Full Frame vs Micro 4:3

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
MOD Smaug01 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,876
Re: What about 2x the other way?

I'm thinking that it just so happens that the presenter's examples were not well-chosen to highlight the differences.

For example, they're both shot in strong outdoor lighting, so the noise advantage of FF would not be seen. None of those shots needed particularly shallow DoF to get the desired effect, either.

I also think that he was using a pro-caliber lens on each one. A lot of users will not make that investment I wonder how they shots would have looked with consumer grade lenses? I'm thinking FF would have an advantage there as well, since less enlargement is needed to get to the final 1m print size. FF will not exaggerate any optical compromises as much.

The shots were mostly about composition, which is good. But then to draw conclusions on one format to the other, just from those four shots?

The presenter has shown that for HIS uses, MFT is just as good as FF. Maybe for a lot of us, too.

Getting back to your original points on this OP, have you decided whether you will go to MFT, FF or stick with APS-C? I bet you will stick with APS-C now.

-- hide signature --

"A book breaks the shackles of time."
-Carl Sagan

 Smaug01's gear list:Smaug01's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS30 Nikon D610 Olympus OM-D E-M10 III +37 more
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