Thinking of going m43

techie takes pics said:

If I were in your shoes, that EM-1 II had to be one really impressive bargain for me to consider it.

You can justify buying anything.
That's how GAS works.
Do you want that M1? Just dream up a scenario in which weathersealing saves your camera.

Click to expand...

I've been photographing for 45 years, and, as a result of many experiences, much prefer weathersealed cameras, especially when using only one. It's not just the half dozen times a camera has got drenched -and on one occasion immersed for an instant (E1 -still works. It is also the many times - on a dive boat, in the Galapagos, in Brazil, in rain, snow or dust when I would not have dared to take or keep it out and use it.

And where I live there is also the problem of condensation, coming in from minus 20C or minis -30C , or even -40. when C and F are the same, to take the beautiful sundogs. has ruined many a camera and piece of electronics, according to a local repair shop,

I try to use mainly the EM1 in really bad situations, but the OM5ii keeps working well , too, and is significantly smaller and easier to slip in and out of a parka pocket. It the perfect sompromise, with virtually all the features of its big brother, and still enough physical space for most of the vital controls (the video button is a PITA, but the video works quite well because of the excellent stabilization).
It's definitely the "sweet spot" i the current Olympus lineup, if you don't need fast-action or compatibilty with older FT lenses.

nigelbb said:

Gary from Seattle said:

MShot said:

What does "more DOF control mean?" Either you have the DOF you need or you don't. If you do, you have control. If you don't, you change lenses, distance to subject, ratio of distance between background, subject and you. You still have control. Basic photography since the pinhole camera. In every photography text. No camera can do it all for you. Some skill and knowledge is needed sometime with any camera.

You do it by composing the shot as you want it. You can't always do that, but if you have f/2.8 or f/1.8 glass, usually you can. You can even have deep DOF if you shoot FF, but like any format, not always what you want. Remember when getting everything in focus was good? You have no more DOF control with FF. Its in a different range.

Click to expand...

I have to laugh when people say FF is better for landscape. Folks will post a FF image and when you look close there is either a lack of sharpness because they haven't held the camera steady or something significant is OOF in the image because of lack of DOF. m4/3 has more DOF, which is king in landscape, and IBIS and 200 base ISO that makes it possible to get great definition without a tripod. Then someone posts an image with their less expensive FF zoom and you look at the image, and it is is just plain not sharp across the frame. Top quality m4/3 lenses are sharp across the frame and appear to be much better than lighter (not light) FF alternative zooms.

Click to expand...

MFT may have advantages in some areas of photography but any argument for M43 as a better camera for landscapes is utter tosh

Click to expand...

Image Stabilization

nigelbb said:

You would have to be very poor at holding a camera steady to introduce camera shake when taking a landscape photo. You would be shooting wide angle so the rule of thumb of 1/focal length would give you 1/25th of a second.

Click to expand...

Ever shoot landscapes at dusk or just after without a tripod?

Also, who says landscapes are always wide-angle shots?

nigelbb said:

M43 does have slightly more DOF than FF but it's of no relevance. If you use a 24mm lens at F/8 for your landscape then on FF the hyperlocal distance is 7.95ft with everything in focus from 4ft to infinity. Using the equivalent 12mm M43 lens at F/4 everything is in focus from 2ft to infinity. Is that extra 2ft really going to make any difference?

Base ISO of 64 on FF is going to give higher dynamic range.

Click to expand...

So is exposure bracketing for HDR.

nigelbb said:

Never mind the extra detail visible in an image from a 30+-40+ MegaPixel FF sensor.

Click to expand...

Not in a print smaller than A1. Plus, stitching can yield 100+ megapixel images. Easily.

Your points are not wrong, exactly, just grossly overgeneralized and based on assumptions that everyone else shoots what you do in the way you do.

erichK said:

techie takes pics said:

If I were in your shoes, that EM-1 II had to be one really impressive bargain for me to consider it.

You can justify buying anything.
That's how GAS works.
Do you want that M1? Just dream up a scenario in which weathersealing saves your camera.

Click to expand...

I've been photographing for 45 years, and, as a result of many experiences, much prefer weathersealed cameras, especially when using only one. It's not just the half dozen times a camera has got drenched -and on one occasion immersed for an instant (E1 -still works. It is also the many times - on a dive boat, in the Galapagos, in Brazil, in rain, snow or dust when I would not have dared to take or keep it out and use it.

And where I live there is also the problem of condensation, coming in from minus 20C or minis -30C , or even -40. when C and F are the same, to take the beautiful sundogs. has ruined many a camera and piece of electronics, according to a local repair shop,

Click to expand...

One way I avoid this is to carry my gear in a padded (i.e. semi-insulated) camera bag and close it up tight when I go back indoors so the gear inside warms up slowly. No condensation. Putting the camera bag in a plastic bag and squeezing the air out, or putting individual items in ziplock bags, can also keep humid air away while gear warms up. I shoot with my non-sealed cameras a lenses in New England winter weather and never have an issue with condensation.

erichK said:

I try to use mainly the EM1 in really bad situations, but the OM5ii keeps working well , too, and is significantly smaller and easier to slip in and out of a parka pocket. It the perfect sompromise, with virtually all the features of its big brother, and still enough physical space for most of the vital controls (the video button is a PITA, but the video works quite well because of the excellent stabilization).

It's definitely the "sweet spot" i the current Olympus lineup, if you don't need fast-action or compatibilty with older FT lenses.

Click to expand...

Dan_168 said:

BigRedNole5 said:

Anyone have any advice to go m43 or should I be looking at Fuji and Sony (won't go Nikon or Canon)?

Click to expand...

A Sony A7III + a few tiny prime will give amazing result as travel and family camera while keeping the size and cost very " manageable" in my opinion, there is a pretty significant difference in the Image quality between the Sony FF sensor and the MFT, I own both but if I can have one only for a vacation trip, it will definitely be the A7R II or A7R III not my OMD 10 II.

Click to expand...

Dan, I see you're getting a lot of opposing feedback on your suggestion from other forum members.

Just wanted to say that it's good to hear different points of view, including yours, especially having experience owning and using multiple types of gear. Some people with an opposing views have similar experience using multiple formats as well, which is partly what makes this topic so interesting.

FWIW I think the A7iii is a pretty impressive piece of kit. And the range of FF lens choices for that system continues to grow. I'm sure I and many others if given a chance to use it would find a lot to like or even love about it.

Certainly, I would agree that at the limits of high ISO and large print sizes, ability to crop more, single shot DR and SNR, and ability to achieve somewhat shallower depth of field and smoother bokeh at wider focal lengths - these are the main advantages of larger sensors, all the way up to medium format.

But there are lots of other considerations besides pure image quality, too, that matter. Ergonomics and controls, IBIS quality, specific lens availability, EVF quality, video capabilities, JPEG engine quality and colors/white balance accuracy, weather sealing, tilt vs flippy screen, battery life, price/resell value, in body charging with USB, on body flash, existing compatible lenses you may own, adapter options, autofocus capability, etc, all are factors.

I think the question is whether the potential image quality advantages realized in practice with the larger sensor bodies are realized often enough to justify the premium, AND taken along with the many other considerations I noted above that are part of the camera experience, together with the kind of shooting that you do ... Well, there's just a ton of room to make different choices based on your own preferences.

FWIW, I'll throw in another likely unconventional perspective.

If you don't need telephoto range and you're mainly a family/travel photographer, and you care mainly about the images and not the photography experience itself, I think the best camera investment available for the price is likely a Pixel 2 or 3 smartphone.

The images these devices are capable of, even in low light with the new NightSight -equipped camera are simply unbelievable. As in, magical, amazing, insanely good. Not good for a phone. Good beyond the capability of anything I've ever seen for anything where some depth of field is desirable. Clean, detailed, sharp, good colors and contrast, low noise, just impossibly, magically good. Don't believe me, though, just go and watch some of the YouTube videos yourself. You can't appreciate it until you see with your own eyes. Once you've seen it in action, you might rethink whether a larger sensor camera (even full frame) is really a good investment.

I'm a very satisfied m43 owner and it will continue be my main camera when I need focal length beyond 50mm FF-equivalent or want to shoot shallower depth of field portraits or indoor sports (I have my eye on the upcoming sigma 56mm f1.4 for about USD$470 for this holiday season).

But a much as I admire the Panasonic G9 or even a GX9 body, my next camera body beyond my current GX85 will almost certainly be a Pixel 2 or 3. And I expect it will do a lot of the general family/travel photography soon thereafter. It will almost certainly be my first choice for any low light general shooting in the 24-50mm equivalent range, not purely for convenience but for quality.

Cheers, and happy shooting.

An interesting perspective. And becoming a more common perspective as well.

I think this demonstrates the growing capability of computational photography.

