My real world experiences with mft and FF

A_Mist · Feb 10, 2023

My real world experiences with mft and FF, which may or may not be helpful to some.

I’ve been shooting with mft (Olympus) since 2013 and Canon FF (R-mount) for a couple of years. I’ve used both systems both in professional and personal work. (I also have many years of experiences with Fuji apsc, lovely system but at the moment I’m fully Olympus/Canon shooter.)

My m43 gear is:

OM-1
PL 9mm f1.7
MZ 20mm f1.4
MZ 12-100mm f4

My Canon FF gear is:

R6 mk II
14-35mm f4L
50mm f1.2L
70-200mm f2.8L

I use m43 when I need absolute weather resistance, which I need quite a lot. It is also relatively light setup to carry for long periods, in hiking or in sports like cross-country skiing or snowboarding. In macro work (just sold 60mm macro and preordered 90mm Pro) m43 is perfect, due to 2x crop factor. And because of that, quite often I use m43 for studio work too, and in landscape photography.

I use Canon in portaiture, both in studio and outside, landscapes and low-light. Also perfect for video.

Both systems can do practically anything, as long as I keep the differences in mind and adapt my shooting to meet those criterias. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. I just happen to favor them in different use, for example I find it much easier to do macro shooting with m43 and portraiture with FF, but this doesn’t mean that they cannot be used in other ways - quite the opposite.

I enjoy so much using both systems.

My gear will have some changes though. I’ll sell RF 70-200/2.8L and buy M. Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 Pro. Why? This is because sometimes I much prefer mft over FF.

Shooting with FF equipment is easy, smooth and the results are excellent. Still, the advantages compared to smaller sensor are not as clear in real life as they are on paper. Of course, the AF focusing in my Canon is in a class of its own, but on the other hand, it sure has to be when we are often talking about a rather narrow DoF.

Which brings us to the actual point. For example, last time I shot wedding in a dim church, and especially when shooting in an even darker party place with a full-frame, I often had to reduce the aperture so that the depth of field was not too narrow. This means that the ISO value had to be raised. With the mft equipment, I can shoot wide open without worry, because DoF corresponds to twice as small FF aperture.

So, for example, with the RF 70-200/2.8, I often had to reduce the aperture to f5.6 in order to have everything needed in focus, while with the mft I would have ended up with the same at f2.8. But with at a lower ISO.

Of course, with FF, I can get narrower DoF when needed. How important is it? Not much for me, I usually want a bit of context around the subject. Sure, when I want it, I do have FF.

My point is, that I have noticed many times that in real life situations mft is at least as usable as FF for me. And nowdays when AI softwares like Topaz Denoise etc. are getting better and better, it is reducing the sensor size difference even more.

Every system is awesome these days. If you enjoy shooting mft, remember there’s not much you miss from FF world at the end of the day. And you also definitely get some cool things FF is missing.

David · Feb 10, 2023

A_Mist said:
Every system is awesome these days. If you enjoy shooting mft, remember there’s not much you miss from FF world at the end of the day. And you also definitely get some cool things FF is missing.

I think it is not so much the camera system you used, but rather it is the skill of the photographer behind the camera that create great photographs. I admit that FF brings more versatility in terms of narrow depth of field for certain portrait jaundra as well as the ability to get a 1 shot hi-res file (45-61MP) for certain needs for bigger prints. Otherwise, for most usage, MFT is more than adequate.

Speaking of wedding photographers. Just recently, I read an interesting news article about one of our local wedding photographers who claimed himself as being an award winning wedding photographer and he talked about what it would cost roughly $8000 to $10,000 to have the job done and he was taking deposit in the tune of $1500 and up and when he delivered the files to his clients, they were mostly out of focus — too shallow DOF and too slow of a shutter speed causing a ghosting effect as the bride and groom were dancing. When the clients complained and demanded their money back, he ghosted them. In the end, one client went to the local news outlet for help and the news outlet discovered that his website and his work weren’t his works. But I dug a little deeper and discovered that he did some modeling work before and it was somewhat clear that he liked really shallow DOF and clean files. That probably work on just 1 model in very very low light and while I am not sure how he got the awards from those shots, I suspect the clients were after those thin narrow DOF, but not realizing that in groups or in dynamic situations, you really want f/5.6 and higher and a higher shutter speed. Anyhow, the moral story is that they are people who shot mainly based on paper specs and when clients complained, they do not see why they should respond nor give them their money back. So you are right; sometimes you need need more DOF and sometimes you can’t shoot based on paper specs alone.

