Micro 4/3rds vs. Full Frame

3D Gunner said:

3D Gunner said:

As for your last starment. Lets say the display device is the same 27" imace. You take a photo of a mite at 2x magnification with the same lens and...well, okay, equivalent apertures between a ff and an apsc. Display both on the 27" imac, uncropped. Nope. Still not the same image.

Click to expand...

It is obvious that it is not the same image because the content captured on the sensor differs.
Also, the final magnification level is higher for the pursued subject captured with the APS-C sensor on the same 27 "screen.

You can also shoot the same subject with an MF camera, with the same optical system that offers a 2:1 magnification and it is obvious that the content of the image will not be the same.

Who says that what captures a 24x36mm sensor is a reference? Why not reference a sensor with a size of 30x47mm, or one with a size of 20x32mm, or any other size?

The projection of an object (or part of it) will have exactly the same size on any sensor, of any size, in the case of the same magnification ratio. Absolutely nothing in this regard is tied to the FF format.

..............................................

For example, a spherical object with a diameter of 1mm, in the case of a magnification ratio of 1:1 will be represented on any sensor, of any size, by a circle with a diameter of 1mm.

The difference in image content between sensors of different sizes is what is reproduced around the pursued subject (for same magnification). If the spherical object (1mm diameter) is photographed on a black background, we will have more or less useless black background around the spherical object.

If we photograph the respective spherical object with a small sensor for phones, with a high pixel density, with quality processing algorithms and an optical system suitable for the 1:1 magnification ratio, the spherical object taken for example will be able to be observed with many details on it (assuming that there are those details), on a decent size black background, unlike what is captured on the 24x36mm FF sensor, respectively a tiny 1mm object surrounded by an unnecessarily very large black surface.

Click to expand...

Dude. You arent teaching anyone anything here. You are literally ranting about the most basic principles of this genre, and honestly, I have no idea why

c h u n k said:

And also, I dont know why you need to keep repeating "nothing special about ff" as if Im a ff purist.

Click to expand...

That explains why you are so obsessed with saying something wrong in principle.

FF cameras really offer exceptional picture quality, and over time, an entire accessory industry has developed around them. But that has nothing to do with the subject.

The 24x36mm format for cameras appeared more than 100 years ago, being derived from a video format, related to the mechanical and optical constraints of that time. It could have been any other dimension if it had been able to impose itself on the market.

24x36mm size means nothing relative to the magnification ratio, by definition.

The specialized industry invests a lot in FF equipment, and the results are exceptional. So it's great to be a FF purist.


By the way, I made the first images under a microscope using a Nikon film camera (so, FF) in 1987, using a special adapter made by me personally with a lathe.

c h u n k said:

Nick, where are you?

Click to expand...

I provided some input in this post, where I mentioned some things I thought relevant to the OP's questions and that I had experience of. As to the discussion in this subthread, I've been following it as I usually do in this forum, but I haven't so far felt that there is anything I could usefully contribute to it.

c h u n k said:

Not pullin you in to this nonsense but what in the world happened here over past couple years? Where is everyone at? At least the old debates were well beyond 101 of "what does 1:1 mean and how does it relate to format".

Click to expand...

Hmmm....... Over the years I remember taking part in some discussions about exactly that (it's one of my hobby horses, particularly when of the related form "macro means at least 1:1"), discussions which in some cases were not conducted in an entirely friendly manner, unfortunately.

c h u n k said:

Lol. So silly.

If people want to get all authoritative about snesor size at least let it be about effective aperture, dof, noise, pixel density, diffraction limits etc. Goodness gracious lol

Click to expand...

3D Gunner said:

c h u n k said:

And also, I dont know why you need to keep repeating "nothing special about ff" as if Im a ff purist.

Click to expand...

That explains why you are so obsessed with saying something wrong in principle.

FF cameras really offer exceptional picture quality, and over time, an entire accessory industry has developed around them. But that has nothing to do with the subject.

The 24x36mm format for cameras appeared more than 100 years ago, being derived from a video format, related to the mechanical and optical constraints of that time. It could have been any other dimension if it had been able to impose itself on the market.

24x36mm size means nothing relative to the magnification ratio, by definition.

The specialized industry invests a lot in FF equipment, and the results are exceptional. So it's great to be a FF purist.

By the way, I made the first images under a microscope using a Nikon film camera (so, FF) in 1987, using a special adapter made by me personally with a lathe.

Click to expand...

What is your point? Seriously. What do you think you are helping anyone with or teaching that they dont already know? When I 1st responded to you, I didnt notice the person had already replied to you, and he literally verified he meant exactly what I understood him as meaning.

Its like running around on the forums telling people they are wrong when they say ISO increases noise. That is technically correct. Raising iso does not cause an increase in noise. But virtually 100% of photographers learn ISO increases noise on digital cameras and early on its actually helpful for them to have that understanding because it is MUCH simpler than an accurate understanding and for practical use as a beginner, its entirely fine to think we should shoot lower ISOs to avoid unneeded noise. As we improve and maybe move in to niche corners within photography, more thorough understandings are necessary. Actual causes of noise are really only important to people who push edges like macro photographers, some wildlife photographers, definitely astro. But photogs seem like clowns and I dont think its helpful when they overcomplicate things for obvious beginners. I mean, OP asked how sensor size effects magnification and suggested smaller sensors provide more dof. I mean, we know where that idea comes from, and to what extent that understanding should be corrected at his early point in learning to **help him learn and make the right decisions when purchasing gear.

I guess the thing to ask yourself is if helping OP was your priority or if it was being a know-it-all...amongst at least a few people who could literally teach classes and advanced classes on the subject. Ho ahead. Click my link below. Look at my arthropod shots and tell me what you can teach me about magnification, lighting, color science, camera settings etc etc etc that could help me improve...because honestly, I dont know in what way you think your comments can be constructive. Really, I dont know why Im responding to you because nothing in your rant seems to come from a productive space - and I only participate in these forums to help others learn, and seek help from others who can teach me.

c h u n k said:

What is your point? Seriously..............

Click to expand...

Everything was clarified and resolved after Philzucker's answer, which correctly understood my observation, and gave additional explanations that clarified the rest of the issues under discussion.

............................

For photojoe55, the bottom line is that smaller sensors can actually get bigger final magnifications and extended FoV, at cheaper cost than larger sensors (FF by example), but image quality depends on a number of technical factors in addition to the size of the sensors.
...................
All subsequent divagations are due to you, who declared yourself a "ff purist" and insisted that 24x36mm sensor size is a reference for everything related to this subject.

3D Gunner said:

c h u n k said:

What is your point? Seriously..............

Click to expand...

Everything was clarified and resolved after Philzucker's answer, which correctly understood my observation, and gave additional explanations that clarified the rest of the issues under discussion.

Click to expand...

Everyone understood your observation...It was just you who failed to understand what he meant...as it seems you've also had some comprehension issues with what I've written. (see below)

3D Gunner said:

............................

For photojoe55, the bottom line is that smaller sensors can actually get bigger final magnifications and extended FoV, at cheaper cost than larger sensors (FF by example), but image quality depends on a number of technical factors in addition to the size of the sensors.
...................

Click to expand...

Smaller sensors can not get an "extended" fov whatever that is supposed to mean. Im assuming you mean wider fov. That is obv wrong. I'll give the benefit of doubt and assume you were just spacing out when you wrote that or something....as I have for much of what you've said.

3D Gunner said:

All subsequent divagations are due to you, who declared yourself a "ff purist" and insisted that 24x36mm sensor size is a reference for everything related to this subject.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I specifically said I am NOT a FF purist. To the contrary, I said I prefer apsc for some things over my ff....And I never said anything even remotely close to a ff sensor being reference for everything. Are you okay?

I'm over this now. So pointless

c h u n k said:

Smaller sensors can not get an "extended" fov whatever that is supposed to mean. Im assuming you mean wider fov. That is obv wrong.

Click to expand...

My apologies, I accidentally wrote FoV instead of DoF.

The myth persists that the size of the sensor changes the depth of field or the resolution.

The sensor only changes the size of the image you have to work with and the angle of view you get with a given focal length lens.

Lenses that are designed for small sensors can be made smaller and lighter because the image produced does not have to cover as large an area.

Lenses designed for large sensors have to be larger to get as much exposure on the sensor. They have to produce a much larger image and make the exposure as even as possible.

The appearance that smaller sensors have greater depth of field is because the lens uses a shorter focal length to get the same angle of view that you would see with a larger sensor.

I think we all (me included) sometimes tend to be overly technical over these kind of issues - and don't really focus on the practical everyday consequences.

For instance nobody is really interested in the sensor size if we show around an 8 by 10 print of a small insect - the audience is (hopefully!) awed by the detail it sees of a 12 mm long fly magnified to a 240 mm long beast on the print we have in hand. This "real world" magnification is what counts IMO, and it's at 20x in my example.

Now for us macro photographers trying to please the crowd we have to select the right tool to do so. And for all practical purposes we first don't muse about magnification ratios and sensor sizes, we just want that darn insect to fill the frame and get the most resolution and detail possible out of it for our later presentation.

Only if we fail in that quest we begin to wonder why we have only limited success in our endeavors. And then we are overwhelmed with the implications of sensor sizes, pixel pitches, AA filters, Bayer patterns, effective apertures, circles of confusion, diffraction limits, background noise, lens resolution etc. pp. These are complicated to calculate, because they interact and also always have to be related to the final goal - e.g. an 8 by 10 print viewed from a distance from 1 foot.

In my personal experience - I've shot macro with FF, APS-C, 4/3rds and 1/1.7" sensors - you can work with all kinds of setups and get nice results. And their practical differences boil down to these two major things for me:

• the bigger the sensor, the larger and more cumbersome the overall setup tends to become;
• the smaller the sensor, the smaller my creative choices and PP wiggling room becomes (e.g. usable aperture range, dynamic range in RAW files, usable ISO range).

To sum it up: IMO there is no "best" sensor size or whatever for macro, but there are always some limits with the actual setup you use. Know them to get the best results possible with it. And go out and take pictures!

Phil

--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com

macrouser said:

The myth persists that the size of the sensor changes the depth of field or the resolution.

The sensor only changes the size of the image you have to work with and the angle of view you get with a given focal length lens.

Lenses that are designed for small sensors can be made smaller and lighter because the image produced does not have to cover as large an area.

Lenses designed for large sensors have to be larger to get as much exposure on the sensor. They have to produce a much larger image and make the exposure as even as possible.

The appearance that smaller sensors have greater depth of field is because the lens uses a shorter focal length to get the same angle of view that you would see with a larger sensor.

Click to expand...

The differences between ff and apsc are much less than many seem to think, but the differences can be meaningful. I have a pretty thorough understanding and there is a reason i keep both ff and apsc. Im not sure I understand what you mean about the myth of resolution being different. I did just add a 5x lens so I will likely use my ff for macro a bit more as I will likely rarely desire an image that is 5x + on an apsc. But less wear and tear on the more expensive body will be a reason.

However, as that lens starts at 2.5x and is fully manual, I will 100% still be using my old set up often (100mm 2.8L with a raynox250 in my pocket). The Raynox is really good, but it does add some aberations. So just for the sake of bringing up one scenario, lets assume I have both my 80d and my R6 with me along with my 100. My framing would be uncropped with the apsc. Because we are using flash, exposure/low light handling between the cameras is a non issue. My 80d gives 24mpx resolution. My R6 is 20mpx, but if I need to crop it to match the 80d frame, I am left with 7mpx. So there is certainly a major difference in resolution in this scenario.

Where there is a similar situation but I think the R6 may retain an advantage even after crop, is in poorer light conditions. I tested this with birds. Specifically an owl nest. This isnt just a given or inherit issue when comparing FF to APSC, but it is when comparing an 80d to R6. Im not sure I will keep the opinion once I compare prints, but it looks pretty obvious that if we view equivalent fov with equivalent settings, once again in worse lighting conditions, the R6 maintains better detail than the 80d, even after I crop away so much of the image.

If I didnt find legitimate issues where one camera was better than the other in a given situation, I would not own an apsc at all probably. I would probably buy the R as a backup to my R6 instead of adding the R7. Or, really, if APSC cameras could reproduce all ff images, I would just keep less expensive apsc cameras. As it is, there are def situations I just cant reproduce a ff result with an apsc. No one can. Its physical limitations. There are also times, my ff cant reproduce what my apsc makes. I tend to find myself at the edges often - portraits with wide open apertures, landscapes with my widest lens, and we all know the balances in macro.

--
**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

Hello guys ,

I have a GM5 (Micro 4/3 ) with the very high ranked 12-32 kit lens. I have also an old Nikon D3200 ( APSC ) with the 18-55 VR II kit lens.

Today I made some tests and while sharpness can compare , the big difference is how the sensor reproduce light and dynamic . The images from the D3200 in a sunny landscape scene is much better , light in the leaves , colors depth , when you use the straight out of the camera Jpegs with no PP . Sure you can improve the GM5 results shooting raw , or by PP the jpegs by increasing hugely saturation , uplifting shadows , but even though I cannot really match the D3200 rendition. See below an example of the pics taken exact same time , same settings . The GM5 is at 200 iso as this is the lower it goes , it has an extended ISO where you can go down to 100 but it does not improve anything.

I have in order to have a fair comparison , I set the GM5 in 3:2 ( not 4:3) , which makes 13 Mpx instead of 16 Mpx , and the D3200 , took resolution down to Medium ( ie 13 Mpx instead of 24 Mpx) . Both camera picture control on standard , high dynamic off on GM5 , D lighting off on Nikon D3200 .

So on all tests I made , the GM5 images looks always flat and lacking color and light dynamic compared to the D3200.

I still think the GM5 is a great little camera as very small and light with great IQ , but those who tells me the Micro4/3 sensor produce indsitinguisable results as APSC unless very high ISO , I have some doubts as this is taken at very low ISO .

If you guys do not share this , please comment and provide examples.




GM5 , 12-32 mm at 18 mm. , in 3:2 ie approx 13 Mpx




Nikon D3200 , 18-55 VR II at 24 mm , medium not large , so 14 Mpx instead of 24 Mpx.

Throwing a complete monkey wrench into this theoretical discussion, I would suggest that the biggest advantage of APS-C or Micro 4/3rds is weight of the rig.

When shooting moving insects you can rarely use a tripod so the rig has to be hand held. I am often stabilizing the twig that the insect is sitting on with my left hand and shooting with my right. If you want to shoot for several hours with only your right hand, you have to have a camera with a great grip that is as light as possible or fatigue will send you inside and you won't make any images.

A 20 MP ACS-C Sony a6000 is going to take a much better image in the field than a FF camera that is too heavy and left at home.

When it all comes down to it, you have to get the camera that works for you.

Todd Council said:

Throwing a complete monkey wrench into this theoretical discussion, I would suggest that the biggest advantage of APS-C or Micro 4/3rds is weight of the rig.

When shooting moving insects you can rarely use a tripod so the rig has to be hand held. I am often stabilizing the twig that the insect is sitting on with my left hand and shooting with my right. If you want to shoot for several hours with only your right hand, you have to have a camera with a great grip that is as light as possible or fatigue will send you inside and you won't make any images.

A 20 MP ACS-C Sony a6000 is going to take a much better image in the field than a FF camera that is too heavy and left at home.

When it all comes down to it, you have to get the camera that works for you.

Click to expand...

May I suggest that the weight of the lens needs to be considered.

My Sony A7r2 weighs more than the a6000 but my FE 2.8/50mm Macro weighs just 8 oz/236 g.

It is not a problem to use the system with just the right hand.




Holding a branch to the side




Holding a flashlight at night



--
Richard

photojoe55 said:

Am I correct that in Macro work, the main advantage of Full Frame is due to the sensor size, (1:1 = 1:1 and it is simply quite a bit larger) and a main advantage of a smaller sensor like micro 4/3rds is an increased Depth of Field? If that is correct, would an even smaller sensor like in the FZ300 produce an even greater Depth of Field? Thank you in advance, …Joe

Click to expand...

In addition to what others have said, for the end user, M4/3 offers an additional advantage of saving bulk and weight. If you shoot a lot in the field, this might be important for you.

Full frame will likely always be a better light bucket system, so you have to weigh the tradeoffs. I believe you can get great results with both, tho I own neither lol. For now with my aging APSC system and a TG6 is adequate, tho I will probably upgrade soon to Olympus and get either the 60mm or the rumored 90mm..

Camrarat said:

photojoe55 said:

Am I correct that in Macro work, the main advantage of Full Frame is due to the sensor size, (1:1 = 1:1 and it is simply quite a bit larger) and a main advantage of a smaller sensor like micro 4/3rds is an increased Depth of Field? If that is correct, would an even smaller sensor like in the FZ300 produce an even greater Depth of Field? Thank you in advance, …Joe

Click to expand...

In addition to what others have said, for the end user, M4/3 offers an additional advantage of saving bulk and weight. If you shoot a lot in the field, this might be important for you.

Full frame will likely always be a better light bucket system, so you have to weigh the tradeoffs. I believe you can get great results with both, tho I own neither lol. For now with my aging APSC system and a TG6 is adequate, tho I will probably upgrade soon to Olympus and get either the 60mm or the rumored 90mm..

Click to expand...

I'd also argue that the Micro 4/3, specifically OM Systems seems to be putting more and more focus on the macro side of things with the 90mm PRO macro lens that's rumored. In addition, systems like Nikon and Sony do not have focus bracketing set up for their systems, so there are limitations there for macro unless you do some sort of burst and hope that you have some images to stack.

What I would like to see in the future from OM Systems for macro would be:

Focus Bracket mode for High Resolution 50mp images - up to 99 images focus bracketed (not stacking)

Focus stacking internal for up to 25 images (currently 15)

MC-20 Teleconverter compatibility with the new OM Systems 90mm Pro macro lens (without need of a 16mm modified extension tube to couple them together)