That being said, camera makers will benefit from such advances as well. The biggest difference is, of course, the ability to change lenses or in the case of point and shoot and bridge cameras the ability to zoom to a greater distance

Jacques Cornell said:

nigelbb said:

Gary from Seattle said:

MShot said:

What does "more DOF control mean?" Either you have the DOF you need or you don't. If you do, you have control. If you don't, you change lenses, distance to subject, ratio of distance between background, subject and you. You still have control. Basic photography since the pinhole camera. In every photography text. No camera can do it all for you. Some skill and knowledge is needed sometime with any camera.

You do it by composing the shot as you want it. You can't always do that, but if you have f/2.8 or f/1.8 glass, usually you can. You can even have deep DOF if you shoot FF, but like any format, not always what you want. Remember when getting everything in focus was good? You have no more DOF control with FF. Its in a different range.

Click to expand...

I have to laugh when people say FF is better for landscape. Folks will post a FF image and when you look close there is either a lack of sharpness because they haven't held the camera steady or something significant is OOF in the image because of lack of DOF. m4/3 has more DOF, which is king in landscape, and IBIS and 200 base ISO that makes it possible to get great definition without a tripod. Then someone posts an image with their less expensive FF zoom and you look at the image, and it is is just plain not sharp across the frame. Top quality m4/3 lenses are sharp across the frame and appear to be much better than lighter (not light) FF alternative zooms.

Click to expand...

MFT may have advantages in some areas of photography but any argument for M43 as a better camera for landscapes is utter tosh

Click to expand...

Image Stabilization

Jacques Cornell said:

You would have to be very poor at holding a camera steady to introduce camera shake when taking a landscape photo. You would be shooting wide angle so the rule of thumb of 1/focal length would give you 1/25th of a second.

Click to expand...

Ever shoot landscapes at dusk or just after without a tripod?

Also, who says landscapes are always wide-angle shots?

Jacques Cornell said:

M43 does have slightly more DOF than FF but it's of no relevance. If you use a 24mm lens at F/8 for your landscape then on FF the hyperlocal distance is 7.95ft with everything in focus from 4ft to infinity. Using the equivalent 12mm M43 lens at F/4 everything is in focus from 2ft to infinity. Is that extra 2ft really going to make any difference?

Base ISO of 64 on FF is going to give higher dynamic range.

Click to expand...

So is exposure bracketing for HDR.

Jacques Cornell said:

Never mind the extra detail visible in an image from a 30+-40+ MegaPixel FF sensor.

Click to expand...

Not in a print smaller than A1. Plus, stitching can yield 100+ megapixel images. Easily.

Your points are not wrong, exactly, just grossly overgeneralized and based on assumptions that everyone else shoots what you do in the way you do.

Click to expand...

Your comments seem to be suffering from the generalisation, or is it misapprehension, that none of the workarounds that you mention (IS, exposure bracketing, stitching) are available on larger formats.

MFT may have advantages in some areas of photography but any argument for M43 as a better camera for landscapes is utter tosh

No understanding of how M43 cameras work. In-camera HDR and Focus Stacking.

Explain how you can put more of the foreground, mid-ground and background in focus in-camera without stopping down into diffraction or processing focus stack in post.


You would have to be very poor at holding a camera steady to introduce camera shake when taking a landscape photo. You would be shooting wide angle so the rule of thumb of 1/focal length would give you 1/25th of a second.

You can find many examples of great landscape shots taken with Dual IS, hand held at 20 seconds, commonly at 5 seconds.

Some of the best landscapes are shot long telephoto. Wide angle vistas are often boring, hills and planes, featureless = all look the same. Use a telephoto and find something interesting.


M43 does have slightly more DOF than FF but it's of no relevance.

If so, what's up with all the whining that DOF isn't shallow enough? It is or it isn't. It isn't both.


Base ISO of 64 on FF is going to give higher dynamic range.

Adjust it in the camera before you take the shot. Use the S-Curve button to pull up a chart, adjust the highlights and the shadows independently of each other before you take the photo and push in post from there if you have to.


Use exposure bracketing for HDR.

+ HiRes mode = 40-50MP, EM-5 MKII, EM-1 MKII. Use Smaller, more manageable, faster process 12, 16MP or 20MP files when you don't need more.

Different ways to accomplish the same thing.

MShot said:

Member said:

MFT may have advantages in some areas of photography but any argument for M43 as a better camera for landscapes is utter tosh

Click to expand...

