaller sensor are more efficient, so once you account for DoF, the smaller sesnor almost always performs better. This is true with the Sony RX100 and RX10 too. They perform better than M43 (and APS and FF) when you change apertures to account for DoF.

Perform how, can you define how this performance is measured?

 

[Bobo Hodls]

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

IF all things being equal: price/camera size/ lens size/af performance, then I always favor the Bigger Sensor.

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

There will be variations in specific lenses in that regard, but I remember how much an EF 24-70/2.8L costs/weighs, and I know how much an Olympus 12-40/2.8 or a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 costs/weighs. Do you?

I could care less what others use, but the FUD on either side is rather ridiculous.

 

[Lab D]

The next argument is that smaller sensor are more efficient, so once you account for DoF, the smaller sesnor almost always performs better. This is true with the Sony RX100 and RX10 too. They perform better than M43 (and APS and FF) when you change apertures to account for DoF.

Perform how, can you define how this performance is measured?

Since you posted in the "In which ways, and why, are smaller sensors more efficient than larger?" threads you know why (or are you still in denial?).

For everyone else look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53148150

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53180486



Also, I'll give an example too (I picked the 2 current APS cameras with PDAF pixels like the E-M1 has to be fair). You would expect the E-M1 to perform 2/3rds stops worse than current APS cameras for DR at the ISOs I use most (400-3200), but instead it is better though very close. The RX100II which has an even smaller sensor is much closer than you would think too(DxO only let me display 3 cameras).

 

[Lab D]

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

No, I didn't missed anything. Have you checkout the Sony lens prices? or How much Fuji lens cost? M43 lens definitely is not significantly more than Sony or Fuji.

So the point is M43 are not signifcantly MORE than Sony or Fuji.

Sony 24-70/4 is $1200. How much is an m43 12-35/2 again?

about the same

Sony 70-200/4 is expected to be $1500. How much is m43 35-100/2 again?

About the same

Sony 55/1.8 is $1000. How much is an m43 27/0.9 again?

The 25/0.95 is about the same or little less

Sony 85/1.8 can be expected to be about $1000,

It is hard to beat the price of an imaginary lens.

So over all, you agree with the point being made though. "M43 lenses are not signifcantly MORE than Sony or Fuji."

I was unaware. Where can I see the specs and prices for these m43 lenses?

Same place you got the Sony 85/1.8 price.

 

[Lab D]

This may be a dumb question but I have to ask. I'm researching new cameras and I wanted to ask a question. It seems like APS-C and Four-Thirds mirror less cameras are relatively the same size. Obviously APS-C sensors are bigger than four-thirds so why would someone get a four-thirds camera over a camera with an APS-C sensor?

IF all things being equal: price/camera size/ lens size/af performance, then I always favor the Bigger Sensor.

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

There will be variations in specific lenses in that regard, but I remember how much an EF 24-70/2.8L costs/weighs, and I know how much an Olympus 12-40/2.8 or a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 costs/weighs. Do you?

I could care less what others use, but the FUD on either side is rather ridiculous.

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

But in the real world, you have to consider others factors, many are to M43 advantage:

LENS "System" - m43 has the most complete lens system of any mirrorless. Whether is short-time or telephoto zoom you want. You have multiple choices between Olympus & Panasonic to satisfied you.

LENS "Size" - m43 lens are much much smaller/lighter. Isn't that the whole point of buying mirrorless over DSLR in the 1st place?

AF Speed - M43 camera has always been fast, from the ancient Panasonic G1/GF1 to the today Olympus EM10. Pickup a M43 camera and you never worry about AF speed. Sony A6000 is the 1st NEX with fast and reliable AF focusing speed. But its the only model with fast AF, versus a huge collection of m43 (new or used) that all focus fast

M43 enjoy the advantage today, but ask this question in another year and my answer will likely change. Sony's ultra fast AF will pass down to other models (presume A5100, A3100). Likewise, Fuji XT1 with much improved AF speed will pass down to other models as well.

Bokeh wise....I still much prefer an APS-C sensor over M43, and yes I see the difference.

You missed out one important factor:

LENS "Price" - m4:3 are significantly more expensive than their APS-C counterparts.

No, I didn't missed anything. Have you checkout the Sony lens prices? or How much Fuji lens cost? M43 lens definitely is not significantly more than Sony or Fuji.

So the point is M43 are not signifcantly MORE than Sony or Fuji.

Sony 24-70/4 is $1200. How much is an m43 12-35/2 again?

about the same

Sony 70-200/4 is expected to be $1500. How much is m43 35-100/2 again?

About the same

Sony 55/1.8 is $1000. How much is an m43 27/0.9 again?

The 25/0.95 is about the same or little less

Sony 85/1.8 can be expected to be about $1000,

It is hard to beat the price of an imaginary lens.

So over all, you agree with the point being made though. "M43 lenses are not signifcantly MORE than Sony or Fuji."

I was unaware. Where can I see the specs and prices for these m43 lenses?

Same place you got the Sony 85/1.8 price.

As in expected? (I had a feeling someone like you would not be able to comprehend). Or are you expecting to provide specs in the foreseeable future?