Four-thirds vs. APS-C

Captive18 · Mar 11, 2014

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?

EinsteinsGhost · Mar 12, 2014

Bobo Hodls said:
EinsteinsGhost said:

Bobo Hodls said:

MisterBG said:

007peter said:

nickels25 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

You missed out one important factor:

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

Click to expand...

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
.

Click to expand...

How much does an m43 12-35/1.4 weighs? Do you have the specs?

Click to expand...

I run to BHphotovideo.com when I can't remember certain specs, prices, etc. But don't search on a 12-35/1.4, try Lumix G X Vario 12-35/2.8 or Oly 12-40/2.8 for this format.

--
...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
.

But then, I can't find specs for a 24-70/5.6 or 70-200/5.6 to match to the m43 lenses (and that is assuming FF comparisob since FOV and DOF changes with APSc).

Bobo Hodls · Mar 12, 2014

EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost wrote:.

EinsteinsGhost said:
But then, I can't find specs for a 24-70/5.6 or 70-200/5.6 to match to the m43 lenses (and that is assuming FF comparisob since FOV and DOF changes with APSc).

Ah, equivalence. Someone else's obsession. I don't have much use for it, adapting though slightly different practices for isolation or broad DOF needs. If you want to use practices exactly as you've learned to do with one format, don't change formats.

--
...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
.

mosswings · Mar 12, 2014

Lab D said:
Sergey_Green said:

Lab D said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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).

Uhmm...yes, but let's compare the best APS-C sensors with the best u4/3 sensor with the RX100II:

439b289beb764fbc89042f6f59565282.jpg.png

The Canon sensor is showing the usual Canon ISOful behavior, the nex-6 Sony's typical ISOless behavior, the EM-1 a close approximation. But we have to be careful of the sensor generations being employed in the comparison. When the A6000 comes out, I would expect its DR performance to be better than the NEX-6's because of the PDAF pixel interleaving structure as well as bulk tweaks. The EM-1's sensor is a Panasonic and newer than the NEX-6's, the 70D's sensor offers on-sensor PDAF but not the low-ISO DR of the others.

Another interesting comparison demonstrating just how good the EM-1's sensor is is this one, against the new 20MP Sony a5000 (sans on-sensor PDAF):

62ae8630fa6747d4bee098f5d695f5c9.jpg.png

The EM-1 is doing better...indicating that the a5000's sensor is not Sony's best. But 2 years ago one could not expect anything near a dead heat in sensor performance between u4/3 and APS-C.

But it is impressive how well the RX100II's sensor performs. BSI does pay efficiency dividends that fade away with larger pixel pitches and sensor sizes.

Sergey_Green · Mar 12, 2014

Lab D said:
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).

Let's see how you understand this. First dr takes into account only read noise, which is not the main source of noise in most images. It is an SNR that you should be looking at, if you really want your images to look clean, and tonal range, if you like them smooth. Secondly, OMD-E1 has ISO 200 as base, which in fact is measured as only ISO 122. Which means to even get that dr you are so proud of, you need to overexpose the images by almost a stop (expose to the right). How does the rest of the image usually look when it is over-exposed by a stop? Well .. And finally, in your own words, how exactly does this dr help you in your shooting? I am really curious. Can you please give us few examples of your own that show an upper edge over the cameras with larger sensors?

--
- sergey

Lab D · Mar 12, 2014

mosswings said:
Lab D said:

Sergey_Green said:

Lab D said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Uhmm...yes, but let's compare the best APS-C sensors with the best u4/3 sensor with the RX100II:

As you read, DxO wouldn't let me add the 4th camera, but it makes my point. The D7100 doesn't have PDAF pixels so I chose the other current cameras instead. As you point out though the D7100 difference sill is not 2/3rds a stop like we would expect.

mosswings said:
The Canon sensor is showing the usual Canon ISOful behavior, the nex-6 Sony's typical ISOless behavior, the EM-1 a close approximation. But we have to be careful of the sensor generations being employed in the comparison.

The NEX 6 is current so you have to be careful not to assume something unreleased will be better. The GH4 may beat them all but we need to wait for that "next" generation.

mosswings said:
When the A6000 comes out, I would expect..

Let's not guess or assume. The new 20mm pixel sensor without PDAF pixels performs almost exactly the same. Why not say lets wait for the next generation E-M1 too since it is from back in 2013 and the A6000 won't be out until almost mid 2014.

mosswings said:
NEX-6's because of the PDAF pixel interleaving structure as well as bulk tweaks.