No understanding of how M43 cameras work. In-camera HDR and Focus Stacking.

Click to expand...

That's not a feature of mFT. It's a feature of some mFT cameras. It's also a feature of some FF cameras. So, when you put it together, the FF camera will still have an advantage in the case where exposure is not limited by movement, because whatever happens it can gather four times the light for the same exposure, and can generally use a larger exposure as well. That's a double disadvantage for mFT, and forms the baseline. Any workarounds like HDR and focus stacking, are available on FF also.

Member said:

Explain how you can put more of the foreground, mid-ground and background in focus in-camera without stopping down into diffraction or processing focus stack in post.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting if someone could post an example of a landscape where DOF or diffraction made it such that an FF camera could not achieve the same or even a larger exposure than could an mFT system. Seriously. Maybe you could post an example with EXIF that you believe would have allowed mFT o use a two stop larger exposure.

Member said:

Member said:

You would have to be very poor at holding a camera steady to introduce camera shake when taking a landscape photo. You would be shooting wide angle so the rule of thumb of 1/focal length would give you 1/25th of a second.

Click to expand...

You can find many examples of great landscape shots taken with Dual IS, hand held at 20 seconds, commonly at 5 seconds.

Click to expand...

Let's assume that FF IS is two stops behind mFT IS (I don't think it is, but we'll assume for sake of argument that it is) all that does is get you back the two stops, and then only for landscapes in which nothing moves. No wind, no nothing. And, 5s with 5 stops IS gain is still giving the same shake as 1/6s, and I doubt there are many people who would think they could sensibly hand hold at 1/6s unstabilised and achieve acceptable sharpness every time. Sure, it's easy to cherry pick the lucky ones, but one of the reasons that one invests silly money in a camera is not to have to do that.

Member said:

Some of the best landscapes are shot long telephoto. Wide angle vistas are often boring, hills and planes, featureless = all look the same. Use a telephoto and find something interesting.

Click to expand...

Good luck hand-holding at 1/6 second with a long telephoto.

Member said:

M43 does have slightly more DOF than FF but it's of no relevance.

If so, what's up with all the whining that DOF isn't shallow enough? It is or it isn't. It isn't both.

Click to expand...

He clearly said why it was of no relevance, simply because in most landscape situations, FF gives all the DOF you need, unless you really don't know where to focus or manage DOF, and it can still do it in a situation that allows it to get more light than mFT. If you say otherwise, do what I suggested above, give us an example of a shot where the DOF could not have been achieved with FF without some retention of the light advantage.

Member said:

Base ISO of 64 on FF is going to give higher dynamic range.

Adjust it in the camera before you take the shot. Use the S-Curve button to pull up a chart, adjust the highlights and the shadows independently of each other before you take the photo and push in post from there if you have to.

Use exposure bracketing for HDR.

+ HiRes mode = 40-50MP, EM-5 MKII, EM-1 MKII. Use Smaller, more manageable, faster process 12, 16MP or 20MP files when you don't need more.

Different ways to accomplish the same thing.

Click to expand...

The real advantage is not DR, it's SNR, and people by large format equipment for the higher SNR. NCV described his D700 (which has a pretty lousy low ISO DR) as achieving 'creamier' tones. That's down to SNR, the lighter parts of the image have a higher signal to noise ratio.

The big advantage of mFT for some landscapes is that you're much more likely to be able to get an mFT camera there than you can an FF one, though actually the new FF mirrorless have reduced that advantage somewhat.

BigRedNole5 said:

I would plan to get a faster lens as well. The lens I saw in the store on the camera made it feel like a perfect size. On the outside of my budget, I could possibly swing a user em1 Mk ii. Olympus has it on special for $2k with the 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens. But that is on the extreme end of the budget.

Click to expand...

What about the Panny 12-60mm It's not 2.8 but its weather sealed like the 12-40 and the extra reach is nice, best part is locally most people list them from $285-350CDN brand new as they get them with Panny camera kits and then sell the lens.

Jacques Cornell said:

erichK said:

techie takes pics said:

If I were in your shoes, that EM-1 II had to be one really impressive bargain for me to consider it.

You can justify buying anything.
That's how GAS works.
Do you want that M1? Just dream up a scenario in which weathersealing saves your camera.

Click to expand...

And where I live there is also the problem of condensation, coming in from minus 20C or minis -30C , or even -40. when C and F are the same, to take the beautiful sundogs. has ruined many a camera and piece of electronics, according to a local repair shop,

Click to expand...

One way I avoid this is to carry my gear in a padded (i.e. semi-insulated) camera bag and close it up tight when I go back indoors so the gear inside warms up slowly. No condensation. Putting the camera bag in a plastic bag and squeezing the air out, or putting individual items in ziplock bags, can also keep humid air away while gear warms up. I shoot with my non-sealed cameras a lenses in New England winter weather and never have an issue with condensation.

Click to expand...

I try to always do that, but since our winters can start in October and end in May, ir is really nice to have cameras that can stand the occasional, somewhat less severe weather (say -15C) return inside from a mild-cold soaking without it.

bobn2 said:

Jacques Cornell said:

nigelbb said:

Gary from Seattle said:

MShot said:

What does "more DOF control mean?" Either you have the DOF you need or you don't. If you do, you have control. If you don't, you change lenses, distance to subject, ratio of distance between background, subject and you. You still have control. Basic photography since the pinhole camera. In every photography text. No camera can do it all for you. Some skill and knowledge is needed sometime with any camera.

You do it by composing the shot as you want it. You can't always do that, but if you have f/2.8 or f/1.8 glass, usually you can. You can even have deep DOF if you shoot FF, but like any format, not always what you want. Remember when getting everything in focus was good? You have no more DOF control with FF. Its in a different range.

Click to expand...

I have to laugh when people say FF is better for landscape. Folks will post a FF image and when you look close there is either a lack of sharpness because they haven't held the camera steady or something significant is OOF in the image because of lack of DOF. m4/3 has more DOF, which is king in landscape, and IBIS and 200 base ISO that makes it possible to get great definition without a tripod. Then someone posts an image with their less expensive FF zoom and you look at the image, and it is is just plain not sharp across the frame. Top quality m4/3 lenses are sharp across the frame and appear to be much better than lighter (not light) FF alternative zooms.

Click to expand...

MFT may have advantages in some areas of photography but any argument for M43 as a better camera for landscapes is utter tosh

Click to expand...

Image Stabilization

bobn2 said:

You would have to be very poor at holding a camera steady to introduce camera shake when taking a landscape photo. You would be shooting wide angle so the rule of thumb of 1/focal length would give you 1/25th of a second.

Click to expand...

Ever shoot landscapes at dusk or just after without a tripod?

Also, who says landscapes are always wide-angle shots?

bobn2 said:

M43 does have slightly more DOF than FF but it's of no relevance. If you use a 24mm lens at F/8 for your landscape then on FF the hyperlocal distance is 7.95ft with everything in focus from 4ft to infinity. Using the equivalent 12mm M43 lens at F/4 everything is in focus from 2ft to infinity. Is that extra 2ft really going to make any difference?

Base ISO of 64 on FF is going to give higher dynamic range.

Click to expand...

So is exposure bracketing for HDR.

bobn2 said:

Never mind the extra detail visible in an image from a 30+-40+ MegaPixel FF sensor.

Click to expand...

Not in a print smaller than A1. Plus, stitching can yield 100+ megapixel images. Easily.

Your points are not wrong, exactly, just grossly overgeneralized and based on assumptions that everyone else shoots what you do in the way you do.

Click to expand...

Your comments seem to be suffering from the generalisation, or is it misapprehension, that none of the workarounds that you mention (IS, exposure bracketing, stitching) are available on larger formats.

Click to expand...

I'm fully aware that HDR and stitching can be done with any camera. When any camera can give you a 100MP file with 15 stops of DR, 35mm format doesn't have an appreciable advantage over MFT for those kinds of shots.

Also, the image stabilization that's available from Panasonic and Olympus is simply much better than from APS and 35mm-format cameras, giving them an advantage for handheld low-light shots of static subjects.

Your comments seem to be suffering from a failure to think through the implications of what I've written.

bobn2 said:

MShot said:

bobn2 said:

MFT may have advantages in some areas of photography but any argument for M43 as a better camera for landscapes is utter tosh

Click to expand...

No understanding of how M43 cameras work. In-camera HDR and Focus Stacking.

Click to expand...

That's not a feature of mFT. It's a feature of some mFT cameras. It's also a feature of some FF cameras. So, when you put it together, the FF camera will still have an advantage in the case where exposure is not limited by movement, because whatever happens it can gather four times the light for the same exposure, and can generally use a larger exposure as well. That's a double disadvantage for mFT, and forms the baseline. Any workarounds like HDR and focus stacking, are available on FF also.

bobn2 said:

Explain how you can put more of the foreground, mid-ground and background in focus in-camera without stopping down into diffraction or processing focus stack in post.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting if someone could post an example of a landscape where DOF or diffraction made it such that an FF camera could not achieve the same or even a larger exposure than could an mFT system. Seriously. Maybe you could post an example with EXIF that you believe would have allowed mFT o use a two stop larger exposure.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

You would have to be very poor at holding a camera steady to introduce camera shake when taking a landscape photo. You would be shooting wide angle so the rule of thumb of 1/focal length would give you 1/25th of a second.

Click to expand...

You can find many examples of great landscape shots taken with Dual IS, hand held at 20 seconds, commonly at 5 seconds.

Click to expand...

Let's assume that FF IS is two stops behind mFT IS (I don't think it is, but we'll assume for sake of argument that it is) all that does is get you back the two stops, and then only for landscapes in which nothing moves. No wind, no nothing. And, 5s with 5 stops IS gain is still giving the same shake as 1/6s, and I doubt there are many people who would think they could sensibly hand hold at 1/6s unstabilised and achieve acceptable sharpness every time. Sure, it's easy to cherry pick the lucky ones, but one of the reasons that one invests silly money in a camera is not to have to do that.

bobn2 said:

Some of the best landscapes are shot long telephoto. Wide angle vistas are often boring, hills and planes, featureless = all look the same. Use a telephoto and find something interesting.

Click to expand...

Good luck hand-holding at 1/6 second with a long telephoto.

bobn2 said:

M43 does have slightly more DOF than FF but it's of no relevance.

If so, what's up with all the whining that DOF isn't shallow enough? It is or it isn't. It isn't both.

Click to expand...

He clearly said why it was of no relevance, simply because in most landscape situations, FF gives all the DOF you need, unless you really don't know where to focus or manage DOF, and it can still do it in a situation that allows it to get more light than mFT. If you say otherwise, do what I suggested above, give us an example of a shot where the DOF could not have been achieved with FF without some retention of the light advantage.

bobn2 said:

Base ISO of 64 on FF is going to give higher dynamic range.

Adjust it in the camera before you take the shot. Use the S-Curve button to pull up a chart, adjust the highlights and the shadows independently of each other before you take the photo and push in post from there if you have to.

Use exposure bracketing for HDR.

+ HiRes mode = 40-50MP, EM-5 MKII, EM-1 MKII. Use Smaller, more manageable, faster process 12, 16MP or 20MP files when you don't need more.

Different ways to accomplish the same thing.

Click to expand...

The real advantage is not DR, it's SNR, and people by large format equipment for the higher SNR. NCV described his D700 (which has a pretty lousy low ISO DR) as achieving 'creamier' tones. That's down to SNR, the lighter parts of the image have a higher signal to noise ratio.

The big advantage of mFT for some landscapes is that you're much more likely to be able to get an mFT camera there than you can an FF one, though actually the new FF mirrorless have reduced that advantage somewhat.

Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah. The old equivalency arguments are the last bastion of folks who just can't stand to see MFT shooters being happy and successful. Over and out.

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

If it can be done in MFT, then the image can be made in MFT, full stop. It is not better in a different format. It is done.

Gary from Seattle said:

I have to laugh when people say FF is better for landscape. Folks will post a FF image and when you look close there is either a lack of sharpness because they haven't held the camera steady or something significant is OOF in the image because of lack of DOF. m4/3 has more DOF, which is king in landscape, and IBIS and 200 base ISO that makes it possible to get great definition without a tripod. Then someone posts an image with their less expensive FF zoom and you look at the image, and it is is just plain not sharp across the frame. Top quality m4/3 lenses are sharp across the frame and appear to be much better than lighter (not light) FF alternative zooms.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's why pro or serious landscape shooter don't FF but mostly use MFT, yes? no? LOL :-D

Jacques Cornell said:

bobn2 said:

Jacques Cornell said:

nigelbb said:

Gary from Seattle said:

MShot said:

What does "more DOF control mean?" Either you have the DOF you need or you don't. If you do, you have control. If you don't, you change lenses, distance to subject, ratio of distance between background, subject and you. You still have control. Basic photography since the pinhole camera. In every photography text. No camera can do it all for you. Some skill and knowledge is needed sometime with any camera.

You do it by composing the shot as you want it. You can't always do that, but if you have f/2.8 or f/1.8 glass, usually you can. You can even have deep DOF if you shoot FF, but like any format, not always what you want. Remember when getting everything in focus was good? You have no more DOF control with FF. Its in a different range.

Click to expand...

I have to laugh when people say FF is better for landscape. Folks will post a FF image and when you look close there is either a lack of sharpness because they haven't held the camera steady or something significant is OOF in the image because of lack of DOF. m4/3 has more DOF, which is king in landscape, and IBIS and 200 base ISO that makes it possible to get great definition without a tripod. Then someone posts an image with their less expensive FF zoom and you look at the image, and it is is just plain not sharp across the frame. Top quality m4/3 lenses are sharp across the frame and appear to be much better than lighter (not light) FF alternative zooms.

Click to expand...

MFT may have advantages in some areas of photography but any argument for M43 as a better camera for landscapes is utter tosh

Click to expand...

Image Stabilization

Jacques Cornell said:

You would have to be very poor at holding a camera steady to introduce camera shake when taking a landscape photo. You would be shooting wide angle so the rule of thumb of 1/focal length would give you 1/25th of a second.

Click to expand...

Ever shoot landscapes at dusk or just after without a tripod?

Also, who says landscapes are always wide-angle shots?

Jacques Cornell said:

M43 does have slightly more DOF than FF but it's of no relevance. If you use a 24mm lens at F/8 for your landscape then on FF the hyperlocal distance is 7.95ft with everything in focus from 4ft to infinity. Using the equivalent 12mm M43 lens at F/4 everything is in focus from 2ft to infinity. Is that extra 2ft really going to make any difference?

Base ISO of 64 on FF is going to give higher dynamic range.

Click to expand...

So is exposure bracketing for HDR.

Jacques Cornell said:

Never mind the extra detail visible in an image from a 30+-40+ MegaPixel FF sensor.

Click to expand...

Not in a print smaller than A1. Plus, stitching can yield 100+ megapixel images. Easily.

Your points are not wrong, exactly, just grossly overgeneralized and based on assumptions that everyone else shoots what you do in the way you do.

Click to expand...

Your comments seem to be suffering from the generalisation, or is it misapprehension, that none of the workarounds that you mention (IS, exposure bracketing, stitching) are available on larger formats.

Click to expand...

I'm fully aware that HDR and stitching can be done with any camera. When any camera can give you a 100MP file with 15 stops of DR, 35mm format doesn't have an appreciable advantage over MFT for those kinds of shots.

Click to expand...

Well, in the end it comes down the matter of convenience, doesn't it? What are the results you can get with a single shot? Given that, as you say, stitch as many as you like, don't worry about blurry leaves due to wind, etc. And, of course, mFT has no advantage ove a phone, because you can stitch as many as you like.

Jacques Cornell said:

Also, the image stabilization that's available from Panasonic and Olympus is simply much better than from APS and 35mm-format cameras, giving them an advantage for handheld low-light shots of static subjects.

Click to expand...

This IS thing is another comfort myth. Many brands have IBIS these days. The mFT extremists stick to the notion that theirs is stops better than all the rest, there's little evidence to support it.

Jacques Cornell said:

Your comments seem to be suffering from a failure to think through the implications of what I've written.

Click to expand...

I think, rather, more thinking through than you're comfortable with.

Sure, they take care of them, but just look at the photos....



Who's in denial? Why do they come to the MFT forum to tell MFT people their gear is doo-doo? What does it accomplish?

What if the rumor is true and a new generation of processor and memory enables OLY to bring an 80MP High-Res hand-held EM-1X to market in 2019? What could it do with HDR? Full time hand held HDR?

Still doo-doo?

If it was 800MP and DR infinity they would still say so.

Jacques Cornell said:

bobn2 said:

MShot said:

Jacques Cornell said:

MFT may have advantages in some areas of photography but any argument for M43 as a better camera for landscapes is utter tosh

Click to expand...

No understanding of how M43 cameras work. In-camera HDR and Focus Stacking.

Click to expand...

That's not a feature of mFT. It's a feature of some mFT cameras. It's also a feature of some FF cameras. So, when you put it together, the FF camera will still have an advantage in the case where exposure is not limited by movement, because whatever happens it can gather four times the light for the same exposure, and can generally use a larger exposure as well. That's a double disadvantage for mFT, and forms the baseline. Any workarounds like HDR and focus stacking, are available on FF also.

Jacques Cornell said:

Explain how you can put more of the foreground, mid-ground and background in focus in-camera without stopping down into diffraction or processing focus stack in post.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting if someone could post an example of a landscape where DOF or diffraction made it such that an FF camera could not achieve the same or even a larger exposure than could an mFT system. Seriously. Maybe you could post an example with EXIF that you believe would have allowed mFT o use a two stop larger exposure.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

You would have to be very poor at holding a camera steady to introduce camera shake when taking a landscape photo. You would be shooting wide angle so the rule of thumb of 1/focal length would give you 1/25th of a second.

Click to expand...

You can find many examples of great landscape shots taken with Dual IS, hand held at 20 seconds, commonly at 5 seconds.

Click to expand...

Let's assume that FF IS is two stops behind mFT IS (I don't think it is, but we'll assume for sake of argument that it is) all that does is get you back the two stops, and then only for landscapes in which nothing moves. No wind, no nothing. And, 5s with 5 stops IS gain is still giving the same shake as 1/6s, and I doubt there are many people who would think they could sensibly hand hold at 1/6s unstabilised and achieve acceptable sharpness every time. Sure, it's easy to cherry pick the lucky ones, but one of the reasons that one invests silly money in a camera is not to have to do that.

Jacques Cornell said:

Some of the best landscapes are shot long telephoto. Wide angle vistas are often boring, hills and planes, featureless = all look the same. Use a telephoto and find something interesting.

Click to expand...

Good luck hand-holding at 1/6 second with a long telephoto.

Jacques Cornell said:

M43 does have slightly more DOF than FF but it's of no relevance.

If so, what's up with all the whining that DOF isn't shallow enough? It is or it isn't. It isn't both.

Click to expand...

He clearly said why it was of no relevance, simply because in most landscape situations, FF gives all the DOF you need, unless you really don't know where to focus or manage DOF, and it can still do it in a situation that allows it to get more light than mFT. If you say otherwise, do what I suggested above, give us an example of a shot where the DOF could not have been achieved with FF without some retention of the light advantage.

Jacques Cornell said:

Base ISO of 64 on FF is going to give higher dynamic range.

Adjust it in the camera before you take the shot. Use the S-Curve button to pull up a chart, adjust the highlights and the shadows independently of each other before you take the photo and push in post from there if you have to.

Use exposure bracketing for HDR.

+ HiRes mode = 40-50MP, EM-5 MKII, EM-1 MKII. Use Smaller, more manageable, faster process 12, 16MP or 20MP files when you don't need more.

Different ways to accomplish the same thing.

Click to expand...

The real advantage is not DR, it's SNR, and people by large format equipment for the higher SNR. NCV described his D700 (which has a pretty lousy low ISO DR) as achieving 'creamier' tones. That's down to SNR, the lighter parts of the image have a higher signal to noise ratio.

The big advantage of mFT for some landscapes is that you're much more likely to be able to get an mFT camera there than you can an FF one, though actually the new FF mirrorless have reduced that advantage somewhat.

Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah. The old equivalency arguments are the last bastion of folks who just can't stand to see MFT shooters being happy and successful. Over and out.

Click to expand...

I'm an mFT shooter myself, so I'm quite content with being happy and successful. What I'm less comfortable with is the spreading of downright untruths because a group of people feel pressured because the myths the held sacred are turning out to be just that, myths.

mFT is a system with many virtues. That's enough. we don't have to invent ones it hasn't got just because our egos are fragile and we've invested too much of them in our equipment choice.

MShot said:

Sure, they take care of them, but just look at the photos....

https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/visionaries/jamie_macdonald#0

https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/visionaries/alex_mcclure#0

Who's in denial? Why do they come to the MFT forum to tell MFT people their gear is doo-doo? What does it accomplish?

What if the rumor is true and a new generation of processor and memory enables OLY to bring an 80MP High-Res hand-held EM-1X to market in 2019? What could it do with HDR? Full time hand held HDR?

Still doo-doo?

If it was 800MP and DR infinity they would still say so.

Click to expand...

Really. Or what if they bring that to the phone camera,

https://www.samsung.com/uk/discover/filter/photography/

I mean, forget what's now, it is what-if that is important.

--
- sergey

Based on prior history of this poster, I wonder why I find this far from credible ...

Mft is more than enough for nowadays printing, upload social media, mobile devices sharing nd etc.

Trust me, all of those technologies drop into camera even the recent hi tech will be always stay in the back seat. But the story Taking place in the front.

So have fun my friend for taking picture, don't let the gear intimidating you not to get a picture.

Photography not science, but art...