shinndigg · Feb 10, 2023

... comments! Thank you for sharing your experience.

glassoholic · Feb 10, 2023

The only time I really miss the ability to fully control background blur with m43 is with semi wide angle lenses at certain type focus and image type distances... like when shooting environmental portraits full length in landscape format. A m43 17mm f1.2 Pro helps, but can't give me what a FF 35mm f1.4 can. Even more so with a 28mm f1.4 FF scenario if trying to get the main subject to pop out from the background, yet still keep some context and recognition to the background... a (non existent) m43 14mm f1.4 would not give me what I want. Sometimes you want the viewer to see the famous, relevant or beautiful background enough to recognise and appreciate it, but not enough that the main (portrait) subject blends into it.

I would add a 300mm f4.0 m43 vs 600mm f4.0 FF for bird portraits scenario, for completely smearing out a background, but I would never afford or carry a 600mm f4.0.

The rest of the time, extra background control (blurring) with FF is a nice option but not seriously missed. I can also usually use a more telephoto lens and/ or move in closer if I need more blur.

pattymeboy · Feb 10, 2023

A_Mist

Thank you for your real world experience with mft and ff. I noticed that you use the PL 9mm f1.7. I would be curious to your impression of the lens. How does it fit into your shooting envelope of the mft?

Thanks in advance

sbu · Feb 10, 2023

Interesting post.

FF has an advantage when you want shallow DOF. I’m mainly shooting people with my 50 mm f1.4 and I don’t think I have stopped down aperture to less than 2.0f so far - so I’m firmly within a range MFT can’t offer most of the time.

I use MFT for tele. I think MFT is excellent for tele.

Landscapephoto99 · Feb 10, 2023

A_Mist said:
Every system is awesome these days. If you enjoy shooting mft, remember there’s not much you miss from FF world at the end of the day. And you also definitely get some cool things FF is missing.

A reasonable analysis.

A_Mist · Feb 10, 2023

pattymeboy said:
A_Mist

Thank you for your real world experience with mft and ff. I noticed that you use the PL 9mm f1.7. I would be curious to your impression of the lens. How does it fit into your shooting envelope of the mft?

Thanks in advance

As you can see from my gear list, it’s quite straightforwarded. I’ve cleaned it up and sold some, and kept only the ones I actually use. That said, 9mm/1.7 has earned it’s place. Awesome little weather sealed WA, so light it’s easy to take anywhere. Nevertheless it has basically perfect IQ, at least for my use. It also focuses really near, making it almost semi-macro. Oh, it also has unbeatable price (my cheapest lens actually).

Tommy S · Feb 10, 2023

A_Mist said:
My real world experiences with mft and FF, which may or may not be helpful to some.

...

My point is, that I have noticed many times that in real life situations mft is at least as usable as FF for me. And nowdays when AI softwares like Topaz Denoise etc. are getting better and better, it is reducing the sensor size difference even more.

Every system is awesome these days. If you enjoy shooting mft, remember there’s not much you miss from FF world at the end of the day. And you also definitely get some cool things FF is missing.

I have never shot any wedding, but I shoot action / sports and my experience with FF R6 F2.8 24-70 / 70-200 is very similar. For keeping more than one person in focus (e.g indoor karate kumite) I needed to go to F4, which bumps the ISO to 25600, making the pics barely usable without heavy AI processing.

Since I have OM-1 I tested it against R6 and for indoor sports / action it is much better option than FF, providing the fast MFT lenses are in use. There is no advantage of FF fast primes , when it is needed to stop it down to keep subjects in focus. Shallow DoF is much overrated. I see people post their portraits(ish) with fast primes, and all I see is exposed BOKEH, bc I cannot see anything (like model) more to admire.

