john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,440
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,913
Simple. Trolls.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
N
NCV
Guest
Just wait until that Nikon thingy makes it into the real world.
We have seen nothing yet. it will be time for me to take a holiday from DPR.
We have seen nothing yet. it will be time for me to take a holiday from DPR.
N
NCV
Guest
After buying an old D700 FF to use with a lens that I wanted, but does not exist in M43 (28PC) I learned the hard way that both systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.
The D700 will not be going hiking with me, or for that matter will not enjoy going on a family holiday, But for my architecture shooting the EM5 will stay at home from now on.
The venerable D700 was a powerful medicine for the “M43 is the best” fever. It cured me.
The problem is that I have another Illness, I have been looking at the prices of the D750 and the D8** cameras. I know what is going to happen shortly.
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
Just out of curiosity what was the shutter count on the d700After buying an old D700 FF to use with a lens that I wanted, but does not exist in M43 (28PC) I learned the hard way that both systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.
Too this day I don't think I will benefit with going for a D850 but there is one good thing the D850 has done for me. Lowered the price on used D800's
N
NCV
Guest
It was hardly used, just a few thousand. The camera seemed like new when I got it.Just out of curiosity what was the shutter count on the d700After buying an old D700 FF to use with a lens that I wanted, but does not exist in M43 (28PC) I learned the hard way that both systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.
I am waiting for the new Nikon mirrorless to lower prices.Too this day I don't think I will benefit with going for a D850 but there is one good thing the D850 has done for me. Lowered the price on used D800's
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
The D700 would not go on hikes with me either (fine camera but for different types of photography). I did take D800 on the long and some strenuous hikes few times, till I discovered Foveon Sigmas (Merril then Quattro). Absolutely loved the detail and the micro-contrast they delivered, it was almost a must for the landscapes with the fine detail images. And then came D850. The latest I take on any trail over *any* camera today. But then till something else comes along. As to the 16mp on the quarter of a sensor cameras, I would not even bother with those today. They were fine, probably, some years ago, but today ... don't think so.After buying an old D700 FF to use with a lens that I wanted, but does not exist in M43 (28PC) I learned the hard way that both systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.
The D700 will not be going hiking with me, or for that matter will not enjoy going on a family holiday, But for my architecture shooting the EM5 will stay at home from now on.
The venerable D700 was a powerful medicine for the “M43 is the best” fever. It cured me.
The problem is that I have another Illness, I have been looking at the prices of the D750 and the D8** cameras. I know what is going to happen shortly.
Last edited:
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
Such a shame that should be considered camera abuseIt was hardly used, just a few thousand.Just out of curiosity what was the shutter count on the d700After buying an old D700 FF to use with a lens that I wanted, but does not exist in M43 (28PC) I learned the hard way that both systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.
But good for you :0
Funny thing not to long ago I was selling one of my lenses and met up with the buyer at a local coffeeshop. We sat down and the buyer was going over the lens and processed to pickup a case from under the table and pulled out his camera to check over the lens and to see if it work.
The camera was set into a foam liner and after seeing the model I new the camera as I had owned one years ago. The camera looked as if it was new from an unopened box, I slowly reached over to my camera and tucked it away beside me as to hide what I have put my 2 year old camera through, I kind of felt ashamed.
There not a corner that isn't polished down to the metal frame of the camera, rubber grips with very little tread left on them and buttons without labels.
Some people use cameras and other think they are an invest, mind you I did find a lens at a pawn shop and I was able to flip and make $400 bucks
I am waiting for the new Nikon mirrorless to lower prices.Too this day I don't think I will benefit with going for a D850 but there is one good thing the D850 has done for me. Lowered the price on used D800's
BagCarryingDad
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 250
- Reaction score
- 241
I've been lurking for a while, posting occasionally, and have only recently starting reading the forum more regularly. In my short time here, you're right; lots of discussion of this topic. What follows is my take.
People coming to a forum about MFT and asking whether FF (or indeed APS-C) would be "better" seem to me to fall into several categories:
1. Those who want/need excellent IQ for big prints and/or low-light shooting, who are genuinely concerned about the physical limits of MFT sensors
2. Those who are suffering "buyer's remorse" (have I wasted my money?) These might be seeking confirmation that they've actually bought "the best system"
3. Those who think that buying a new (body/lens/system) will magically improve their photography
4. Those who think that all systems have strengths and weaknesses but enjoy discussing exactly what those are, from a technical or artistic point of view (these threads tend to be "Which system is best for [particular use]?")
The combination of these 4 (at least, please suggest more!) motivations means that it's a perennial topic.
People coming to a forum about MFT and asking whether FF (or indeed APS-C) would be "better" seem to me to fall into several categories:
1. Those who want/need excellent IQ for big prints and/or low-light shooting, who are genuinely concerned about the physical limits of MFT sensors
2. Those who are suffering "buyer's remorse" (have I wasted my money?) These might be seeking confirmation that they've actually bought "the best system"
3. Those who think that buying a new (body/lens/system) will magically improve their photography
4. Those who think that all systems have strengths and weaknesses but enjoy discussing exactly what those are, from a technical or artistic point of view (these threads tend to be "Which system is best for [particular use]?")
The combination of these 4 (at least, please suggest more!) motivations means that it's a perennial topic.
