mFT to FF and/or potentially back to mFT? (or 2 systems 2 jobs?)

James Stirling · May 14, 2018

Jacques Cornell said:
James Stirling said:

Jacques Cornell said:

nick779 said:

Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.

Click to expand...

You're comparing the size and weight of a 200mm EFL lens to a 105mm EFL lens. The Oly has almost twice the reach. How big is the Sony lens that can match it?

Click to expand...

The Sony 24-240mm is only 2.5mm longer

Click to expand...

Is it a constant f4? If not, apples to oranges.

Oh please save that nonsense for the gullible newcomers, as you well know a 24-240mm FF F/3.5 - 6.3 will give the exact same AOV , DOF control and total light gathering as a m43 12-120mm F1.8-3.2 . So you are right to be apples to apples it would need to be a constant F/8. Why don't you pop over to the Photographic Science and Technology Forum with your F/4 on m43 compared to F/4 on FF opinion and see how that works out

Just because equivalence discussions have been all but banned from here does not change reality

The fly in the ointment being that the Sony is by all accounts not very good though I don't know if it gets better at F/8 . Again hands down I would still take the Oly

Jacques Cornell said:
Jacques Cornell said:

Though I would much rather have the Oly As I mentioned above you can shoot the 24-105mm in APS mode on my A7Rii and get an 18mp file at a FF effective 157.5mm

Click to expand...

The Oly gives you 200mm EFL, so apples to oranges again.

I know I was just pointing out that the higher MP Sony camera allow more flexibility in cropping.

Jacques Cornell said:
Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?

Click to expand...

I switched from 35mm- and APS-format to MFT four years ago. I'm not going back. Here's how I got there.

How to Get Small - Part Four - Why I Switched to Micro Four Thirds Cameras

FWIW, I shoot corporate events and portraits professionally and have done a lot of personal travel and scenic photography in recent years. Increase travel, lots of hiking, and a case of bursitis in my right shoulder were the main reasons for switching, but I found lots of other reasons to stay with MFT.

--
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

Click to expand...

--
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

john isaacs · May 14, 2018

nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?

I use mFT, APS-C, and FF. But not FF for shorter FL and mFT for telephoto. My main decision point is AF for moving subjects and shallow DOF. Most of my shooting is with Olympus, for weight and exposure determination (I rely on highlight/shadow display in EVF or LCD to ensure proper exposure). I stitch frequently if I want higher resolution.

G Rash · May 14, 2018

I came to m4/3 from shooting APS-C and full frame DSLR's. I primarily use m4/3 for casual family shots and for long telephoto with the 100-300 Mark ii Pany. I now use full frame for wide angle, portrait and indoor sports. After switching my full frame to the Sony A7riii, the size of full frame isn't too bad with some of the primes and I sometimes use the APS-C Sony 10-18 on the 7riii to keep the size down for ultra wide angle. Put my 17-40L or 135mm f/2 on the Sony and then I remember why I enjoy m4/3 so much. But the image quality of the 7riii is pretty amazing.

NowHearThis · May 14, 2018

James Stirling said:
NowHearThis said:

James Stirling said:

NowHearThis said:

nick779 said:

Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.

Click to expand...

Not exactly, The A7 kit you mention is 25% heavier and only has 47% of the Focal Length.

Click to expand...

I like the 24-105mm F/4 g on the A7rII , at 42mp you get the equivalent of a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 , by using the APS mode at 18mp you get an effective FF 157.5mm equivalent to a m43 18-78.75mm F/3 . So not too shabby at all . And it is heavier because it is not equivalent a 24-200mm F/8 would be equivalent to the 12-100mm F4 . The closet real life option would be shooting the not very stellar Sony 24-240mm at F/8, the difference in length between these two lenses is just 2.5mm .

On an A7III the 24-105mm gives you the equivalent of a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 , what size , weight and cost do you think such a lens would come in at ?

Click to expand...

That's a good question. But it's a tougher one to answer accurately. Granted I think you know I'm not an optics engineer, nor is anyone else here, so I'm assuming you are asking for an opinion with some qualified rationale behind my opinion to your question... so I will try and do my best on that front.

Click to expand...

I am certainly not an optical engineer or even close

James Stirling said:

Problems. Wide variety of sizes between somewhat similar lenses. I could list a few, but I'll stick with just one. O12-40/2.8, P12-35/2.8. Just doing some simple scaling on what a 12-52.5/2.8 might look like, I get "estimated" weight ranges between 450g and 500g. Wondering what the weight will be like adding another stop will depend on a lots of other factors too. Think of the P12-60 vs PL12-60/2.8-4. 210g vs 320g (both lightweights), one with much better IQ, glass, build, etc...both are weather sealed, so are we looking to save on weight in other areas or do we want something you could take a 10lb sledge to and survive (sarcasm)?.