As far as the great 40-150 F2.8 Pro it wins with 100mm of longer FL over FF, still being F2.8 so for indoor shooting, when light is good enough it is better solution. If 300 mm of 35mm FL is enough I prefer MFT over 100-400 F4.5, since the EV gain is 1.33, which makes some difference. The only situation, when MFT loses is when the light is of poor quality. This is the only situation FF wins here.

I have had more reasons to switch from FF to MFT considering my needs. R6 is a great camera, however OM-1 and the whole system brings much more to my table. And I do not think, OM-1 has reached the limit of in terms of IQ, so I expect it to be better and better.

memo90061 · Feb 10, 2023

You have some good lenses and cameras! I wish I could afford to have m43 and the Panasonic S5. I love Olympus colors and the smaller size of the lenses. I have been switching back and forth between the Olympus and the S5.

I would love to see your pictures taken with both cameras.

Tommy S · Feb 10, 2023

sbu said:
Interesting post.

FF has an advantage when you want shallow DOF. I’m mainly shooting people with my 50 mm f1.4 and I don’t think I have stopped down aperture to less than 2.0f so far - so I’m firmly within a range MFT can’t offer most of the time.

I use MFT for tele. I think MFT is excellent for tele.

Using 50 F1.4 I would never see two kumite fighters in focus.

sbu · Feb 10, 2023

Tommy S said:
sbu said:

Interesting post.

FF has an advantage when you want shallow DOF. I’m mainly shooting people with my 50 mm f1.4 and I don’t think I have stopped down aperture to less than 2.0f so far - so I’m firmly within a range MFT can’t offer most of the time.

I use MFT for tele. I think MFT is excellent for tele.

Click to expand...

Using 50 F1.4 I would never see two kumite fighters in focus.

d_chiesa · Feb 10, 2023

glassoholic said:
A m43 17mm f1.2 Pro helps, but can't give me what a FF 35mm f1.4 can.

Right on; exactly how i feel. That is the only situation where i miss my FF Canon; i actually had the f2 35mm.

So maybe after all, if i end up buying the 17mm 1.2 i'd get close enough... :-D

I have to stay away from forums and keep shooting with the 15mm 1.7.

A_Mist · Feb 10, 2023

memo90061 said:
You have some good lenses and cameras! I wish I could afford to have m43 and the Panasonic S5. I love Olympus colors and the smaller size of the lenses. I have been switching back and forth between the Olympus and the S5.

I would love to see your pictures taken with both cameras.

Here are some of my faves found in my phone from both mft and FF, in absolutely no order - sorry for the mess

(The girl in the pics is my 3yo daughter)

Tommy S · Feb 10, 2023

sbu said:
Tommy S said:

sbu said:

Interesting post.

FF has an advantage when you want shallow DOF. I’m mainly shooting people with my 50 mm f1.4 and I don’t think I have stopped down aperture to less than 2.0f so far - so I’m firmly within a range MFT can’t offer most of the time.

I use MFT for tele. I think MFT is excellent for tele.

Click to expand...

Using 50 F1.4 I would never see two kumite fighters in focus.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t want to get so close to them with my 50 mm - would probably use tele for that.

I like to be as close as possible. The longer the FL the more I feel I lose control of what I shoot.

My last indoor shooting, in poor light, with ISO 10000-12800 (at times 5000-6400, when the sun lurked inside), FF F2.8. MFT offers better lenses (PL 10-25 / 25-50 F1.7), so I could go with F2.0 (still 1 EV gain vs F2.8 FF) with bigger DoF (F4 FF eqv). From my test OM-1 at ISO 6400 is equal to ISO 12800 of R6.

--
Although Canon R6 beat Sony A9II, it was OM-1 which defeated Canon R6 ;-)
My photoblog http://justimpress.me

Xbot · Feb 10, 2023

Thanks for your reflections. I agree. I've shot both MFT and FF for quite some time now, but 90% ends up being MFT. This is because I shoot a lot of landscape/outdoor shots in marginal light. I can consistently hand-hold MFT a couple of stops slower than FF; and if I'm trying to match depth of field I end up stopping the FF down a couple of more stops. So, when handholding in marginal light I usually end up with 3-4 stop higher ISO on FF which pretty much negates any IQ benefits.

Were I willing to carry a tripod, then that could be avoided. But the whole point for me is to have to carry less gear.

I've also done direct comparisons with prints and up to 13x19-ish there's no meaningful difference in IQ. At much larger sizes, say 24x36 inches the higher megapixel FF cameras do have an advantage in detail--but it's only visible when viewed up close, and only noticeable when looking at them side by side. It makes no meaningful difference to the overall aesthetic value of the prints. (And who looks at prints side-by-side like that except overly anxious people like me!)

Nothing against FF. Any system can do anything amazingly well as long as the photographer knows what they're doing.

Tommy S · Feb 10, 2023

A_Mist said:
memo90061 said:

You have some good lenses and cameras! I wish I could afford to have m43 and the Panasonic S5. I love Olympus colors and the smaller size of the lenses. I have been switching back and forth between the Olympus and the S5.

I would love to see your pictures taken with both cameras.

Click to expand...

Here are some of my faves found in my phone from both mft and FF, in absolutely no order - sorry for the mess (The girl in the pics is my 3yo daughter)

This picture is a perfect example of too shallow DoF. I presume you must like it, however for me there are two areas in focus, which make it difficult to enjoy it. It is not my kind of pizza.

--
Although Canon R6 beat Sony A9II, it was OM-1 which defeated Canon R6 ;-)
My photoblog http://justimpress.me

pattymeboy · Feb 10, 2023

That's what I wanted to hear " That said, 9mm/1.7 has earned its place". Panasonic makes another sale with me! Thank you

Regor250 · Feb 10, 2023

@A_Mist: Your experience is very much what I always expected, thank you for sharing it with us.

There is a degree of misperceptions when it comes to DoF, and some seem to think shallow DoF is the sole purpose and main advantage of FF, but the reality is that it can play either ways.

I recently got the Sigma 56mm/1.4 (112mm f2.8 FF equivalent in FoW and DoF), which I am enjoying very much, but not accustomed to shallow DoF that Is a learning experience. For example, take the following 2 images, very dark environments, great to have the fast aperture. In the first example, F1.4, not very much is in focus actually, a few twigs and part of the stump (which I had to sharpen quite a bit), otherwise out of focus but it works nicely and would call it desirable in this case, but any less DoF would have been useless.

My second example, taken at F1.8 with Live ND handheld, I wanted the entire range to be in focus, something I wouldn't normally worry much about at F4 with my 12-45mm, so didn't cross my mind. I took 3 shots, not thinking much of it until I got home and looked more closely, none were all in focus, none (luckily) focused at the same distance. I ended up stacking all 3 images (not my initial intent) to achieve my intended result. The distance is only 20ft from near to far, yet, F1.8 was too narrow a DoF at 56mm. All that to say that razor thin DoF isn't the end all be all, nor do you need FF to achieve it when wanted.

--
Roger

A_Mist · Feb 10, 2023

Tommy S said:
A_Mist said:

memo90061 said:

You have some good lenses and cameras! I wish I could afford to have m43 and the Panasonic S5. I love Olympus colors and the smaller size of the lenses. I have been switching back and forth between the Olympus and the S5.

I would love to see your pictures taken with both cameras.

Click to expand...

Here are some of my faves found in my phone from both mft and FF, in absolutely no order - sorry for the mess (The girl in the pics is my 3yo daughter)

Click to expand...

This picture is a perfect example of too shallow DoF. I presume you must like it, however for me there are two areas in focus, which make it difficult to enjoy it. It is not my kind of pizza.

--
Although Canon R6 beat Sony A9II, it was OM-1 which defeated Canon R6 ;-)
My photoblog http://justimpress.me

While I usually don’t want that thin DoF, sometimes it creates dreamlike and almost surreal atmosphere, which can be desirable and which I tried to demonstrate with this example. It is not so easily achievable with mft, and I find it very nice effect if used rarely.

My real world experiences with mft and FF

Senior Member

David

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts