You will notice I said much easier, not that it can't be done. The 60mm macro on an E-M1 can give you spectacular results without resorting to focus stacking for other means. I've actually done all the ones I've tried so far handheld. That simply would not be possible with a FF camera (believe me, I tried with some Nikons). So it's not a matter of ultimate technical quality, it's a matter of balance between quality and ease of use.
As Ulric already pointed out, there would be no debate if good FF was the same size and weight as good MFT (and if FF sensors were as efficient per sensor area unit as those currently available for MFT).
If you were a bit less ignorant, you'd realize that you can't know the mental state or motivations of those others of whom you speak. You would also realize that it's therefore unwise to claim that you do.
The poster clearly understands things better than you do. He is talking about the problems you run into if you have too little DoF. You are talking about how to make it more shallow.
You missed the point, which was that the DoF gets too shallow in many cases.
It takes two to tango and you're more of a figher than just about everybody else around.
Yet, you are over here all the time poo-pooing MFT. So by your own logic, you must be incredibly insecure.
See above regarding things you know nothing about.
I believe all that. I don't do macro.
A sensible way to look at the issue, and very well put.
Not sure I've ever encountered it. Can't imagine I ever would with a 1/8000 shutter. What ND filters do you use?
If we can imagine a 600mm f/4 lens being the same size as a 300mm f/4 lens then I guess we could imagine the Civic being way better than the Lexus, no? LOL
I think it's safe to say that 99% would choose the Lexus.
Of course not necessarily -- macro photography comes to mind. But, for most people and most photos, it is as stated.
Same DoF, yes, but same noise?...but the size, weight, and price. For example, you could have taken the photo above at 35mm f/1.8 1/15 ISO 12800 and gotten then same DOF and noise. But then what's the purpose of FF?Let me start by saying that I like fast lenses and primes.
My Olympus 35-100F2 and 15F2 and my Panaleica 25F1.4 and Rokinon 85F1.4 are among my favourite lenses, and let's not even get started on how I enjoy my Voigtländer Nokton 17F0.95.
And yes, occasionally I use those to get as shallow DOF as I can get on FT, isolating a subject (or even a part of it, like an extended hand, from the background etc. For my Nokton, I bought a variable ND filter, so I should not pretend that I only bought it for light-gathering : I want to use that lens occasionally also wide open in good light. So shallow DOF was and is an artistic consideration. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that it isn't ever.
And thus I am fully aware that if shallow DOF was my main concern, I would be better off with FF.
But it is not.
I like those fast lenses mainly because I hate to use flash. For my documentary work, a flash is just a nuisance, ruining the intimate atmosphere of a scene in which I am immersed and in which I try to remain the unnoticed fly on the wall.
So I do almost 99% of my work with available light, even if that available light is very limited. In my images I like to not only USE available light, but also to SHOW the light itself at work, as part of the composition.
Fast lenses are (for at least 95%) about light-gathering for me.
And for those purposes, the somewhat deeper DOF of (µ)FT versus µFF is a blessing, because it allows me to focus manual lenses more easily (handheld in dynamic situations) and because it shows just enough of my subjects in focus (not just the nose but the whole face), even when shot wide open.
Like here (almost completely dark scene, shot at ISO 3200 with F0.95 and 1/15th sec handheld:
Circus backstage scene with Nokton 17.5mm on E-M5
Perhaps they would. If, however, the MFT sensor had the same pixel count as the FF sensor and could go to arbitrarily low ISOs (with conomitant noise benefits), using techniques like these
Not deeper DoF alone. But same DoF as you can get with FF but along with less shadow noise. ;-)
So what? See here
Just the opposite, no? That is, the 600 / 4 would be the Lexus, the 300 / 4 would be the Civic.
Depends on the lens, and what you consider to be large, heavy, and expensive. But, for sure, lenses with wider apertures on larger formats, as a general rule, are larger, heavier, and more expensive than lenses with more narrow apertures on smaller formats.
