-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Best camera ever known to man IMOEverything is the best. Provided, however, I own and shoot with it. The rest is inferior and, let's be honest, crap.
Cheapest is the pinhole camera. Nice DOF on that and no AA filter.
All the best.
Danny.
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
So you are talking about the pixel density. I thought macro is mostly about closeness to the subject, and not necessarily magnification. Although depends on the FL of course. So telephoto lenses, the ones that add magnification into their projection will produce better detailed images on mFT than those from the full frame cameras in your view? And that is the mFT advantage then?
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Detail, DR, files easier to work with, and so on. At least the camera that I used in the past, so I am not just making this stuff up.
- sergey
Last edited:
karlreed
Veteran Member
The funny thing is that with the exception of the IBIS issue, and, weight, the situations where the FF's better (oops I'll get shot) high iso and DR are really needed, or, make a visible difference, for most of us, are infrequent. I posted a series of comparisons (and I've said this at least once before on this thread) at 6400iso and above between the D750 and EM1.2 To get the best out of the Em1.2 ate top iso, I had to run photos through OV3.
I think the lenses I used on the Em1,2 were sharper than those I ised on the D750, but, in the end, for me, sharpness isn't always where its at.
But, to my eye, the wasn't much difference, shot, for shot.
You'd need to be really picky (and, many were).
However, printed on a reasonable printer at A4 made it even harder to see the difference!
But, curiosity killed the credit card. I have lost about A$1.5k to do the tests.. they tool much longer than I expected.
I am very happy with the rig I have, it gives me shots like this.., No PP, NEF-> LR6.14..
No doubt the best MFT's would do the same..
300mm and cropped to 2036x1398
Attachments
Last edited:
Pixel density is funny term, invented by some camera enthusiast who probably didn't know what it is all about;-) It's like talking about dot density on a paper, instead of dpi.
And yes, with the same lens, you will get more details on a m4/3 sensor. On a 40 mpix full-frame sensor you can crop 2x, to get the same magnification, but you will be left with only 10 mpix to resolve details, compared to 20 mpix on a m4/3 sensor.
Mount a full-frame camera on a telescope and shoot Jupiter. Than mount a m4/3 camera on the same telescope, and you will see more details. Same with macro (or micro).
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Ok, so now you are talking about the crop factor. How would that be on Pentax Q, better still?
Last edited:
Rens
Senior Member
So why are you bothering to read it and contribute to it?
You can use whatever term you want, it's all about the linear resolution of the sensor in combination with the angle of view (and resolution) of a lens you are using. Which combined is in fact angular (or spatial) resolution of the imaging device.
I don't know the linear resolution of a Pentax Q, and I don't know what lenses can be used on that camera.
Last edited:
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Crop factor and pixel density may not have anything to do with each other. Linear resolution, is there such term, really?
So you don't know. What is the linear resolution for mFT, do you know?
Last edited:
Yes, I know. It's 300 pixels per mm (for a 20 mpix sensor).
42 mpix full-frame sensor has a linear resolution of 220 pixels per mm.
51 mpix medium format Hasselblad has a linear resolution of 188 pixels per mm.
You can figure out linear resolution of any other sensor, if you want.
Rens
Senior Member
5 months ago I would have said the same. But the 20mp sensor in the G9 has changed my view.
As compared with the FF Pentax K1 and its excellent IQ, I can't choose between them when shooting the same Dof, either on a high quality monitor or on an A4 print from a professional quality printer.
Of course, when printing sizes requiring more than 20mp (or 17.7mp as I usually use 3:2 aspect), there will be a difference.
And also of course, if you want super shallow Dof.
I take mostly photos of the countryside around where I live, so am not looking for shallow Dof. So since acquiring a G9 my Pentax K1 stays at home.
Rens
Last edited:
Rens
Senior Member
No text
--
Rens
There are optimists and there are realists
--
Rens
There are optimists and there are realists
Last edited:
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
So the denser the batter. Sound like the phone camera would beat them all. Ok, and how does this help in macro photography?
