Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Dan_168 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,929
Re: Possibly moving to full-frame mirrorless from m4/3’s

Qbalion wrote:

I do not have any experience with FF (except old analog times) so I have few questions:

Dan_168 wrote:

I own multiple format systems and here is how I see it. to me the FF offer huge image quality advantage, I really mean huge, the noise performance, and the shallow DOF control,

Do you mean that with the same FL and DOF you can stay closer to your subject with FF camera?

In terms DOF, you can get a Olympus 42.5 F1.2 for $1300 USD, and the FF 85mm F1.8 is only $600 the most, Sony is the most expensive and some other brand FF 85 1.8 much cheaper, and FF 1.8 still offer more shallow DOF than the F1.2 MFT.

And for noise that's pretty self-explanatory. take a picture with both at same ISO yo can tell the difference right away yourself, of course more so on high iso, but even my OMD 10 II at 200 it has tons more noise in shadow than my A7R IV or D850 with the same ISO.

the rendering of image, to me that makes me to favor FF.

What do you mean with the rendering?

Tonal transition.

the only good thing I see in M4/3 is size, so if size is an important factor, stay with MFT, like you said, the 100-400 for example, you will not find such 200-800 equivalent thing in FF , at least not in the same price range and size for sure.

so I would say it's better to run both system and choose and pick the " right lens" for each, you don't have to duplicate everything, you can use the FF for portrait, taking advantage of the DOF control,, say a really cheap FF 85 1.8 still work better than the expensive MFT 45 1.2. a 35 1.8 is much cheaper and still works better than a 17 F0.95 MFT lens.

Also taking advantage of the high ISO advantage of FF when you need to shoot in those situation, and don't forget wide angle is much easier with FF, tons of 14-16 MM FL range FF option from super cheat to expensive. way more than MFT. .

Then keeping the MFT for super telephoto work, such as the 100-400 you mentioned, and if you are really into long lens, the new 150-400 F4.5 with built in TC is a dream lens for you, imagine to get a 800mm F4.5 lens in FF, how big and how expensive will that be?

I personally rent the EM1X for few weeks when it first come out, but i did not like the image quality so I decided to spend my $3000 elsewhere, but if the 150-400 were available at that point and I am bird shooter, it's hard to resist that combo.

Investing in Z7 to keep the crop of a high res (discussed in another thread) seems not that bad idea except price but for the one who wants one system I think I'd prefer to stay with Z6II for indoors and portraits/events and maybe Z50 for cropped long FL shoots...

Hmm interesting

I never advise people buying a FF to crop to APS C or MFT FOV, buy a FF and use it as a FF and buy a MFT and use it as a MFT to take advantage of each of those format. buying FF and use it as MFT is waste of money and not getting the real benefit of this format. if you always have to do heavy cropping and your lens is always feels too short on FF, but a MFT with a 100-400 or 150-400. it will save you a lot of money and you will get a much better result also. why would anyone spend that money for a 80MP FF so he/she can use it as a 20MP MFT? there is tons of cheap 20MP MFT out there. just my 2 cents.........

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow