Yes. 100% certain. I'm talking about a system weight including lenses, etc, not just bodies.
Focus stacking and other methods for greater DoF? But that's a pretty specific case, don't you think? Overall, FF has better IQ. Do you agree or disagree?
When you stop down so much, the DOF starts to evaporate because of diffraction. Also, again because of diffraction, pixel count/density does not matter much and m43 is just a cropped version of FF. You can always crop FF. What is left are the available FL's but for macro, too short is not good anyway.
Yes, but (sort of) "not as far" as you can with micro four thirds.
No, the lens is f/2.8 to f/22. The f/45 you see on the images in the linked post comes from setting the lens to f/11 and then adding the effect of the two 2X teleconverters.
Adding two 2X teleconverters moves the range from f/2.8 - f/22 to f/11 - f/90. On top of that, as the magnification goes up the effective aperture gets smaller.
You can use the same lens on micro four thirds. In fact, I have done so (and on APS-C). I use it on full frame because I get better focus peaking than with my micro four thirds cameras (and I don't get focus peaking at all on my APS-C camera). The choice of which camera and sensor size to use has, for me, nothing to do with the amount of DOF I can get. I want as much as I can get from a single shot, and with any of my setups, FF, APS-C and micro four thirds, I can push the aperture to the point where the images become unusable for my purposes.
See above. Then the DOF would be almost zero due to diffraction softening. Besides, you can always crop on FF to make it m43.
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.
Indeed so. And sometimes that will work very well. And sometimes it won't.
fliesandflowersetc-ramblings.blogspot.com
I don't own an M4/3 camera, so I can only go by what I see posted on various sites. On that basis, I agree.
So FF did not restrict you here? Those are all FF images...
When?
Indeed they are, and no, FF did not restrict me.
It can work very well when using a high megapixel camera with a sharp lens used at a sharp aperture.
I did not cherry pick. Is there a larger Nikon MILC than the one I showed? I think I picked the largest one. The whole point was to show that the size difference between the cameras in the three year-old video was primarily due to the difference between dSLRs and MILCs, not mostly due to differences in sensor size. The MFT body I used was the direct successor to the one in the video.
I think you overstate the difference between FF and MFT MILCS.
Yes you will. You'll see them mentioning the rreduced shooting envelope and lackluster IQ.
and you'll see M43 fans talking about about f-stops like they are the same on all systems or ignoring that FF can shoot wide DOF too.
Each system has its advantages, such as M43 has by far the best IBIS around. You might find this important. But fans of each side don't like of admit the benefits of each system. And they ALL get upset when smartphone and small sensor drone images win major competitions and people call them the best pictures they've ever seen.
If you don't want to wade through hype on either side, don't watch videos like that or create forum threads to discuss them. Just know this:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#856,861,699,570,ha,f
Not trying to derail the thread here, but I'd love to know what you did in post to increase sharpness by so much. Gotta be more than just sharpness sliders in Lightroom/darktable. Wow!
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.)
Why don't you put any 25/0.6 or 17/0.7 lens on your m43 and see how it compares to my 50/1. 2 or 35/1.4. Or put any 67.5/1.0 lens on your m43 to see how it compares to 135/2 on FF. How about that 12-50/2 zoom on m43? Or the 12-35/1.4 one?
I guess you couldn't find one.
Now who's cherry picking?
Try it out at least once in your lifetime.
I can cherry pick too. Let's try it with a couple of m4/3 bodies sitting at similar points on each brand's hierarchy:
A lot of things remain unknown, when the journey of consciousness ends. In my case, ignorance will probably be bliss until the end, with APS-C.
In the UK it seems to me that to be taken seriously as a photographer in clubs or RPS ( Royal Photographic Society )you must use 35mm ot MF digital cameras ( plus big lenses, carbon fibre tripods with geared heads and expensive graduated filters ). I am aware of this having been on photo outings and attended meetings of clubs and the RPS and been slightly patronised and not considered one of the big boys when using M4/3
