D
dpalugyay
Guest
You don't have to justify it. Shoot what you want to. But please, stop the circlejerking in this forum and get back to shooting with your photographic tool.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Seven Myths About The Need for Full Frame Camera Bodies
- Thread starter Frugaltraveler
- Start date
-
- Tags
- olympus om-d e-m5
- Status
If you can't control your distance to the subject and the background, then I'm in agreement, otherwise this is enough "single eyelash in focus" DOF for me.
Canon FD 85mm 1.8 (shot at f/1.8 ?)
Attachments
mike703
Veteran Member
Riggghhht... so you have discovered the advantages of 'going small' with camera body and lenses; but you now need to carry with you 'flashes, reflectors and hot lights' for when its dim. I can see it now; a nice compact camera body and a couple of small lenses on a belt pack giving you the freedom to travel light - whilst towing a studio lighting kit with battery packs on a trailer behind you. Yep, makes sense
Mike
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/mikeward
Last edited:
If you prefer m4/3, that's great! It's more suited to a "frugal" traveler, which is a nice concept anyway.
I don't get those recurrent FF vs m4/3 threads. Both formats have pros and cons, that's not difficult to understand, right?
Can't both format co-exist in peace?
I don't get those recurrent FF vs m4/3 threads. Both formats have pros and cons, that's not difficult to understand, right?
Can't both format co-exist in peace?
Moti
Veteran Member
Look who's talking...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51675635
Seems like photography isn't for you either. Knitting maybe?
Moti
I think the real advantage of M43 over FF is acceptable quality while having a size that's much more portable. (sort of a balance thing) Probably the less noticeable or "less intimidating" factor for candid street/travel/people photography, may also be an advantage. Yes there are work arounds for many of the advantages FF has...the M43 photographs may not be identical in perspective, framing or DOF, but may have their own strengths... much of it depending on the style or needs of the photographer. Much as FF has certain weaknesses compared to medium format, or medium format has to large format (have you ever looked closely at a large format very large print, even from film? when speaking about resolution). A person has to ask themselves what they (themselves) need, and what they don't.
That all said, I do think the adaptability to nearly any lens ever made, is an important advantage of M43 (at least in my case and probably some others) and Nex systems. I also think that for me, the feeling of taking my Pen out on the street, has a much different "feel" than taking my DSLR out on it, FF or not. You feel more a part of your shooting environment, rather than an outsider looking in, whether others see you that way or not...the feel a photographer when shooting can be very important. I think there are a lot of intangibles such as this...that have a bearing on choice of formats.
I don't understand the arguments about "this format is better or that is better" better for who? Every photographer sort of makes a choice for themselves and what their needs, styles and systems should be.
--
My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker
That all said, I do think the adaptability to nearly any lens ever made, is an important advantage of M43 (at least in my case and probably some others) and Nex systems. I also think that for me, the feeling of taking my Pen out on the street, has a much different "feel" than taking my DSLR out on it, FF or not. You feel more a part of your shooting environment, rather than an outsider looking in, whether others see you that way or not...the feel a photographer when shooting can be very important. I think there are a lot of intangibles such as this...that have a bearing on choice of formats.
I don't understand the arguments about "this format is better or that is better" better for who? Every photographer sort of makes a choice for themselves and what their needs, styles and systems should be.
--
My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker
Last edited:
The original Olympus PEN cameras actually used 35mm film in a half-frame format, so the current M4/3 vs FF discussion has a history going back more than 50 years.
I wonder if the additional space this saves by removing the mirror box can be used to more comfortably generate a speed booster type of device to adapt larger format lenses to improve the "capture of detail" as you termed it.
papillon_65
Forum Pro
Except that in plenty of circumstances you can't use flash and you can't control the amount of light you have (concerts or performances for instance) so more light gathering ability is a big help.
Hmm, 75mm is just one lens, in FF you have more flexibility and far more choices, no point in denying it.
I don't know of anyone who's stated that, most mirrorless formats with short lens registrations can take almost any lens, I'm pretty sure anyone who comes on here would know that.
True, but shots on the whole have the appearance of more sharpness and resolution on FF due to a variety of factors. In plenty of cases it won't matter but it is there.
Erm, if you love UWA, as I do, then FF is better, no point in arguing about telephoto if we're talking wide angles, that's a different debate.
I think many DSLR's are more robust than many mirrorless cameras but build quality has nothing to do with format.
People will always take you more seriously if you're wielding a big FF camera, only just recently a family picked me out from many other people to take a shot of them using their camera because I was shooting with my 5D2, their perception, rightly or wrongly was that I knew what I was doing. I could care less, but in my experience people do take notice of what you are shooting with. Had I been snapping away with my EOS-M they'd have probably looked for someone else to do it, probably someone with a DSLR. Don't underestimate appearances and people's perceptions.
Of course we know that the camera you use means nothing about your abilities as a photographer but Joe public don't think like that, that's why some people buy big expensive cameras to look good
(not me I hasten to add)
As someone in a mixed race marriage, I am always in need of more color depth and dynamic range just for simple candid snaps. I have a NEX 5N which edges the best of M4/3 sensors in both these areas but I feel it's insufficient at times. And no I don't carry reflectors or bounce flashes with me to the restaurant (or for that matter large DSLRs) so those are not options for candid lowlight photography. FF is a move I am keen to make, but will wait until I see the rumored FF NEX and then compare it with the RX1/R.
Interesting points - thanks.
However, I disagree on low light - there are situations where I want/need the ambient light to be the only light. I can get a well-exposed image with my own lighting, but it won't be the image I want. Then, I'll want the extra low light capability of a bigger sensor
However, I disagree on low light - there are situations where I want/need the ambient light to be the only light. I can get a well-exposed image with my own lighting, but it won't be the image I want. Then, I'll want the extra low light capability of a bigger sensor
hifi
Veteran Member
PC Wheeler wrote:
nzmacro wrote:
I looked at your gallery and you are right........ YOU don't need a DSLR, let alone FF.
Lets see and I'm real basic at this stuff. Larger sensor = less noise. Again this is sounding like its all about YOU. What about a lot of other folks out there and its more than 5% !!
You are right, not ever body does need or want it, but a lot do.
Naaa, they shoot for the format size and optics. I only shoot legacy lenses on the NEX, the lenses were formulated for 35mm, you do realise that huh. Actually you probably don't.
Exactly how many have you met using MF legacy lenses on a FF DSLR ??
You need a different physics class.
Doesn't do much for me, I only use 300mm and above, so maybe its about ME this time
I'm glad you said "some FF cameras don't". Your Oly OMD might as well be a brick in my hands. Better off using the GH3 for me. Ever seen a FF Canon 1DX bounce off the back of a ute at 50kph with only a scratch in the bottom plate, I have. I'm glad it wasn't mine.
Mate, have you seen in this forum how many go on about a sliver/black body and what colour lenses to get for it, why can't they make that lens in black !! Ya what. Sorry what were you saying.....
Why you need to compare full frame with a half frame camera I'm not sure. Maybe you just like small cameras and that's fair enough. I shoot with enough FF users to know that they do need FF
All the best and as long as you are happy, that's great and as long as FF users are happy, well that's great as well ;-)
Danny.
slimandy
Forum Pro
By that same argument we don't need digital cameras either because for the majority of the last 100 years we managed without it.
I'd rather have the option. PP is a poor substitute for getting it right in the first place. More effort, worse results.
But not in the same way because the sensor is much smaller.
I'm happy with the sharpness on both. If I wasn't I wouldn't use MFT at all. That said, some of my best FF lenses are not matched for sharpness in my MFT equivalents, if I'm being really fussy.
WA is much better on FF. You can go wider, better.
Mine is. The only camera I have had to send in for repair was my Olympus OMD. The previous SLR I sent in was a Nikon F3 film camera, and it turned out I had used a dud battery.
It looks more professional. It doesn't look cool though. It looks very bulky and heavy. It will make you stand out at an event though, if that helps. If someone hires you to shoot their wedding they would be more confident in a pro SLR than MFT.
I use both systems and both have their pros and cons, but I don't understand why anyone who uses either system exclusively feels the need to knock those that use the other system. just use what you are happy with. There are reasons for using the other and no point in saying otherwise.
biza43
Forum Pro
Why so many words and flawed reasons just to justify your camera purchase decisions? People who only use smartphone cameras could write the same stuff about micro 4/3... Today there are many formats, just like in the past. You seem to have picked the format that best suits your photography, so move on and take some pictures.
No need to discharge pointless diatribes...
No need to discharge pointless diatribes...
lattesweden
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,095
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 3,905
If one looks at DXOmark.com and their sensor test one finds that the best FF has just under 3000 ISO in low light score. And the best m43 has about 800 ISO. So about two steps you need to compensate with something else (speedier glass for instance, longer shutter speed etc) to produce the same amount of noise.
The dynamic range on FF is about 2 steps better than m43. 14 vs 12 steps. There is an APS-C Pentax which does 14. Gives better shadows and highlight details.
FF does up to 36 Mpix compared to 16 Mpix on m43 and 24 i think is the highest I've seen on APS-C. Many pixels are good for cropping when you didn't have the reach or didn't frame right.
And here the advantages list pretty much stops. For the rest it's downhill for FF in my eyes.
* Heavier, bigger.
* More expensive (means bigger whole in wallet and also that I'm more afraid to take it along to "risky" places)
* The shallower depth of field might look good when you nail focus but you have less margin for errors. Also if you do want a big depth of field you need to use a smaller aperture compared to small sensor cameras. Smaller aperture means higher ISO or longer shutter time.
I actually use a LX5 with the "18 mm" Wide adapter as my wide lens. And without the adapter it gives 24 mm. Both at f2. I get good DOF at rather big apertures with it. It weights under 500 grams which is the same or less as the equivalent lens for an FF would do. Instead of dragging around different lenses one can use different cameras. It's about quality, size, weight and money. So don't buy a new lens if you can get a complete camera instead that does it better than the lens on the above listed areas.
So in low light I'd like a FF. The Sony RX1 would do the trick if it had a 24/2 mounted instead of the 35/2,8. With 2.8 you've already lost one step of the sensor advantage and with 35 mm you need to have shorter shutter times since it is harder to hold 35 mm wide angles still than 18 or 24.
I actually use three cameras:
* Panasonic LX5 with EVF and wide adapter as my wide lens (18/24 mm). And for handheld macro and HDR (good bracketing). 500 grams (the wide adapter weights the same as the camera, much glass).
* Sony RX100 28-100 mm. My standard lens. Good for low light with f1,8 and it's rather big sensor. 250 grams.
* Panasonic G5 with 45-150 (90-300) for telephotos. 600 grams. I could maybe use a compact camera for this purpose to, but the G5 has around 600 ISO in DXOmark tests which is better than the compacts with superzoom so I can crank up the ISO higher on the G5 to get shorter shutter times compared to a smaller sensor compact.
So totaling to 1350 grams. You don't get a FF with a superzoom for that and it won't do macro as good and not go as wide. I get this into a rather small bag. And I can choose what I want to bring. Normally I just have the RX100 with me so I can divide my setup to what I like to bring along at the moment.
I do have some other lenses for my G5 that I bring along at times if I know I'll need them.
So what I really wanted to say is that you need to look at the whole picture and not just sensor size. There are more points to consider than just that when you choose and why buy a lens and need to swap on a body when you can have the lenses on different cameras ready to shot with just the "on" switch.
My thoughts...
Best regards from Sweden!
/Anders
The dynamic range on FF is about 2 steps better than m43. 14 vs 12 steps. There is an APS-C Pentax which does 14. Gives better shadows and highlight details.
FF does up to 36 Mpix compared to 16 Mpix on m43 and 24 i think is the highest I've seen on APS-C. Many pixels are good for cropping when you didn't have the reach or didn't frame right.
And here the advantages list pretty much stops. For the rest it's downhill for FF in my eyes.
* Heavier, bigger.
* More expensive (means bigger whole in wallet and also that I'm more afraid to take it along to "risky" places)
* The shallower depth of field might look good when you nail focus but you have less margin for errors. Also if you do want a big depth of field you need to use a smaller aperture compared to small sensor cameras. Smaller aperture means higher ISO or longer shutter time.
I actually use a LX5 with the "18 mm" Wide adapter as my wide lens. And without the adapter it gives 24 mm. Both at f2. I get good DOF at rather big apertures with it. It weights under 500 grams which is the same or less as the equivalent lens for an FF would do. Instead of dragging around different lenses one can use different cameras. It's about quality, size, weight and money. So don't buy a new lens if you can get a complete camera instead that does it better than the lens on the above listed areas.
So in low light I'd like a FF. The Sony RX1 would do the trick if it had a 24/2 mounted instead of the 35/2,8. With 2.8 you've already lost one step of the sensor advantage and with 35 mm you need to have shorter shutter times since it is harder to hold 35 mm wide angles still than 18 or 24.
I actually use three cameras:
* Panasonic LX5 with EVF and wide adapter as my wide lens (18/24 mm). And for handheld macro and HDR (good bracketing). 500 grams (the wide adapter weights the same as the camera, much glass).
* Sony RX100 28-100 mm. My standard lens. Good for low light with f1,8 and it's rather big sensor. 250 grams.
* Panasonic G5 with 45-150 (90-300) for telephotos. 600 grams. I could maybe use a compact camera for this purpose to, but the G5 has around 600 ISO in DXOmark tests which is better than the compacts with superzoom so I can crank up the ISO higher on the G5 to get shorter shutter times compared to a smaller sensor compact.
So totaling to 1350 grams. You don't get a FF with a superzoom for that and it won't do macro as good and not go as wide. I get this into a rather small bag. And I can choose what I want to bring. Normally I just have the RX100 with me so I can divide my setup to what I like to bring along at the moment.
I do have some other lenses for my G5 that I bring along at times if I know I'll need them.
So what I really wanted to say is that you need to look at the whole picture and not just sensor size. There are more points to consider than just that when you choose and why buy a lens and need to swap on a body when you can have the lenses on different cameras ready to shot with just the "on" switch.
My thoughts...
Best regards from Sweden!
/Anders
slimandy
Forum Pro
Gregm61
Forum Pro
6 months from now, you'll probably be back on the Canon full frame forum preaching just the opposite like you have in the past...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51596741
--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Last edited:
As an OMD user, coming up from a N8 cellphone for a camera, the OMD is great, it's leaps and bounds from what I was using before. I bought the OMD because it was a compromise between size vs IQ. I just didn't want to be walking around the city with a giant camera slinging from my neck.
Since I already bought into the system of m43, I will probably stick with it until it doesn't exist anymore. Not because I believe m43 is better than FF or vice versa.
It's just because I can't afford switching systems.
Since I already bought into the system of m43, I will probably stick with it until it doesn't exist anymore. Not because I believe m43 is better than FF or vice versa.
It's just because I can't afford switching systems.
mpgxsvcd
Veteran Member
The only thing m4/3s can't do is ultra wide and very fast. You would be hard pressed to make a good 12mm F1.4 for m4/3s. And what I would really want is a good 12mm F0.70 lens. Other than that m4/3s is just about the perfect solution for my needs.
- Status
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum