Full Frame vs Micro 4:3

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 8,962
Re: To summarize my experience...
1

J A C S wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

J A C S wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

J A C S wrote:

D Cox wrote:

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

You can't stop down on FF?

Yes, but (sort of) "not as far" as you can with micro four thirds.

Suppose you have a lens that goes to f/22. If you use it at f/22 on full frame then the effective f-number at 1:1 will be around f/45. That will give you a certain amount of depth of field, and that will be the most you can get with that setup.

See above. Then the DOF would be almost zero due to diffraction softening.

Almost zero DOF due to diffraction softening at f/45 works well enough for my purposes. Your mileage obviously varies. We all manage the many macro trade-offs according to our own preferences.

So FF did not restrict you here? Those are all FF images...

Indeed they are, and no, FF did not restrict me.

Besides, you can always crop on FF to make it m43.

Indeed so. And sometimes that will work very well. And sometimes it won't.

When?

It can work very well when using a high megapixel camera with a sharp lens used at a sharp aperture.

Conversely, it works less well with a low megapixel camera or when used with an aperture which causes extensive loss of detail from diffraction softening , or worse, both. Depending on how large an output you want, and therefore how closely on screen viewers will be able to examine the image, you may be unable to achieve sufficient image quality after a large crop . For example, I use a low resolution camera and extremely small apertures which cause considerable diffraction softening and my images are (IMO) unusable if cropped a lot or looked at closely. That is (one of the reasons) why I limit my outputs to 1300 pixels high.

The extreme diffraction softening is also why I have to use rather strong post processing to get images that I consider usable for my purposes. For example, here are comparisons for two images. On the right we see how the image looks "out of the camera" (I shoot raw - these are resized from the embedded JPEGs in the raw files. We are looking at 100% at a 1300 pixel high image).

On the left is how that same part of the image looks after post processing. (The subjects are around 2mm long btw, and getting decent depth of field for small subjects is particularly difficult with single shots - and focus stacking is often impossible because the subject, like the bottom one of these, is moving around when the image is captured.)

Incidentally (and bearing in mind the main theme of this thread), these images happen to have been captured with a full frame camera, but the issues are just the same for cameras with different sized sensors.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Smaug01
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow