What are full-framers missing by not using M4/3

[HicHic]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

I've read reports here of OM cameras missing focus or focus slightly drifting when shooting birds in flight.
In view of your DoF comments I'm wondering what this says about the OM cameras given that m4/3 supposedly has the advantage of a wider DoF

jj

Someone with intelligence chimes in!

To be clear, I’m not chiming in on any sides here just saying that the oft stated “razor thin DoF” line used against the larger sensors has another side to it . . . the wider DoF of the smaller sensor cameras should result in more forgiveness re AF errors or the AF point wandering off the subjects eye, but I don’t think we see that.

jj

You're not taking sides at all, just speaking sound logic and reasoning.

 

[WilyKit]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

I've read reports here of OM cameras missing focus or focus slightly drifting when shooting birds in flight.
In view of your DoF comments I'm wondering what this says about the OM cameras given that m4/3 supposedly has the advantage of a wider DoF

jj

Someone with intelligence chimes in!

To be clear, I’m not chiming in on any sides here just saying that the oft stated “razor thin DoF” line used against the larger sensors has another side to it . . . the wider DoF of the smaller sensor cameras should result in more forgiveness re AF errors or the AF point wandering off the subjects eye, but I don’t think we see that.

jj

You're not taking sides at all, just speaking sound logic and reasoning.

It's sad that a grown man is trying to insult me for my perfectly reasonable posts, but that's how it is on the internet.

jj, MFT is really quite a large sensor format, regardless of what people on this forum and others have made people believe. I think it's not surprising, it's like people think Arnold Schwarzenegger may spot them with an MFT camera and say "look at this girly man holding the MFT camera with a tiny sensor haha!" The DOF with MFT is also super thin when long focal lengths are used. F/4.5 ("F/9-equivalent") is NOT gonna give wide DOF at 400mm when your subject fills much of the frame. It's only gonna give extremely thin DOF, because that's just how it is. I've seen abundant complaints and requests for tips in full-frame and APS-C forums about missed focus in tough situations like BIF. I don't see anything unusual in MFT regarding this. If anything, Olympus / OMS cameras are usually praised for nailing focus well in many situations. Sure there can be algorithm issues and lens autofocus motor limitations causing this, but usually in extremely tough situations when your subject is moving while you only have a tiny depth of field where focus is actually sharp, it's physical limitations from the photographer's side AND the subject's side, there's just no way around it, and most BIF pictures have bad focus. I don't believe anyone gets a higher than 50% keeper rate with BIF in any format with any camera.

 

[sportyaccordy]

The number one thing full framers are missing is the ability to use the finest wildlife lens ever manufactured, that being the 150-400mm.

Daniel you are an excellent wildlife photographer and prove every day what can be done with m43 . But declarative statements about x being the finest ever made are firmly in the camp of brand fanatics. Though it plays to the crowd here for sure .

Indeed.... hyperbolic choice supportive biased statements undermine credibility.

Also, with all the talk of compactness.... I grabbed an RX100. Smaller than any equivalent M43 setup and good for when I don't feel like lugging around my FF setup.

 

[agott123]

Ya because FF cannot be used for macro

Your images are all excellent but obviously you must have changed the exif as such lovely images could only be taken with the 90mm OM

Image below showing the above shot and its size



















Even started to do some stacking



First go stacking



Second go

I'm sorry Jim, but it seems to me that with today's standards, those photos can no longer be considered excellent...

Take a look at the work of these photographers...

https://www.instagram.com/emakaero/

https://www.instagram.com/weemadbeasties/

https://www.instagram.com/malbafont_macrophotography/

https://www.instagram.com/macrolympus/

and there are plenty others, many of them using Olympus gear.

Alex

--
My Street Photography on Instagram @alexgottfriedbonder

 

[James Stirling]

Ya because FF cannot be used for macro

Your images are all excellent but obviously you must have changed the exif as such lovely images could only be taken with the 90mm OM

Image below showing the above shot and its size



















Even started to do some stacking



First go stacking



Second go

I'm sorry Jim, but it seems to me that with today's standards, those photos can no longer be considered excellent...