That didn't help their new 20MP sensor.

mosswings said:
The EM-1's sensor is a Panasonic and newer than the NEX-6's

So Panasonic makes better sensors right now? Interesting.

mosswings said:
, the 70D's sensor offers on-sensor PDAF but not the low-ISO DR of the others.

But it is impressive how well the RX100II's sensor performs. BSI does pay efficiency dividends that fade away with larger pixel pitches and sensor sizes.

I agree. If you don't mind the wider DoF and lens restrictions, the RX100II or the RX10 may be the better choice.

EinsteinsGhost · Mar 12, 2014

Bobo Hodls said:
Bobo Hodls said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:.

Click to expand...

Bobo Hodls said:

But then, I can't find specs for a 24-70/5.6 or 70-200/5.6 to match to the m43 lenses (and that is assuming FF comparisob since FOV and DOF changes with APSc).

Click to expand...

Ah, equivalence. Someone else's obsession. I don't have much use for it, adapting though slightly different practices for isolation or broad DOF needs. If you want to use practices exactly as you've learned to do with one format, don't change formats.

Marty4650 · Mar 12, 2014

Subject isolation.

For everything else, M4/3 might be the better choice. It really just depends on how critical your need is to have "slightly better subject isolation," because in order to get "considerably better subject isolation" you have to move all the way up to full frame.

While the cameras are roughly the same size, the lenses grow bigger and heavier whenever you need to cover a larger image circle. And it is very difficult to take a photo without a lens, so comparing camera bodies only is just half the story.

And... while the weight difference seems relatively minor with a normal 3X zoom lens, it gets huge when you start using telephoto lenses.

Here are the advantages of M4/3:

smaller
lighter
generally cheaper
huge selection of lenses (over 50 AF lens right now)
most complete system
supported by two major companies
IBIS (Olympus), OIS (Panasonic)
stunning jpegs (Olympus)
"good enough" for 99% of amateur photographers

Here are the advantages of APS-C MILC systems:

slightly better subject isolation
slightly better low light performance

So pick whichever system suits you best. There are positives and negatives for all of them.

--
Marty

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132

Favorites

Explore this photo album by Marty4650 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6318442842_7b93cb589b.jpg

Bobo Hodls · Mar 12, 2014

EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:.

But then, I can't find specs for a 24-70/5.6 or 70-200/5.6 to match to the m43 lenses (and that is assuming FF comparisob since FOV and DOF changes with APSc).

Click to expand...

Ah, equivalence. Someone else's obsession. I don't have much use for it, adapting though slightly different practices for isolation or broad DOF needs. If you want to use practices exactly as you've learned to do with one format, don't change formats.

Click to expand...

MiraShootsNikon · Mar 12, 2014

EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:.

But then, I can't find specs for a 24-70/5.6 or 70-200/5.6 to match to the m43 lenses (and that is assuming FF comparisob since FOV and DOF changes with APSc).

Click to expand...

Ah, equivalence. Someone else's obsession. I don't have much use for it, adapting though slightly different practices for isolation or broad DOF needs. If you want to use practices exactly as you've learned to do with one format, don't change formats.

--
...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
.

Click to expand...

Obsession with equivalence has led to m43 develop 12-35 and 35-100 FL to begin with. And it has also led you to sing the tune until you find out that you only want to take it as far as you can handle before being put in place.

And "obsession with equivalence" hasn't led you to sing an equally limited tune?

Because here you are, choosing to regard a depth-of-field comparison as "equivalence" in whole.

Meanwhile, the rest of us who shoot more than one format are furrowing our brows. Because we know that shooting f/2.8 with a 135 sensor at a given shutter speed and ISO will yield the same exposure as shooting f/2.8 with an m4/3 sensor the same shutter speed and ISO. When I (and many other photographers) think about "equivalence," ideas like "the same exposure" play a reasonable part.

We just can't have useful, worthwhile discussions of different imaging formats if you're always going to bloviate blind to any nuance that interrupts the petting of your Sony precious.

Are you even reading your own stuff? Just in case you missed it, here you are, assigning m4/3 lens development to "obsession with equivalence" rather than, say, photographic need and/or engineering and/or business constraint. You write as if you were sitting at the head of some sweaty, desperate meeting that conceived all m4/3 lenses. You can't blame me for wondering where that "obsession" with equivalence was when the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 telezoom got put on the roadmap.

Anyway, I (for one) am tired of reading endless chapters of the story that wraps every player of the global imaging industry into a nail-biting chase of the various technologies you personally favor.

So would you please (please?!?) stop trying to make a camera choice into a personal accomplishment? This talk of other forum contributors being "put in place" by your posts: who are you kidding? No one but you is ever going to think you're awesome because you like Sony. Being awesome is a lot harder than picking a camera system.

crashpc · Mar 12, 2014

Marty4650 said:
Subject isolation.

For everything else, M4/3 might be the better choice. It really just depends on how critical your need is to have "slightly better subject isolation," because in order to get "considerably better subject isolation" you have to move all the way up to full frame.

This is not critical for many. This is just bang for the buck ratio for each choice (not generally).

Canon EOS 600D + Canon EF 50mm f/1,4 looks like nice cheap setup with great potential. (of course there will be more lenses in this setup, but not everybody shoots tele) Can you match the price and equivalent resolution+DoF setup? I do understnad that many people don´t need the equivalence, but I´m here to decide my new gear, and you say m43 is better. So?

Marty4650 said:
While the cameras are roughly the same size, the lenses grow bigger and heavier whenever you need to cover a larger image circle. And it is very difficult to take a photo without a lens, so comparing camera bodies only is just half the story.

Also depends on preferences. Once it grows out of my pocket, I just don´t mind the size. Nobody goes to get me for "smaller size and less weight". I´d send those to p*ss off! :-D

Marty4650 said:
And... while the weight difference seems relatively minor with a normal 3X zoom lens, it gets huge when you start using telephoto lenses.

Already answered

Marty4650 said:
Here are the advantages of M4/3:

smaller // P*** off! :-D

lighter // -//- :-D

generally cheaper // Is it true for that equivalent setup?

huge selection of lenses (over 50 AF lens right now) // ALSO. This means "up to". Just this looks like no match, not a chance to see this better.

most complete system // Whut?

supported by two major companies // Only?

IBIS (Olympus), OIS (Panasonic) // Is it any better?

stunning jpegs (Olympus) // I saw otherwise. I go raw anyway.

"good enough" for 99% of amateur photographers // VERY TRUE! Let them have it, just don´t push it...

Here are the advantages of APS-C MILC systems:

slightly better subject isolation // For free

slightly better low light performance // This is the very nature of bigger sensor. We usually go better, not worse.

So pick whichever system suits you best. There are positives and negatives for all of them.

Best part of this post

trac63 · Mar 12, 2014

APS-C mirrorless cameras seem to inspire their owners to go out and shoot photos rather than spend all their time on online forums, bragging about the size of their gear.

:-D

Lab D · Mar 12, 2014

You keep losing these arguments, but keep trying. Refer to the "In which ways, and why, are smaller sensors more efficient than larger?" threads rather than trying again here.

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

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

Lab D · Mar 12, 2014

EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost said:

EinsteinsGhost said:

MisterBG said:

007peter said:

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.

Click to expand...

You missed out one important factor:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

EinsteinsGhost said:

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

Click to expand...

about the same

EinsteinsGhost said:

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

Click to expand...

About the same

EinsteinsGhost said:

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

Click to expand...

The 25/0.95 is about the same or little less

EinsteinsGhost said:

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

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Same place you got the Sony 85/1.8 price.

Click to expand...

As in expected?

You mean "wish". What is the delivery date of your imaginary lens? How many YEARS have you been wishing for that 85mm lens? And how many other APS E-mount lenses are you wishing for this year again?

btw, MiraShootsNikon has some good words of advice for you.

Dennis · Mar 12, 2014

Marty4650 said:
Here are the advantages of M4/3:

smaller

lighter

So the thing with smaller/lighter is that m43 kits do tend to be smaller & lighter, but they also tend to not be equivalent (aperture-wise). Which you address when you mention subject isolation and low light performance as advantages of APS-C, but it seems that a lot of times, fans of larger sensors harp on equivalence, when in practice, m43 users simply don't bother with equivalence; they just put together a kit they like.

Marty4650 said:
generally cheaper

I'd have to compare some actual kits, but one of the big problems with ILCs in general, and m43 when compared to Sony, in particular, is the high cost of bodies with VFs.

Marty4650 said:
supported by two major companies

I'm not sure that creates a practical benefit, but it's a consideration.

Marty4650 said:
IBIS (Olympus), OIS (Panasonic)

OIS is prevalent and Sony offers IS in fast primes, so I don't see any advantage to Panasonic OIS versus APS-C competition. As for IBIS versus OIS, that's the classic fight that Sony (& Konica Minolta) users had with Nikon & Canon for years, with fans on either side. Again, a consideration.

Marty4650 said:
stunning jpegs (Olympus)

"good enough" for 99% of amateur photographers

Wait; "good enough" is an advantage ? Then the iPhone must kick butt ! Unless you're saying APS-C is not good enough, this is a really lame advantage.

You can probably safely add autofocus performance to m43; Sony fans may counter that the A6000 is great based on some early reports and marketing hype, but having tried an EM1, I'd be surprised if the A6000 matches it (and that's only one specific body in the lineup).

Marty4650 said:
Here are the advantages of APS-C MILC systems:

slightly better subject isolation

slightly better low light performance

If you're listing killer jpegs as an advantage for Oly, you have to list it for Fuji.

Marty4650 said:
So pick whichever system suits you best. There are positives and negatives for all of them.

Exactly !

Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Dennis · Mar 12, 2014

Lab D said:
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.

If you do low light shooting in which you're constrained both by shutter speed and depth of field, then this is a relevant point.

If, on the other hand, you do low light shooting where you take advantage of the shallow DOF you get from a fast lens on APS-C, then you're looking at a direct comparison. (Which still looks very good for the EM1).

In my case, much of my low light shooting is wide open with f/1.8 primes or an f/2.8 zoom. If I were to switch to an m43 system, I'd still be using f/1.8 primes and an f/2.8 zoom. And I shoot low light with Auto ISO in M mode, so the chart gives me a pretty good idea of what to expect. (And honestly, the difference is nothing I'd worry about).

Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Sergey_Green · Mar 12, 2014

Lab D said:
You keep losing these arguments, but keep trying. Refer to the "In which ways, and why, are smaller sensors more efficient than larger?" threads rather than trying again here.

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

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

Or here,

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

That is the point. I don't want you to be a one-word parrot of what somebody else said somewhere, I want you to tell us what it is that you understand from those links you just posted. You keep on repeating the same dr, dr, .. but what does it mean to you, how do you get there? How do you get that dr advantage, if at all, at what cost, and why is it important.

Martin.au · Mar 12, 2014

Here's why.

For every stop you improve in "IQ" or the shooting envelope, size and weight increases too. Here's a graph showing size and weight of various systems, based on the 24-200mm focal range. The lue ellipse shows where I suspect the Fuji f2.8 system will sit, once it's released.

So,if you're happy shooting with f2.8 zooms on Olympus, then f4 zooms on APS-C will be around the same IQ and size/weight. (almost, it's only 2/3 of a stop between). If you want to see the benefits of APS-C in better subject isolation and low light, then you'll need the faster lenses, in which case the weight and size will increase (and quite dramatically too).

So, APS-C can get pretty close to M4/3s for size and weight, but you lose any of the benefits of the APS-C system such as subject isolation and improved low light.

View attachment 569895

Lab D · Mar 12, 2014

Sergey_Green said:
Lab D said:

You keep losing these arguments, but keep trying. Refer to the "In which ways, and why, are smaller sensors more efficient than larger?" threads rather than trying again here.

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

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

Click to expand...

Or here,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53259919

That is the point. I don't want you to be a one-word parrot of what somebody else said somewhere, I want you to tell us what it is that you understand from those links you just posted. You keep on repeating the same dr, dr, .. but what does it mean to you, how do you get there? How do you get that dr advantage, if at all, at what cost, and why is it important.

fishy wishy · Mar 12, 2014

Martin.au said:
Here's why.

For every stop you improve in "IQ" or the shooting envelope, size and weight increases too. Here's a graph showing size and weight of various systems, based on the 24-200mm focal range. The lue ellipse shows where I suspect the Fuji f2.8 system will sit, once it's released.

If you are not careful you'll just go round in circles transposing a relatively simple equation with size of sensor, weight of kit and image quality in it.

Trouble is that these smaller cameras add an extra variable of electronic viewfinders as well as part of the selling point of making them small. This is not a difference in degree and you either want one or you don't. I happen to like watching something as it really is through an optical reflex finder with any reasonably fast camera rather than an electronic screen of it even when viewfinder blackout is taken into account.

mosswings · Mar 12, 2014

Martin.au said:
Here's why.

For every stop you improve in "IQ" or the shooting envelope, size and weight increases too. Here's a graph showing size and weight of various systems, based on the 24-200mm focal range. The lue ellipse shows where I suspect the Fuji f2.8 system will sit, once it's released.

So,if you're happy shooting with f2.8 zooms on Olympus, then f4 zooms on APS-C will be around the same IQ and size/weight. (almost, it's only 2/3 of a stop between). If you want to see the benefits of APS-C in better subject isolation and low light, then you'll need the faster lenses, in which case the weight and size will increase (and quite dramatically too).

So, APS-C can get pretty close to M4/3s for size and weight, but you lose any of the benefits of the APS-C system such as subject isolation and improved low light.

View attachment 569895

I get that one graph is size and one is weight, but what is the X-axis? Stops?

Four-thirds vs. APS-C

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Attachments

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts