Full Frame vs Micro 4:3

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Shadowsurfer
Shadowsurfer Contributing Member • Posts: 712
Pretty clear

saltydogstudios wrote:

Shadowsurfer wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

FingerPainter wrote:

Michael Piziak wrote:

I viewed this 2018 video, to get a perspective of how much smaller the Olympus cameras are than other cameras... The video actually compares the micro 4:3 to a full frame camera when it comes to image quality.

Any comparison that claims to see no difference when it doesn't examine prints of the same scene shot under the same conditions is bogus.

Fortunately, there is a tool right here on DPR that lets you compare like to like: the Studio Scene Comparison Tool.

Are you claiming you cannot see the difference between the E-MI II and the 5DIV in these shots?

The top pair of shots reflects the ISO settings that the video's host probably used in his shots: base ISO on each camera. The bottom post shows the difference when low light has forced an increase in ISO setting.

You're assuming the same f/stop on the lens.

If you really want to compare apples to apples you have to remember that depth of field changes on each sensor - assuming you want to keep an equivalent field of view etc.

35mm f/2.8 on full frame

17mm f/1.4 on micro four thirds

Then you get roughly the same framing, angle of view, depth of field, etc.

Therefore the micro four thirds camera should be at ISO 800.

The advantage of full frame isn't less noise at the same ISO, it's that you can get plenty of lenses that open to f/1.4, which would require an f/0.7 lens on micro four thirds to keep up with.

You can keep the ISO constant then you're no longer have "the same scene shot under the same conditions" - well I suppose it could be the same scene, same conditions - just with very different depth of field or shutter speed.

Arrampicando sui i specchi as we say in Italy.

I was arguing pedantry with pedantry.

No you replied to a post that made it pretty obvious, with a clear visual example, that the FF sensor gives better image quality, compared to a M43 at base ISO.

Yet another desperate, illogical and stupid attempt to show that M43 is as good as FF on the image quality front.

At no point did I say M43 was better or worse than FF.

It is what you imply.

Don't you m43 fans ever give up trying to "prove" that M43 IQ as as good as FF.

What is with this forum and saying "you m43 fans" any time M43 is even mentioned in a thread? I notice the OP doesn't own either a FF or M43 camera - yet there are people in this thread arguing that "you M43 people should stick to your own forum."

There is a dedicated forum for these rubbish comparisons.

Now I shoot FF, I understand there is no contest, I the real world of taking pictures.

As we say in America: Do you even Full Frame bro?

Good for you for using the gear that you like. I also use the gear that I like. Sometimes it's FF, sometimes it's M43. Sometimes it's APS-C. Sometimes it's film.

I'm not sure why - you "the real word of taking pictures" - feel the need to brag about your gear to "us the virtual world of posting in forums."

When you get out and actually shoot, this equivalence claptrap is shown to be totally irrelevant.

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