Excellent is in the eye of the beholder , and I have seen similar quality images here being praised

Take a look at the work of these photographers...

https://www.instagram.com/emakaero/

https://www.instagram.com/weemadbeasties/

https://www.instagram.com/malbafont_macrophotography/

https://www.instagram.com/macrolympus/

and there are plenty others, many of them using Olympus gear.

Alex

Hi Alex, I never suggested that m43 was not capable of great results the OP has posted 100's of such images. It was the wild claim that 90% of amazing bug shots are being taken with the 90mm it is a nonsensical claim. Your links include an OM ambassadors so not a surprise David is using OM 90mm

If you search any large photo site flickr etc and search for macro images you will find fantastic and rubbish ( they may be mine ) results from all kinds of cameras. m43 has a tiny share of the market so it is daft to claim that they are dominating with 90% of any area. There are superb macro options available in all formats I am waiting to see how the leaked Laowa 180mm AF macro does. I have one of their manual focus 2x macro lens and it is a great performer .

The Laowa FFII 90 mm f/2.8 CA-Dreamer Macro 2X tested on lenstip has a peak LW/PH score of 3,765 the 90mm has a peak LW/PH score of 1,904 . The laowa can be used on FF cameras with up to 61mp , in the end it is system results that matter lens plus cameras. I am also not denying that the process may be more convenient on m43 . I have had some great fun with my OM-1 focus stacking but when it comes to macro there are many ways to skin that poor cat

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[HicHic]

I don't believe anyone gets a higher than 50% keeper rate with BIF in any format with any camera.

That's not true at all.

Look at: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/om-system/om-1-bird-photography/

The OM-1 nails it 89-98% of the time.

 

[WilyKit]

I don't believe anyone gets a higher than 50% keeper rate with BIF in any format with any camera.

That's not true at all.

Look at: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/om-system/om-1-bird-photography/

The OM-1 nails it 89-98% of the time.

That's impossible, I don't care what a review says. In limited specific conditions it may be true, but not general BIF.

Well I just checked the page and there's only one actual BIF picture there. There rest are stationary or flying "in place", and one just as it leaves the tree.

 

[HicHic]

I don't believe anyone gets a higher than 50% keeper rate with BIF in any format with any camera.

That's not true at all.

Look at: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/om-system/om-1-bird-photography/

The OM-1 nails it 89-98% of the time.

That's impossible, I don't care what a review says. In limited specific conditions it may be true, but not general BIF.

Well I just checked the page and there's only one actual BIF picture there. There rest are stationary or flying "in place", and one just as it leaves the tree.

That's what I used to think too, but when I brought up the issue, everybody was telling me that I was wrong, and that the OM-1 must get 89-98% (as indicated by that mirrorlesscomparison test).

Here is the thread where I initially brought up the issue of the problematic keeper rate:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4800066?page=2

You can find the comments constantly referencing that mirrorlesscomparison 89-98% hit rate.

 

[WilyKit]

I don't believe anyone gets a higher than 50% keeper rate with BIF in any format with any camera.

That's not true at all.

Look at: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/om-system/om-1-bird-photography/

The OM-1 nails it 89-98% of the time.

That's impossible, I don't care what a review says. In limited specific conditions it may be true, but not general BIF.

Well I just checked the page and there's only one actual BIF picture there. There rest are stationary or flying "in place", and one just as it leaves the tree.

That's what I used to think too, but when I brought up the issue, everybody was telling me that I was wrong, and that the OM-1 must get 89-98% (as indicated by that mirrorlesscomparison test).

Here is the thread where I initially brought up the issue of the problematic keeper rate:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4800066?page=2

You can find the comments constantly referencing that mirrorlesscomparison 89-98% hit rate.

Oops hey sorry, I didn't see that the page can be scrolled down further, so my comment about "only one BIF picture" was wrong.

Anyway, I've seen that website before. He somehow gets senseless stats that no one else does. In reality anyone I've talked to about this said, at best, that barely a quarter of the pictures they get are good enough, and most say 1 in 10 or such things. No matter what ludicrously expensive gear they use. And people on forums are pretty much the same. I like long zoom lenses, I hate trying to get good BIF pics, I get too frustrated and then I see that even in the proper pictures there's such low resolution for the bird anyway (with 50mp+) that I think "I'll leave it to the pros".

I'll check out that thread later.

 

[HicHic]

Anyway, I've seen that website before. He somehow gets senseless stats that no one else does. In reality anyone I've talked to about this said, at best, that barely a quarter of the pictures they get are good enough, and most say 1 in 10 or such things.

I've had the exact same experience. But what I didn't understand was why people in this thread https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4800066?page=2 kept referencing that website's claim of 89-98% whenever I pointed out that the real life keeper rate is much lower. I used an Olympus influencer's own video to prove that the keeper rate is low, but people just ignored the evidence and kept repeatedly posting that website's 89-98% claim. Why is that?

 

[WilyKit]

Anyway, I've seen that website before. He somehow gets senseless stats that no one else does. In reality anyone I've talked to about this said, at best, that barely a quarter of the pictures they get are good enough, and most say 1 in 10 or such things.

I've had the exact same experience. But what I didn't understand was why people in this thread https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4800066?page=2 kept referencing that website's claim of 89-98% whenever I pointed out that the real life keeper rate is much lower. I used an Olympus influencer's own video to prove that the keeper rate is low, but people just ignored the evidence and kept repeatedly posting that website's 89-98% claim. Why is that?

There's a common phenomenon on the internet where people spread total nonsense (like those utterly ludicrous stats from that website) in order to seem knowledgeable within a certain "online community". It's not limited to this field at all, it's really in various fields, creative (audio, oh my god "audiophiles", I won't go there) as well as less creative and more "recreational" (like make-up and perfumes). It's incredibly common and it's unnerving when you realize that the very same phenomenon is the same everywhere, of people who really have very little or even absolutely no real-world experience with something but keep arguing about things and trying to support their claims with so-called "expert sources". They may make absolutely no sense to anyone who actually knows anything, but reality and sensibility means nothing to the people who do this. I'm not so angry at them, I just think it's very sad. I know how annoying it can be to be "contradicted" in ambush by people who really have no idea what they're saying, but well, it's the internet... I've learned since a very young age not to have the illusion that most people in "online communities" are truthful.

 

[HicHic]

Anyway, I've seen that website before. He somehow gets senseless stats that no one else does. In reality anyone I've talked to about this said, at best, that barely a quarter of the pictures they get are good enough, and most say 1 in 10 or such things.

I've had the exact same experience. But what I didn't understand was why people in this thread https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4800066?page=2 kept referencing that website's claim of 89-98% whenever I pointed out that the real life keeper rate is much lower. I used an Olympus influencer's own video to prove that the keeper rate is low, but people just ignored the evidence and kept repeatedly posting that website's 89-98% claim. Why is that?

There's a common phenomenon on the internet where people spread total nonsense (like those utterly ludicrous stats from that website) in order to seem knowledgeable within a certain "online community". It's not limited to this field at all, it's really in various fields, creative (audio, oh my god "audiophiles", I won't go there) as well as less creative and more "recreational" (like make-up and perfumes). It's incredibly common and it's unnerving when you realize that the very same phenomenon is the same everywhere, of people who really have very little or even absolutely no real-world experience with something but keep arguing about things and trying to support their claims with so-called "expert sources". They may make absolutely no sense to anyone who actually knows anything, but reality and sensibility means nothing to the people who do this. I'm not so angry at them, I just think it's very sad. I know how annoying it can be to be "contradicted" in ambush by people who really have no idea what they're saying, but well, it's the internet... I've learned since a very young age not to have the illusion that most people in "online communities" are truthful.

The guy who kept referencing that website to defend the OM-1's AF performance actually doesn't even own the camera himself. But he was able to confirm that "it is a good resource".

People seem to agree with that!