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
"Would an FF system have been a better choice for the following photos?"
The phrasing of this question indocates part of the 'problem'. "Better choice" in what way? As a working photographer, I consider the end use of images. As do most pros. So I find it fascinating that people who only display photos through flickr or other online galleries on a "personal hobby" basis can get torqued about FF vs other formats.
In many situations, the differences these folks express angst (or hubris) about only come as a result if pixel peeping. That's something very few people do.
As for pros choosing Canon or Nikon it doesn't necessarily come down to IQ. Other aspects are factored in: lenses and accessories, pro support, etc. In some cases they use it because the company they work for provides the gear.
Then there are biases. For years Getty and some other stock agencies specified which cameras they would accept images by. Some photo editors insist on large files with plenty of leeway for cropping. Some clients simply assume that FF cameras mean the tog they hire is a "real pro".
For working photographers it can be more complex than which camera has the best IQ.
So the answer(s) to your question could be:
For your personal use, displayed thru social media or online gallery,no.
For paid use on a website, probably not.
For making large prints or use by a demanding client for magazine publishing, yes.
P.S. often forgotten in the "pros want the best IQ" argument for FF is the existence of medium format. If IQ is such a big factor, why do we not see MF cameras used in more situations? The answer is obvious: performance, lens selection, size/weight and cost of MF all force the compromise of choosing FF over MF in many pro situations.
The phrasing of this question indocates part of the 'problem'. "Better choice" in what way? As a working photographer, I consider the end use of images. As do most pros. So I find it fascinating that people who only display photos through flickr or other online galleries on a "personal hobby" basis can get torqued about FF vs other formats.
In many situations, the differences these folks express angst (or hubris) about only come as a result if pixel peeping. That's something very few people do.
As for pros choosing Canon or Nikon it doesn't necessarily come down to IQ. Other aspects are factored in: lenses and accessories, pro support, etc. In some cases they use it because the company they work for provides the gear.
Then there are biases. For years Getty and some other stock agencies specified which cameras they would accept images by. Some photo editors insist on large files with plenty of leeway for cropping. Some clients simply assume that FF cameras mean the tog they hire is a "real pro".
For working photographers it can be more complex than which camera has the best IQ.
So the answer(s) to your question could be:
For your personal use, displayed thru social media or online gallery,no.
For paid use on a website, probably not.
For making large prints or use by a demanding client for magazine publishing, yes.
P.S. often forgotten in the "pros want the best IQ" argument for FF is the existence of medium format. If IQ is such a big factor, why do we not see MF cameras used in more situations? The answer is obvious: performance, lens selection, size/weight and cost of MF all force the compromise of choosing FF over MF in many pro situations.
Do I really have to spell it for you? With the same lens, m4/3 resolves more details than full-frame. And since macro is usually all about details...
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Macro is not about the detail, by far, but what do you mean by the same lens? Obviously I can not mount Olympus lens on the Nikon camera and I did use Nikon mount lens on the FourThrirds format - did not see much jump in the detail either. Are you talking about the magnification, or are you talking about the equivalent lenses?
jakelindsay
Leading Member
- Messages
- 865
- Reaction score
- 744
Like several others, I use both systems and hang out in both Sony and m43 forums. It seemingly only every comes up in this forum. Your shots look great. There's probably a better way to share them than to say "see, m43 is awesome." We already know this.Nowadays, everyone should know for which system he spends his money...
All necessary information is available on the internet.
For me, the weight and range of the lenses were crucial.
Of course you have to know what you are taking photographs and under what conditions.
I chose Lumix G9 + PL 12-60 + PL 50-200.
Would an FF system have been a better choice for the following photos?
If yes why?
If you cannot see the jump in details, than I suggest you look harder. As I said before, 2x crop of the full-frame image, needed to match the magnification of a m4/3 image (made with same lens), will have at best only 10 mpix, and the m4/3 image will have 20 mpix. Difference in details is huge.
Similar threads