Last edited:
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
The mFT (Four Thirds) is the most different from the FF format, and the fact often generates very heated discussions about the merits of each system. Very often those discussions are educational and interesting, but not always. Once the trolls join in they will fill the threads with anything, just for the space sake, and annoy the genuinely curious or interested contributors. There are sure merits on both sides, or there would be no such systems at all, but they are not for all. The educated decision, what the best for each of us is, is always better than simply a guess.
karlreed
Senior Member
I did heaps of tests between a D750 (FF), D500 (DX) and EM1.2.
In summary, from a raw IQ point of view, I found the D750 FF to have less noise across the spectrum in low-light hi-iso (above 3200), and for how I PP, more DR.
The D500 was in the middle, but, its OOC jpegs beat the others above 3200 iso, and went to astronomic levels.
All this needs to be taken against the ages of the sensors, the EM1.2 was most recent, and, had some smart architecture, the D750 the lowest. Suggests that a recent 24MP sensor should be even better.
The real winning property for the MFT, apart from size and affordable, good glass, was the IBIS. I got 5 stops easily, which means, if you need to shoot stationary at 12800 with the D750 you can shoot 400iso with the EM1.2. At that point, the EM1.2 wins. But, not all low light scenes are stationary.
I stuck with the FF, I'm not rich enough to run two systems.
In summary, from a raw IQ point of view, I found the D750 FF to have less noise across the spectrum in low-light hi-iso (above 3200), and for how I PP, more DR.
The D500 was in the middle, but, its OOC jpegs beat the others above 3200 iso, and went to astronomic levels.
All this needs to be taken against the ages of the sensors, the EM1.2 was most recent, and, had some smart architecture, the D750 the lowest. Suggests that a recent 24MP sensor should be even better.
The real winning property for the MFT, apart from size and affordable, good glass, was the IBIS. I got 5 stops easily, which means, if you need to shoot stationary at 12800 with the D750 you can shoot 400iso with the EM1.2. At that point, the EM1.2 wins. But, not all low light scenes are stationary.
I stuck with the FF, I'm not rich enough to run two systems.
Velocity of Sound
Senior Member
It's not just µ4/3; these types of discussions frequently happened with the 4/3 system, which preceded µ4/3. I think there are three things that contribute to the fact that they continue to arise:
The first is the way that Canon and Nikon market their cameras. APS-C products tend to be more budget line, where is the "full frame" cameras and lenses tend to be higher end. While I would not say that every single APS-C shooter aspires to "full frame," it does seem as if there is an upgrade path at play. And if the upgrade is from a camera with a smaller sensor to one with a larger sensor, then it implies that µ4/3, which bears a sensor size even smaller than APS-C, must somehow be inferior. (It's not, but that sort of marketing psychology can be quite powerful. Cost of equipment is another factor; cheaper must be worse and expensive must be better, right? Full-frame cameras and lenses can be much more expensive than anything available on µ4/3: more marketing psychology.)
The second is historical. The 4/3 camera system, I think it's fair to say at this point, was fairly far behind the high-ISO performance of "full frame" cameras. Those were also the days of the "megapixel race," and 4/3 was never in the lead to there, either. These days, the sensors in µ4/3 cameras have much closer parity with even "full frame" sensors. But that historical baggage is difficult to shake.
The final factor is one that I think Olympus did not take into account, and could not have predicted. That was a shift in the way that people took photos, and also in the way that they viewed them. Namely, people are not printing photos as much as they used to, and are instead viewing their photos on smaller screens; additionally, there was the rise of smartphone photography. Those factors pushed shallow depth of field to become something very desirable, although to hear many former film shooters tell it, a deeper depth of field used to be something they could never get enough of. The 4/3 system, with its increased depth of field, was supposed to be beneficial… But the cultural shift turned that into a disadvantage (or at least, that is how it seems to be perceived by many), as well, and led to people talking up "full frame" for better creative control, as well.
What you end up with are a number of µ4/3 shooters who are insecure in the system that they have chosen. Theoretically the best thing to do would be to buy into a "full frame" system and see for themselves if they are really missing anything. But it is an expensive proposition to change systems, or to add a second system, and so they post here, perhaps with the intent of wanting to be reassured, or talked out of spending more money.
Last edited:
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
Great choice, you’ve got some of the best equipment money can buy, and you’ll probably get a lot more use of your gear than any 35mm zealot since you’ll actually be able to bring it with you.
No. No. No. Don’t buy into the so-called “FF” (actually 35mm or small-format) scam. Those are great photos, but you take the credit yourself, photographer. Anything from a 1” sensor and up could never restrict you with today’s sensor tech.
T
Tommi K1
Guest
Yes... The FF would have been better by all means in every measurable matter and so on....
Just ask from almost anyone....
Just ask from almost anyone....
T
Tommi K1
Guest
Mainly users of both, so they can call themselves as "m4/3 user".
And here some people are broken, damaged after years of "friendly reminder" how larger sensor is better, and they just give up and become as well "reminding others".
So they admit they are just like some college boys loving to go back to highschool to beat crap out smaller ones so they can feel being superior and tell how they to got beaten same way when they were at highschool.
And just like in the life, when you are a kid you don't have limitations and you are interested about science and all kind things at age of 10-13. Then you get to put in category in a school and your other interests drive you to other things and you are made to be something you didn't think.
Everytime someone says X lens is sharper than Y. That format Z is better because larger, the A is better than B because it came first etc. All that is damaging and incorrect until placed to context.
T
Tommi K1
Guest
Look at the bright side... At least amount of users talking how OVF is superior than any EVF etc are minimized as they turn to mirrorless revolution.
Sooner or later the DSLR fans are limited.
Sooner or later the DSLR fans are limited.
Similar threads