Click to expand...

An extra stop in a zoom in any format makes for a significant jump in size and sadly cost particularity for high end lenses which a m43 12-52.5mm would surely be . My mythical zoom the 12-52.5mm F/2.0 along with being a full stop faster than the Oly 12-40mm also has a 30% longer focal range. The Panasonic 12-60mm F/2.8-4 has a 15% longer focal length but now it is F/4 at the long end so to match the speed of my mythical it now needs to find two stops

FF F/4 - F/2.8

James Stirling said:

The other things I looked at were 1) the 12-100/4 (double the FL, but two stops slower) this a very long "all-in-one" lens weighting in at 560g, and 2) something like a Sigma 18-35/1.8 weighing in at 810g - I can see this fast F2 zoom maybe getting closer to a long all-in-one, but I can't see it getting anywhere close to a APS-C lens with an even faster aperture.

Click to expand...

However that Sigma has a very short focal range m43 9-17.5mm not quite a 2x range whilst a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 has a 4.3x focal range . And the equivalent m43 lens to the Sigma would be an 9-17.5mm F/1.35 which is far faster than my mythical F/2 lens

James Stirling said:

So to be brief (too late), I would think a high quality 12-52.5/2 might be between 500 - 550g. It would likely have a 72mm filter like the 12-100. I would guess it might be around 90-100mm long and about 77mm wide. Given the performance I've observed in the O12-40, PL12-60, O12-100 the lens is likely to be pretty dang sharp from edge to edge. (It would also balance nicely on something like an EM1.2, GH5, G9.) So all in all, I think it'll be smaller, lighter, with a slightly smaller filter size than the 24-105. This is of course all hypothetical of course, I could be wrong. I've love to hear the thoughts from a credentialed optics engineer to see if I'm close. I guess pretty accurately with regards to the PL50-200, but I am far from infallible.

Click to expand...

Here is the Panasonic 12-60mm F/2.8-4 lens compared to the 24-105mm F/4g which is a stop faster at the wide end but a full two stops at the long end

And here is what a two stop difference means within m43 same focal length 40-150mm with the 40-150mm F/4-5.6 { only one stop slower at the wide end} vs the 40-150mm F/2.8 PRO

.

or this...

The 12-40 is only a little shorter in Focal Length than the 12-50, but it's more than 2 stops faster at the long end. None the less, it's the same length and only 170g heavier (and infinitely better optically).

Anyway this hypothetical mythical lens is of no consequence for me. The only 2 wide angle zooms that even remotely interest me are the PL12-60/2.8-4 and the extremely versatile O12-100/4. I have the former and am fully satisfied with it.

.

Regardless if I'm right or not (or even within ballpark range) about the size/weight of a hypothetical 12-52.5/2.0 really doesn't matter. The lens doesn't exist, won't exist, and isn't necessary to take amazing photos - people here seem to do without it.

--
NHT

john isaacs · May 14, 2018

The 12-40 is significantly longer than the 12-50 at 40mm.

Mark Ransom · May 14, 2018

DLBlack said:
nick779 said:

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

Click to expand...

The difference between FF and mFT is 2 stops. It can be in either ISO, F-stop or shutter speed, but not in both ISO and F-stop.

No, this is correct. To keep the same image brightness you must change the ISO as you change the F-stop. F-stop, shutter speed, and ISO are independent of sensor size. It is only field of view and DOF that are affected, and to maintain an equivalent DOF requires adjusting the F-stop.

The benefit of FF isn't that it gives you automatic IQ, it just gives you more flexibility. If you decide that you don't need the DOF and would rather have a nicely blurred background, you can use F/2.8 and ISO 400 instead of F/5.6 and ISO 1600. Now you get the lower noise and greater DR of FF, but you had to give up DOF to do it. It's a tradeoff that was easy to make, and often can be considered a benefit. But not always!

mostlyboringphotog · May 14, 2018

Mark Ransom said:
DLBlack said:

nick779 said:

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

Click to expand...

The difference between FF and mFT is 2 stops. It can be in either ISO, F-stop or shutter speed, but not in both ISO and F-stop.

Click to expand...

No, this is correct. To keep the same image brightness you must change the ISO as you change the F-stop. F-stop, shutter speed, and ISO are independent of sensor size. It is only field of view and DOF that are affected, and to maintain an equivalent DOF requires adjusting the F-stop.

"2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view." (bold added) seems to say FF can have 2 stop faster shutter speed due to 2 aperture stops [advantage] and able to keep the ISO higher by 2 stops with same noisiness, resulting 4 stop advantage.

Mark Ransom said:
The benefit of FF isn't that it gives you automatic IQ, it just gives you more flexibility. If you decide that you don't need the DOF and would rather have a nicely blurred background, you can use F/2.8 and ISO 400 instead of F/5.6 and ISO 1600. Now you get the lower noise and greater DR of FF, but you had to give up DOF to do it. It's a tradeoff that was easy to make, and often can be considered a benefit. But not always!

Absolutely agree ;-)

mg_k · May 14, 2018

RobbieBear said:
RobbieBear said:

I would just take photographs and see where your gear falls short. Then revisit the question again.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to "fall short" before one can upgrade?

Can one do it simply because he/she wants to go further and beyond?

mg_k · May 14, 2018

Paulmorgan said:
nick779 said:

Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?

Click to expand...

Full frame is still to small, you need medium or large format, even better if you can find something that will fit on the back of a lorry

Nah, m43 is downright too big and bulky.

I take an 1" or smartphone any day.

biza43 · May 15, 2018

Horses for courses, I would not choose a system based on equivalence criteria. Each format has its merits, decide based on what you want/need for the job/budget/whatever.

I use my A7 system for landscapes, nature, more demanding stuff in terms of sensor capability.

I use my Pen F with 25 Pro for the rest. I am currently investigating about the Live Composite possibilities.

RobbieBear · May 15, 2018

mg_k said:
RobbieBear said:

mg_k said:

I would just take photographs and see where your gear falls short. Then revisit the question again.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why does it have to "fall short" before one can upgrade?

So that one knows why one wants to upgrade and can make a better informed decision.

mg_k said:
Can one do it simply because he/she wants to go further and beyond?

One can indeed!

But what do you mean by further and beyond?

My point was that the OP has not fully exploited what M4/3 can offer him. He talks about a couple of stops advantage with FF, but he could get this by buying a faster zoom that would allow him to keep the ISO down.

I am not suggesting he buy into the F1.2 primes, but one of the F2.8 zooms would give a good hike in the ability to lower the ISO and at a much more affordable cost than switching systems.

Someone who is currently content (OP wasn't complaining) with slow consumer quality lenses does not appear to me to be someone in need of FF gear.

Op was asking for our comments/advice on his situation. I gave my advice taking his current gear into consideration. Why spend unnecessary cash, unless you have it in spades?

Folks expect people to have different takes on things when they post in forums such as this. And that's great!

Hope OP is able to sort out his quandary.

mg_k said:
--
My Flickr
My Getty Images

RobbieBear · May 15, 2018

Ab Latchin said:
Here it is in a nutshell.

FF's advantages are in available wider apertures (f1.4 primes for example, and f2.8 zooms) and lower available ISOs (some with 64 and some with 100).

The lower available ISOs will only work if you have more light, so is dependent on either the shutterspeed being longer or the aperture being wider. What I mean by this is to use the lower ISOs you need more light, so do you find yourself constantly wanting to open to a wider apeture, or having very fasts shutterspeeds you can eat into?

The wider apertures only work if you can live with the more shallow DoF that comes with it. So as I regularly shoot candids of groups in my family extremely shallow DoF just will not work for me, I would end up stopping down more often than not, losing much/most/all of the larger format advantage.

So the real value currently of larger formats is the wider apertures, or lowers ISOs. There is a third advantage (which is body dependent), Megapixels. A growing number of FF bodies have 30-50mp. Do you need that resolution (remembering that this puts more demands on the lenses, focussing accuracy and even DoF when you enlarge).

So, do I think you should move to a larger format? No, a superb lens will remain a superb lens, but we upgrade our camera bodies more frequently. The cost in my market of a Sony A73 is currently $2600 with the Pen F at $1200, a simple look at the A73 vs PEN F shows me there are no miracles on display, the A73 has a 2 stop advantage and a minor MP advantage. So I can replace the PEN F twice and have a little money for a lens for the same price as the A73.

Those are my 2 cents.

Succinctly put.

nick779 · May 15, 2018

Thanks for all the replies everyone! I think that for now, im just chasing gear and there isnt much that mFT cant do for me. My prints look great, I just see noise when I pixel peep in post.

Going to get more glass and drop the FF thoughts for now.

DLBlack · May 15, 2018

nick779 said:
Thanks for all the replies everyone! I think that for now, im just chasing gear and there isnt much that mFT cant do for me. My prints look great, I just see noise when I pixel peep in post.

Going to get more glass and drop the FF thoughts for now.

Better glass will definitely help.

Tommi K1 · May 15, 2018

nick779 said:
Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

That is the theory, but reality is different.

In real world you do not pixel peep.
In real world if/when you do prints you can make ISO 3200 look like ISO 200.
In real world typical prints are not large but around 14" x 11" (36cm x 28cm)
In real world you often do not need to go higher than ISO 200-800.
In real world you do not look digital raw files, you look digitally edited JPEG files
In real world you use typically screens from 5" to 10.2" (smartphones and tablets) and sometimes 24-27" Full HD displays, maybe a 4K.
In real world we are talking at max 8.3Mpix screens, that are large 4K televisions or computer displays. Otherwise we talk about 2.1-4Mpix.
In real world majority of the photography is done with far older sensors than even what already 6-8 year old 4/3" sensors are.
etc

The FF has no big advantage, it actually doesn't have a advantage than in very special rare situations.

The equivalence is like discussion of the sports cars. Anyone can go to do tests on race track to find which one is faster etc. But over 99% of the people are driving in traffic, on normal roads, in common weather etc. Requirements are totally different in real world than in theoretical extreme ones.

And we can always go back in time and look how people with "inferior tech" managed to get as good photographs as today people with "superior tech".

And do not compare just one camera to other, compare system to other. Build the system one would need and compare then that system to each others by weight, size, capabilities (like what is X-sync speed, what is focal length ranges you can cover, do you have EVF or something like Live Composite etc) that what you would benefit to use. Sensor size is maybe the least important thing in cameras.

The GAS is serious problem, just like thinking "bigger sensor is always better". 15 years ago a 35mm sensor had benefits over 4/3" sensor. 9 years ago they were already gone mostly. Today there is so little benefits that it ain't a benefit for most. There are always those very few who requires the special features, but some of them work under limits of the 35mm sensors, but more of them are already past the 35mm limits and work with larger sensors.

So you need to lay down very specific context what is the need for 80-90% of the situations. If you go for "bigger is better" then just invest to Hasselblad medium format or even to PhaseOne and forget the tiny 35mm sensor at once as you are never happy for its limitations.

inlawbiker · May 15, 2018

nick779 said:
Thanks for all the replies everyone! I think that for now, im just chasing gear and there isnt much that mFT cant do for me. My prints look great, I just see noise when I pixel peep in post.

Going to get more glass and drop the FF thoughts for now.

Hey well remember, gear is part of the equation. It's just that switching to Sony is many thousands of dollars and learning a new UI, that isn't all that great anyway in my understanding. If you just want new toys, really good used FF DSLR's are cheap these days.

Jacques Cornell · May 15, 2018

James Stirling said:
Jacques Cornell said:

James Stirling said:

Jacques Cornell said:

nick779 said:

Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.

Click to expand...

You're comparing the size and weight of a 200mm EFL lens to a 105mm EFL lens. The Oly has almost twice the reach. How big is the Sony lens that can match it?

Click to expand...

The Sony 24-240mm is only 2.5mm longer

Click to expand...

Is it a constant f4? If not, apples to oranges.

Click to expand...

Oh please save that nonsense

No need to be rude.

James Stirling said:
for the gullible newcomers, as you well know a 24-240mm FF F/3.5 - 6.3 will give the exact same AOV , DOF control and total light gathering as a m43 12-120mm F1.8-3.2 . So you are right to be apples to apples it would need to be a constant F/8.

I do know that.

James Stirling said:
Why don't you pop over to the Photographic Science and Technology Forum with your F/4 on m43 compared to F/4 on FF opinion and see how that works out

Take a look at the original post. The OP was comparing two constant f4 lenses. That's all.

James Stirling said:
Just because equivalence discussions have been all but banned from here does not change reality The fly in the ointment being that the Sony is by all accounts not very good though I don't know if it gets better at F/8 . Again hands down I would still take the Oly

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

Though I would much rather have the Oly As I mentioned above you can shoot the 24-105mm in APS mode on my A7Rii and get an 18mp file at a FF effective 157.5mm

Click to expand...

The Oly gives you 200mm EFL, so apples to oranges again.

Click to expand...

I know I was just pointing out that the higher MP Sony camera allow more flexibility in cropping.

I know you were. And the comparison is still not apt.

James Stirling said:
James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?

Click to expand...

I switched from 35mm- and APS-format to MFT four years ago. I'm not going back. Here's how I got there.