He suggested that I take that website's claims of 89-98% as truth, rather than the video I referenced of the Olympus influencer that showed a lot of photos out of focus!

 

[James Stirling]

Anyway, I've seen that website before. He somehow gets senseless stats that no one else does. In reality anyone I've talked to about this said, at best, that barely a quarter of the pictures they get are good enough, and most say 1 in 10 or such things.

I've had the exact same experience. But what I didn't understand was why people in this thread https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4800066?page=2 kept referencing that website's claim of 89-98% whenever I pointed out that the real life keeper rate is much lower. I used an Olympus influencer's own video to prove that the keeper rate is low, but people just ignored the evidence and kept repeatedly posting that website's 89-98% claim. Why is that?

There's a common phenomenon on the internet where people spread total nonsense (like those utterly ludicrous stats from that website) in order to seem knowledgeable within a certain "online community". It's not limited to this field at all, it's really in various fields, creative (audio, oh my god "audiophiles", I won't go there) as well as less creative and more "recreational" (like make-up and perfumes). It's incredibly common and it's unnerving when you realize that the very same phenomenon is the same everywhere, of people who really have very little or even absolutely no real-world experience with something but keep arguing about things and trying to support their claims with so-called "expert sources". They may make absolutely no sense to anyone who actually knows anything, but reality and sensibility means nothing to the people who do this. I'm not so angry at them, I just think it's very sad. I know how annoying it can be to be "contradicted" in ambush by people who really have no idea what they're saying, but well, it's the internet... I've learned since a very young age not to have the illusion that most people in "online communities" are truthful.

The guy who kept referencing that website to defend the OM-1's AF performance actually doesn't even own the camera himself. But he was able to confirm that "it is a good resource".

People seem to agree with that!



He suggested that I take that website's claims of 89-98% as truth, rather than the video I referenced of the Olympus influencer that showed a lot of photos out of focus!

I think a truly methodology sound test of BIF is bordering on impossible . Mathieu is very experienced professional photographer and is not motivated by being financially linked to any maker. The ambassadors for every brand are just salesmen promoting a product, with zero mention of any weaknesses or potential issues. I take everything that they say with a pinch of salt

He has tested a lot of cameras from all makers in a similar setting of the same type of bird. I don't think the site is perfect by any means , as frankly I don't think that without a large budget and team of experts it is beyond normal testing . But there are few if any other resources where so many makers cameras and lenses have been tried in this area, BIF are not the easiest subject in the world. Hence why my loves are landscape and macro.

The general consensus in forums not just this one is that if Mathieu's test gives good results for your beloved gear it is an excellent resource. If on the other hand the if results don't favour your brand the man is a scoundrel The same thing has happened to Robin Wong when he was funded by Olympus his every word was taken as gospel by the true believers, since leaving them and in a position to be critical he is suddenly persona non grata

BIF shooting can be very difficult , personally I would be happy with a hit rate a fraction of what is stated in the results . The only way I would be getting a 90% hit rate would be if the bird was either sleeping or stuffed

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

The number one thing full framers are missing is the ability to use the finest wildlife lens ever manufactured, that being the 150-400mm.

Daniel you are an excellent wildlife photographer and prove every day what can be done with m43 . But declarative statements about x being the finest ever made are firmly in the camp of brand fanatics. Though it plays to the crowd here for sure .

Indeed.... hyperbolic choice supportive biased statements undermine credibility.

Also, with all the talk of compactness.... I grabbed an RX100. Smaller than any equivalent M43 setup and good for when I don't feel like lugging around my FF setup.

The ergonomics are a PITA for my hamfisted hands my wife has the RX100 V the feature set they have squeezed into such a tiny camera is amazing plus image quality is closer to m43 than m43 is to FF

 

[jjbinx]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

I've read reports here of OM cameras missing focus or focus slightly drifting when shooting birds in flight.
In view of your DoF comments I'm wondering what this says about the OM cameras given that m4/3 supposedly has the advantage of a wider DoF

jj

Someone with intelligence chimes in!

To be clear, I’m not chiming in on any sides here just saying that the oft stated “razor thin DoF” line used against the larger sensors has another side to it . . . the wider DoF of the smaller sensor cameras should result in more forgiveness re AF errors or the AF point wandering off the subjects eye, but I don’t think we see that.

jj

You're not taking sides at all, just speaking sound logic and reasoning.

It's sad that a grown man is trying to insult me for my perfectly reasonable posts, but that's how it is on the internet.

jj, MFT is really quite a large sensor format, regardless of what people on this forum and others have made people believe. I think it's not surprising, it's like people think Arnold Schwarzenegger may spot them with an MFT camera and say "look at this girly man holding the MFT camera with a tiny sensor haha!" The DOF with MFT is also super thin when long focal lengths are used. F/4.5 ("F/9-equivalent") is NOT gonna give wide DOF at 400mm when your subject fills much of the frame.

checking with my DoF Calculator . . .

4/3 sensor
400mm f/4.5
at 20m range (lets call it 70 feet, which is close for a wild bird out in the open

the Near limit is 69.4' and the Far limit is 70.6' for a total DoF = 1.23 feet

And that allows for 6 inches of front or 6 inches of back focus error, which in my mind seem darn generous for bird photgraphy. But let's say that we are looking for more critcal focus and we halve those tolerances we still end up with 6 inches (15 centimeters) of focus which is like the width of a pelican's head or the width of 5 robins

It's only gonna give extremely thin DOF,

not by my calculations

because that's just how it is. I've seen abundant complaints and requests for tips in full-frame and APS-C forums about missed focus in tough situations like BIF. I don't see anything unusual in MFT regarding this.

true, but why isn't the famed DoF advantage coming to the rescue of m4/3 ?
Possibly because for subjects at that distance the advantage over FF isn't very much at all
Even with a fast lens like a 600mm f/4 the FF birder will have 0.97 feet and if she's using a slower lens like the RF200-800mm zoom wide open at f/9 then she gets 1.21 feet, the same as a 4/3 user with the OM150-400mm f/4.5

If anything, Olympus / OMS cameras are usually praised for nailing focus well in many situations. Sure there can be algorithm issues and lens autofocus motor limitations causing this, but usually in extremely tough situations when your subject is moving while you only have a tiny depth of field where focus is actually sharp, it's physical limitations from the photographer's side AND the subject's side, there's just no way around it, and most BIF pictures have bad focus. I don't believe anyone gets a higher than 50% keeper rate with BIF in any format with any camera.

I don't use my m4/3 camera for wildlife (yet) so I can only go by what I read.
Just how well the system would work for my birding is not clear, but I don't do much BIF so the AF would likely be more than good enough, but I do shoot birds in dark places and the lack of fast tele lenses in the m4/3 lineup is a concern for me.

jj

 

[Asherax]

I thought it was interesting watching an interview again with Sebastião Salgado taped several years ago now in which he mentions that he always shot with as great a depth of field as he could achieve, because he believed it was how the human eye perceived the world, and as a documentary journalist and photographer he wanted to harness the truth of the human condition from the perspective we all see it.

...

He goes on to speak about how moving to digital was a revelation, because even the modest advances back 10 years ago, when sensors for FF were not even as good as those available in MFT are today, were actually better than the larger format images he was able to capture. He almost always shot with tri-X in his beloved Leica's, and mentioned that he actually had to work with canon to create the possibility to add grain back into the shot because it was too clean.

...

Perhaps today's MFT would have been the perfect format for him, with the increased DOF, and as he states, 'noise is never an issue because I always shoot in B&W'. The OM3 for instance has a TRI-X mono filter, it makes one wonder what he would have been able to do with a rugged, weather-sealed MFT body, that had a TRI-X film sim on tap. I dare say, he would have made it work.

...

RIP Sebastião , thank you for your humanity! <3

--
Photography is poetry made visible; it is the art of painting with light!

 

[agott123]

Ya because FF cannot be used for macro

Your images are all excellent but obviously you must have changed the exif as such lovely images could only be taken with the 90mm OM

I'm sorry Jim, but it seems to me that with today's standards, those photos can no longer be considered excellent...

Excellent is in the eye of the beholder , and I have seen similar quality images here being praised

Take a look at the work of these photographers...

https://www.instagram.com/emakaero/

https://www.instagram.com/weemadbeasties/

https://www.instagram.com/malbafont_macrophotography/

https://www.instagram.com/macrolympus/

and there are plenty others, many of them using Olympus gear.

Alex

Hi Alex, I never suggested that m43 was not capable of great results the OP has posted 100's of such images. It was the wild claim that 90% of amazing bug shots are being taken with the 90mm it is a nonsensical claim. Your links include an OM ambassadors so not a surprise David is using OM 90mm

Hi Jim.

At no point did I mean to say that only Olympus can take excellent photos.

Any camera or format can do that. I see great things from Sony, Nikon and Canon too

I just wanted to point out that the standards of excellence today are higher than they used to be. (I suffer it firsthand :-( )

An interesting detail: two of the best macro photographers around here (we are only a few) switched from APS-C to M4/3, which is especially interesting since there's no official seller or authorized Olympus service center here.

I mostly follow macro photographers on Instagram, so my comment is just based on what I see there.

Regards

If you search any large photo site flickr etc and search for macro images you will find fantastic and rubbish ( they may be mine ) results from all kinds of cameras. m43 has a tiny share of the market so it is daft to claim that they are dominating with 90% of any area. There are superb macro options available in all formats I am waiting to see how the leaked Laowa 180mm AF macro does. I have one of their manual focus 2x macro lens and it is a great performer .

The Laowa FFII 90 mm f/2.8 CA-Dreamer Macro 2X tested on lenstip has a peak LW/PH score of 3,765 the 90mm has a peak LW/PH score of 1,904 . The laowa can be used on FF cameras with up to 61mp , in the end it is system results that matter lens plus cameras. I am also not denying that the process may be more convenient on m43 . I have had some great fun with my OM-1 focus stacking but when it comes to macro there are many ways to skin that poor cat

 

[Art_P]

Don't forget that 90 macro has sync IS, not that important for tripod work, but sure helps for handheld focus stacking in the field.

Not by much if you are using a flash, the 60mm was arguably easier to handhold for stacking in the field due to the lower working distance.

With the 60 I was stacking an extension tube and mc-14 to get a little more working distance.

As for flash, I found it can disturb the subject. Moths in particular may not stick around for a second shot.

But what works for me may not work for you. At least we have both options available.

 

[James Stirling]

I thought it was interesting watching an interview again with Sebastião Salgado taped several years ago now in which he mentions that he always shot with as great a depth of field as he could achieve, because he believed it was how the human eye perceived the world, and as a documentary journalist and photographer he wanted to harness the truth of the human condition from the perspective we all see it.

He produced some incredibly powerful images, the series from the Serra Pelada gold mine are very impactful

...
He goes on to speak about how moving to digital was a revelation, because even the modest advances back 10 years ago, when sensors for FF were not even as good as those available in MFT are today,

That is wishful thinking I had the D3s and D3X which came out in 2008 and 2009 and they easily outperform any m43 sensor. By 2015 Sony was on to their second gen FF mirrorless cameras

were actually better than the larger format images he was able to capture. He almost always shot with tri-X in his beloved Leica's, and mentioned that he actually had to work with canon to create the possibility to add grain back into the shot because it was too clean.

...

Perhaps today's MFT would have been the perfect format for him, with the increased DOF, and as he states, 'noise is never an issue because I always shoot in B&W'. The OM3 for instance has a TRI-X mono filter, it makes one wonder what he would have been able to do with a rugged, weather-sealed MFT body, that had a TRI-X film sim on tap. I dare say, he would have made it work.

...

RIP Sebastião , thank you for your humanity! <3

 

[the bluesman]

I just wanted to jump inside this thread inside a thread as I think it's pretty cool with all the "Really's", I really do!!