For sure. This is typically because the diameters of their apertures are half as wide.
Just saying that if it weren't for the size, weight, and cost differential, very few would choose the smaller format. Thus, it's not a matter of DOF, but size, weight, and cost.
Yes, same noise, for equally efficient sensors (e.g. the 6D vs EM5). If, however, you wish to make the argument that, as a general rule, smaller sensors are more efficient than larger sensors, then that is a discussion worth having. I invite you to start such a thread in the Photographic Science and Technology Forum.Same DoF, yes, but same noise?
Perhaps they would. If, however, the MFT sensor had the same pixel count as the FF sensor and could go to arbitrarily low ISOs (with conomitant noise benefits), using techniques like these
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/0...-sensor-technology-for-expanded-dynamic-range
http://www.pixim.com/products-and-technology/technology
while remaining more efficient on a per-area basis, I might still prefer MFT.
Not deeper DoF alone. But same DoF as you can get with FF but along with less shadow noise. ;-)
There would be no debates if m43 was a good format, no one would feel inferior or insecure and would not start threads like this.
... if Canon or Nikon were good cameras, users of either brand would not start threads bashing the other.
That's the argument I am making, yes. And it holds for the 6D versus the E-M5 too, although in that particular case, the difference is minimal at high ISOs but considerable at low.Yes, same noise, for equally efficient sensors (e.g. the 6D vs EM5). If, however, you wish to make the argument that, as a general rule, smaller sensors are more efficient than larger sensors, then that is a discussion worth having. I invite you to start such a thread in the Photographic Science and Technology Forum.Same DoF, yes, but same noise?
Perhaps they would. If, however, the MFT sensor had the same pixel count as the FF sensor and could go to arbitrarily low ISOs (with conomitant noise benefits), using techniques like these
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/0...-sensor-technology-for-expanded-dynamic-range
http://www.pixim.com/products-and-technology/technology
while remaining more efficient on a per-area basis, I might still prefer MFT.
Not deeper DoF alone. But same DoF as you can get with FF but along with less shadow noise. ;-)
I think you are ignorant to how people behave but f you have a better explaination, I am all ears.
You don't know what your are talking about either because is all you would need to do in that case is step back or close down the aperture.
That is the problem with smaller formats like m43, you cannot open the aperture wide enough to isolate bacgraound
You need to do that on m43, you just open er up to f1.2 on a FF
Which is not a problem for FF, you close the aperture.
If using logic is fighting, ok. Diminishing other products is more like fighting to me.
I am not poo pooing MFT, it is a lesser format. Saying that is not poo pooing it. Pocket cameras and phone cameras are lesser formats, but they have their place too.
You know much less that I do so where does that put you? I bet you have never owned a decent DSLR or could afford one so you like all your buddies sit around putting FF down because you are insecure. How sad for you.
The poster was answering this
No, I am not ignorant. I just don't pretend to know things without proper evidence, as you do.
Which obviates the need for an FF camera and an f/1.2 lens, which was the point the poster made (although you didn't get it).
You were obviously talking about what can be done to increase subject isolation in the field, with a specific camera. So I merely corrected what you had to say about that.
See above.
See above.
No using logic isn't fighting but you aren't using any. As you point out, diminishing other products is more like fighting, and that's what you do.
It is lesser only in the sense that the sensor, the bodies, and the lenses are smaller. It is not lesser in the sense of inferior to. And when you claim that, you are poo-pooing.
I let others be the judge of that. ;-)
More empty speculations not worthy of a response.
Answering this what? Please explain in detail in exactly what way the poster answered the points I am making in the posts I linked to.
Ah. So you have realized that Ulric and I were right that the debate would be less intense in that hypothetical situation. Just a few hours ago, you instead argued that there would be no debate if the price was similar. See here in case you have forgotten:
I wasn't dismissing the point. I countered it. That's a difference.
Again, I'll let others be the judge of that.