How to Get Small - Part Four - Why I Switched to Micro Four Thirds Cameras

FWIW, I shoot corporate events and portraits professionally and have done a lot of personal travel and scenic photography in recent years. Increase travel, lots of hiking, and a case of bursitis in my right shoulder were the main reasons for switching, but I found lots of other reasons to stay with MFT.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

biza43 · May 15, 2018

Tommi K1 said:
nick779 said:

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

Click to expand...

That is the theory, but reality is different.

Equivalence is not a lie, it is a fact. Works both ways, hence the term "equivalent".

Member said:
In real world you do not pixel peep.

Some do.

Member said:
In real world if/when you do prints you can make ISO 3200 look like ISO 200.

Easier to do when you start with a better RAW file from a bigger sensor.

Member said:
In real world typical prints are not large but around 14" x 11" (36cm x 28cm)

Depends on what one assumes to be typical, of course.

Member said:
In real world you often do not need to go higher than ISO 200-800.

In my case, ISO 100. But again, it depends.

Member said:
In real world you do not look digital raw files, you look digitally edited JPEG files

Depends, I only shoot RAW.

Member said:
In real world you use typically screens from 5" to 10.2" (smartphones and tablets) and sometimes 24-27" Full HD displays, maybe a 4K.

Ok.

Member said:
In real world we are talking at max 8.3Mpix screens, that are large 4K televisions or computer displays. Otherwise we talk about 2.1-4Mpix.

Ok. But a better quality file and display allows for better tonality transition and colour fidelity.

Member said:
In real world majority of the photography is done with far older sensors than even what already 6-8 year old 4/3" sensors are.

Disagree. given that the majority of photos in the real world are taken by modern smartphones.

Member said:
etc

The FF has no big advantage, it actually doesn't have a advantage than in very special rare situations.

Not so rare, actually quite numerous application benefit from larger sensors.

Member said:
The equivalence is like discussion of the sports cars. Anyone can go to do tests on race track to find which one is faster etc. But over 99% of the people are driving in traffic, on normal roads, in common weather etc. Requirements are totally different in real world than in theoretical extreme ones.

Sure, but the real world takes on very different requirements and situations. From what you describe as your real world, seems you could do well even with a 1" sensor camera.

Member said:
And we can always go back in time and look how people with "inferior tech" managed to get as good photographs as today people with "superior tech".

Sure, but even the great ones from the past would push technology to its limits. Imagine what Ansel Adams would do with todays capabilities. Just look at Salgado work through the times, for example, he and others fully embrace technology.

Member said:
And do not compare just one camera to other, compare system to other. Build the system one would need and compare then that system to each others by weight, size, capabilities (like what is X-sync speed, what is focal length ranges you can cover, do you have EVF or something like Live Composite etc) that what you would benefit to use.

Agree.

Member said:
Sensor size is maybe the least important thing in cameras.

Disagree.

Member said:
The GAS is serious problem, just like thinking "bigger sensor is always better".

But it is. Because it has larger potential. Of course it may not be better on an individual person or application.

Mark Ransom · May 15, 2018

mostlyboringphotog said:
Mark Ransom said:

DLBlack said:

nick779 said:

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

Click to expand...

The difference between FF and mFT is 2 stops. It can be in either ISO, F-stop or shutter speed, but not in both ISO and F-stop.

Click to expand...

No, this is correct. To keep the same image brightness you must change the ISO as you change the F-stop. F-stop, shutter speed, and ISO are independent of sensor size. It is only field of view and DOF that are affected, and to maintain an equivalent DOF requires adjusting the F-stop.

Click to expand...

"2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view." (bold added) seems to say FF can have 2 stop faster shutter speed due to 2 aperture stops [advantage] and able to keep the ISO higher by 2 stops with same noisiness, resulting 4 stop advantage.

OK, I see what the complaint is now - thanks for explaining it. I was going by the numbers, which are correct or close enough.

mostlyboringphotog said:
mostlyboringphotog said:

The benefit of FF isn't that it gives you automatic IQ, it just gives you more flexibility. If you decide that you don't need the DOF and would rather have a nicely blurred background, you can use F/2.8 and ISO 400 instead of F/5.6 and ISO 1600. Now you get the lower noise and greater DR of FF, but you had to give up DOF to do it. It's a tradeoff that was easy to make, and often can be considered a benefit. But not always!

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree ;-)

RobbieBear · May 15, 2018

nick779 said:
Thanks for all the replies everyone! I think that for now, im just chasing gear and there isnt much that mFT cant do for me. My prints look great, I just see noise when I pixel peep in post.

Going to get more glass and drop the FF thoughts for now.

I think that's a smart move. Enjoy your photography!

mFT to FF and/or potentially back to mFT? (or 2 systems 2 jobs?)

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Attachments

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Tommi K1

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts