Why does a "given focal length" matter?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
- Thread starter Glen Barrington
- Start date
No, they don't. Stop down any FF camera, raise ISO and you will get an equivalent image to that of the m43.
Because of their size and weight.
No, focal length doesn't affect DOF if you keep the framing on the subject fixed. Equivalent f-stop is the only parameter one has to reduce to achieve shallower DOF at a fixed framing.
Apart from astro I don't see why it needs to be taken into account anyway. You might want to double check your source.
It doesn't have to mitigate anything. One can enjoy both systems.
That normally means viewing an image from the distance equal to its diagonal. Human eye can resolve only about 6-8 Mpx in this scenario. Taking your argument further, if the final output is a 2Mpx image for web sharing, the m43 is probably an overkill.
Absolutely.
FF are quite slow on the uptake of computational photography.
M43 cameras seem to have more customisation and options than others.
The autofocus is (potentially) faster.
Higher fps?
Last edited:
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
If you're shooting a subject that only occupies a small area of a full frame sensor at a 'given focal length' - let's say a bird or other animal - a smaller sensor with greater photosite density will put more pixels under that subject.
But you know that. What answer were you expecting?
Last edited:
Smaug01
Veteran Member
Anyone that denies the portability and bulk\weight advantage of MFT compared to FF is deluding himself. "I don't mind carrying it" or "I just carry a smaller kit" is not the same.
Having the option of a smaller super-tele rig is nice.
Likewise, anyone who denies the better IQ of FF is deluding himself. I notice the reduced DoF immediately. F/5.6 on FF actually offers some selective focus, while on MFT it might as well be f/16.
On the other hand, when I want to take a nice camera rig with 24-120 eq. on a motorcycle trip, FF takes up so much room in luggage it's not reasonable.
Having the option of a smaller super-tele rig is nice.
Likewise, anyone who denies the better IQ of FF is deluding himself. I notice the reduced DoF immediately. F/5.6 on FF actually offers some selective focus, while on MFT it might as well be f/16.
On the other hand, when I want to take a nice camera rig with 24-120 eq. on a motorcycle trip, FF takes up so much room in luggage it's not reasonable.
Have you tried f/2.8 on MFT? Compare it to f/5.6 on FF. They will be hard to tell apart.
And what if I do not? Then the m43 sensor will crop my bird. We are still talking about the same FL, right?
Like - oh, there is no need to use the same FL, my bad.
For a photographer willing to buy/carry so much lens and no more.
Just because you can get a 600 or 800mm lens for FF doesn't mean you're willing to do so.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
So when I walk around with my 24-105, you will take the same lens on m43?
Is it needed?
dp20210116
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 243
R5 claims 8 stops with some RF mount+bright non OIS lenses ... given the fact that it is moving around 2 times bigger sensor Olympus indeed has had as in the past, but no longer
with given field of view FF cameras have more mp to resolve the details and then APS-C 26mp sensor is nothing more than APS-C crop from A7R4... certainly we do not have yet 80mp FF sensors to say the same about m43 sensors... but again with given field of view both M43 and APS-C simply nowhere near FF and never will be
??? sensor size vs EVF is not relevant for dSLMs
Last edited:
dp20210116
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 243
that is not to mention that you can always use a 20mp or 26mp crops from FF sensors... and in case of A7R4 26mp crop will be exactly APS-C sized one
GodSpeaks
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 14,665
- Solutions
- 13
- Reaction score
- 7,198
Glen, Glen, Glen, do we really need to go down this path... again?
I use both MFT and FF systems. I use them for completely separate things. My FF Nikon is my studio camera. It never leaves the studio and never goes off full manual.
My MFT Panasonic cameras I use for everything else, plus they serve as excellent video cameras (4K) in the studio. Otherwise they are my travel, party and fun cameras.
I love both systems equally and would not give up either. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Both systems take excellent images, be it stills, video or both.
I use both MFT and FF systems. I use them for completely separate things. My FF Nikon is my studio camera. It never leaves the studio and never goes off full manual.
My MFT Panasonic cameras I use for everything else, plus they serve as excellent video cameras (4K) in the studio. Otherwise they are my travel, party and fun cameras.
I love both systems equally and would not give up either. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Both systems take excellent images, be it stills, video or both.
dp20210116
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 243
so do smart phones btw ... if you use a small screen to view the picture
dp20210116
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 243
it is indeed a nice example of why m43 offers a nice set of compromises for certain niche uses by some people ... are you using Panasonic 12-60 and then why not Olympus 12-100 ?
ThrillaMozilla
Veteran Member
Edit: Late to the party again. Some people said all this pages ago.
I don't know about the narrative, but if I were looking to do serious, general wildlife photography, I would probably run right out and buy an Olympus. Portable, and with world-class image stabilization. Plus other useful features that you probably can't find on FF. It might not do it all, but it fills a huge niche.
Not this again. Just stop down your FF lens or use a wide lens, and -- presto -- wide depth of field. APS-C example here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65015886. More depth of field that you would ever want.
Last edited:
I thought I'd read something like that!
Now that you mention it ... this seems like it should be an inherent advantage for small sensors ... but the manufacturers have a vested interest in pushing the market to FF. So Nikon, Sony and Canon aren't going to be doing a lot to get high res APS-C sensors on the market. And then economies of scale come into play making it tough for Fuji and Panasonic/Olympus to keep ahead. So this advantage may disappear due to market forces.
I'm simply pointing out that with (mirrorless) digital, there's a disconnect between sensor size and viewfinder size. When almost everyone was shooting 35mm, it wasn't an issue (then, like today, VF was dependent on how much you spent) ... medium format offered big, beautiful VFs, never mind view cameras ! But mirrorless digital means that you can go smaller without having to compromise on the VF.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
...is that folks think equivalence is a tool to determine a winner in a comparison of different format systems. It's not. Equivalence is a tool for determining which focal lengths and settings to use to make equivalent photos with different format cameras. That's it.
What a person chooses to shoot with - micro four-thirds, APS-C, or another format - is purely a personal choice. Whatever your choice, there are cameras and lenses one can use to make great photos. Enjoy.
--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com
What a person chooses to shoot with - micro four-thirds, APS-C, or another format - is purely a personal choice. Whatever your choice, there are cameras and lenses one can use to make great photos. Enjoy.
--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com
Last edited:
Pixel Pooper
Veteran Member
The truth is that smaller sensors have only two advantages, smaller size and lower cost, but the trade-off is lower image quality.
I thought it was obvious I was talking about telephoto reach. I'm sure you've been around long enough to have seen the debate many times.
Elsewhere, you seem to get it, as you talk about tele lenses not delivering detail due to diffraction, even though I've seen plenty of terrifically sharp m43 and APS-C shots taken with f/4 and f/5.6-f/6.3 teles.
Of course, FF is reaching competitive pixel density (at a price, for now) and Nikon, Canon and Sony have little incentive to keep APS-C competitive, so it may be that the pixel density advantage that crop sensors have enjoyed is seeing its last days.
And, as you mentioned elsewhere, you have Canon offering affordable, slow teles that make it more reasonable for a crop shooter to move without having to go considerably bigger/more expensive.
For now, though, I shoot backyard wildlife with an RX10 III (220/4 equivalent to 600/11) and a D7500 with a 100-400/4.5-6.3 (equivalent to 600/9.5). Both give me sharp enough results to print as big as I'd need, though the DSLR gives me sharper images (and focuses faster and more reliably, but never mind that). The RX10 was $700+ as an open box model; the D7500 and lens cost around $1500 combined. I'm not a $3000 FF buyer, so I'd be looking at 24MP. I could find a D750 used/refurbished for a reasonable enough price. Then I'd be looking at 11MP crops. The difference isn't going to be 20MP versus 11MP (50% linear increase) ... even with the sharpest Otus lens, you don't get a 50% increase in detail from a 50% increase in pixels. And the Sigma is no Otus. But it's sharp and I'd expect a modest different.
The thing is, I'm not that demanding of my backyard wildlife pics. Someone more serious about their wildlife/birds might stretch their budget to get a better lens. The best solution is probably a longer lens on FF - go for a 150-600 even if it's not as sharp because you're recording detail over a bigger area. But that's a bigger, heavier lens, not suitable for BIF, for example. (Birders love Nikon's CX 70-300 - a sharp lens that puts a 20MP sensor behind a portion of the image circle that gives you an 840mm FOV). Now you're at f/15 equivalent and I'm sure that 20MP isn't recording tons of detail. But a crop from 45MP FF gets you to 6MP and from 24MP gets you to only 3MP. I'm betting you get better prints than you would from a crop from 24MP FF at least and I'd be awfully surprised if it didn't beat a crop from a 45MP FF sensors as well.
But like I said, these advantages are going away as FF gets more and more affordable, smaller, higher res, with better tele lens options and as crop sensor systems get more expensive.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Pixel Pooper
Veteran Member
I assume you are talking about a 20mp 1" sensor?
A full frame sensor would need 150mp to match the pixel pitch, but you don't have good enough lenses to take advantage of it, so the FF can record the same detail with a lot less than 150mp.
More important than pixel pitch is pixel count. You may have smaller pixels, but you still only have 20mp so your image resolution is less than pretty much every FF camera
Maybe the V3 at 18MP ?
The 70-300 designed for CX was a sharp lens. I agree that you're probably looking at needing a lot less than 150MP though.
DXOMark created their perceptual MPix measurement to try to even this out, but it's so opaque and inconsistent that I don't think anyone relies on it. The concept is interesting, though. The holy grail - an apples to apples comparison of this lens on that camera versus another lens on some other camera!
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum