Reading mode: Light Dark

My real world experiences with mft and FF

Go to last post
Well, for me the benefits of a light camera has become more important than image quality in 100% on screen - but the thing is, I actually like how "straight" the files from my Panasonic is - no quirks, no weird color, thus no need to tweak every color in post, its like you know what you get in comparison to the other cameras I have owned/own - Nikon D3, Nikon D600, Fujifilm X-T1, X-T100, X100F asf.. They all are more cumbersome to edit to a natural look than Panasonic raw files.

So, I seldom shoot in anything but daylight, continous LEDs or with flash so rarely need to go over iso 800 which I find perfectly fine for all my commercial work and personal work.

Of course the dynamic range is not on par with some of the FF sensors, but you know, it does not matter if a raw file has good dynamic range if it is not a good photograph - and a really good photograph is judged by its content, story and impact, not by its technical qualities.
 
Thanks for sharing I went ff- befor Olympus was sold off, canon r Sony a7 riii lieca q2 , but beyond pure image quality I just prefer oly in use, hopefully Om digital keep quality standards up . It’s surprising how many photographers assume mft is a rubbish system mainly because of bias , forums or just plain ignorance enjoy what you’ve got
 
Great Bustard said:
Here's the way I like to look at it: would you like a 35-100 / 1.4 for mFT? FF has the equivalent today. What about "just" a 35-100 / 2? FF has the equivalent today. ISO 25? FF has the equivalent today. How about 50 MP? FF has it today. Don't need any of it? Or would be interested but it's too big/heavy/expensive? Then for the most part, FF doesn't really have anything to offer you that mFT won't do nicely and even better, all at a smaller size, weight, and price.
Click to expand...
True. MFT offers better zoom lenses for low light than FF can offer. And if one does their math correctly, suddenly they can discover, that MFT is just a tiny bit smaller than Canon's APS-C.
 
Great Bustard said:
A_Mist said:
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.
Click to expand...
...if you have to shoot the same DOF and exposure time, you do give up the noise advantage that FF would otherwise have. However, shooting the same DOF and exposure time on FF as mFT doesn't put FF at a disadvantage.

For example, let's say you needed f/5.6 to get the desired DOF and 1/200 to mitigate motion blur with FF and you could get the same using f/2.8 1/200 on mFT. So you shot your R6 using, say, 100mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 6400 whereas you would have used 50mm f/2.8 1/200 ISO 1600 on your OM1. Neither enjoys an advantage over the other, with regards to noise, DOF, and motion blur with these settings.
Great Bustard said:
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.
Click to expand...
For sure, if your typical use of FF is with the same DOF and exposure time as with mFT, then the noise advantage of FF will be lost.
Great Bustard said:
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.
Click to expand...
The sensor size difference is the same as always, it's just that the difference doesn't mean as much for as many people. For example, 100 HP vs 50 HP is a big deal. 200 HP vs 100 HP is still a big deal, but not as much. 400 HP vs 200 HP doesn't really matter for most people. And 800 HP vs 400 HP would only make a difference for a small minority, and, in terms of the analogy, I think that's where FF vs mFT is today.

In short, the difference between FF and mFT is the same as ever, but as we climb up the hardware/software ladder, the practical difference for the photography most people do becomes less and less relevant.
Click to expand...
Well said Joe. There is more to it than just the sensor - on one hand we worry about 'computational photography' with 'free' mobile phone cameras (MPC). On the other hand we also worry about the advantages of larger sensors.

It is standard practice for all wannabe photographers to wannahave the very best kit in their hands. But in reality if ends up hingeing off 'good enough for purpose'. Does your gear satisfy the main amateur shooter's audience? ie: themselves .... :)

If we rumble back through our memory banks we might remember sensors as -

2mb - fantastic

4Mb - twice as fantastic

8Mb - twice as fantastic again

12Mb - 50% more fantas

16Mb - 33% even more fantas

20Mb - 25% more - get the drift

25Mb? - 20% more and the laws of diminishing returns are surely kicking in

Without lapsing into comparing physical sensor size we can see your horsepower equation kicking in. My first (aps-c) dslr D60 had just 4Mb as far as I remember (but call it '6Mb' as it hardly matters at this point in time) and even the lauded 5D FF dslr which I used happily for more than 10 years only had 12Mb to play with.

We also give scant attention to the processing engines that camera gear manufactures loudly trumpet but get blank looks from their loyal users and are perhaps impossible to rate between each other. This is the mass of supplementary processing hardware and firmware that makes the imaging work between click and the finished image that we admire. We could call it akin to the computational processing on MPC images that some seem to see as a threat.
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Every system is awesome these days.
Click to expand...
For a fact!
Great Bustard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here's the way I like to look at it: would you like a 35-100 / 1.4 for mFT? FF has the equivalent today. What about "just" a 35-100 / 2? FF has the equivalent today. ISO 25? FF has the equivalent today. How about 50 MP? FF has it today. Don't need any of it? Or would be interested but it's too big/heavy/expensive? Then for the most part, FF doesn't really have anything to offer you that mFT won't do nicely and even better, all at a smaller size, weight, and price.
Click to expand...
if my eyes don't see the difference then M4/3 is fine. I do have FF sensor kit but M4/3 is always my go-to kit as it is so pleasant to use and the images are quite good enough for my purpose. I don't see much advantage in my FF 5Ds dslr with its 51Mb. But I might if I had enough photographic wit to examine it closely. 800Hp can burn a lot of rubber if required to do so. So much detail might more clearly demonstrate my lack of technique :)

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Last edited:
Tom Caldwell said:
Great Bustard said:
A_Mist said:
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.
Click to expand...
...if you have to shoot the same DOF and exposure time, you do give up the noise advantage that FF would otherwise have. However, shooting the same DOF and exposure time on FF as mFT doesn't put FF at a disadvantage.

For example, let's say you needed f/5.6 to get the desired DOF and 1/200 to mitigate motion blur with FF and you could get the same using f/2.8 1/200 on mFT. So you shot your R6 using, say, 100mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 6400 whereas you would have used 50mm f/2.8 1/200 ISO 1600 on your OM1. Neither enjoys an advantage over the other, with regards to noise, DOF, and motion blur with these settings.
Tom Caldwell said:
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.
Click to expand...
For sure, if your typical use of FF is with the same DOF and exposure time as with mFT, then the noise advantage of FF will be lost.
Tom Caldwell said:
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.
Click to expand...
The sensor size difference is the same as always, it's just that the difference doesn't mean as much for as many people. For example, 100 HP vs 50 HP is a big deal. 200 HP vs 100 HP is still a big deal, but not as much. 400 HP vs 200 HP doesn't really matter for most people. And 800 HP vs 400 HP would only make a difference for a small minority, and, in terms of the analogy, I think that's where FF vs mFT is today.

In short, the difference between FF and mFT is the same as ever, but as we climb up the hardware/software ladder, the practical difference for the photography most people do becomes less and less relevant.
Click to expand...
Well said Joe. There is more to it than just the sensor - on one hand we worry about 'computational photography' with 'free' mobile phone cameras (MPC). On the other hand we also worry about the advantages of larger sensors.

It is standard practice for all wannabe photographers to wannahave the very best kit in their hands. But in reality if ends up hingeing off 'good enough for purpose'. Does your gear satisfy the main amateur shooter's audience? ie: themselves .... :)

If we rumble back through our memory banks we might remember sensors as -

2mb - fantastic

4Mb - twice as fantastic

8Mb - twice as fantastic again

12Mb - 50% more fantas

16Mb - 33% even more fantas

20Mb - 25% more - get the drift

25Mb? - 20% more and the laws of diminishing returns are surely kicking in

Without lapsing into comparing physical sensor size we can see your horsepower equation kicking in. My first (aps-c) dslr D60 had just 4Mb as far as I remember (but call it '6Mb' as it hardly matters at this point in time) and even the lauded 5D FF dslr which I used happily for more than 10 years only had 12Mb to play with.

We also give scant attention to the processing engines that camera gear manufactures loudly trumpet but get blank looks from their loyal users and are perhaps impossible to rate between each other. This is the mass of supplementary processing hardware and firmware that makes the imaging work between click and the finished image that we admire. We could call it akin to the computational processing on MPC images that some seem to see as a threat.
Tom Caldwell said:
Tom Caldwell said:
Every system is awesome these days.
Click to expand...
For a fact!
Tom Caldwell said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here's the way I like to look at it: would you like a 35-100 / 1.4 for mFT? FF has the equivalent today. What about "just" a 35-100 / 2? FF has the equivalent today. ISO 25? FF has the equivalent today. How about 50 MP? FF has it today. Don't need any of it? Or would be interested but it's too big/heavy/expensive? Then for the most part, FF doesn't really have anything to offer you that mFT won't do nicely and even better, all at a smaller size, weight, and price.
Click to expand...
if my eyes don't see the difference then M4/3 is fine. I do have FF sensor kit but M4/3 is always my go-to kit as it is so pleasant to use and the images are quite good enough for my purpose. I don't see much advantage in my FF 5Ds dslr with its 51Mb. But I might if I had enough photographic wit to examine it closely. 800Hp can burn a lot of rubber if required to do so. So much detail might more clearly demonstrate my lack of technique :)
Click to expand...
 
I’m selling off my last bit of APSC gear today (Fuji) and am sticking with my Olympus MFT and as of yesterday, my Sony A7RV.



My OM5 and EM10 take great pictures and are so small and fun to use. Much better than Fuji imo.



But I shoot lots of street and I love high DR scenes (bright skies and dark alleys in the same shot) and that’s where my FF experience is vastly different from MFT. That’s where the difference is night and day, pun intended.



Also, this damn AF on my new Sony is ridiculous. You have to try it to believe it.



But, when I’m up close and around people, it’s my MFT gear. Also, when I need a pretty long zoom, it’s MFT.



I get the best of both worlds

The good thing is my EM10 IV with the 17mm is so light that it’s almost like I don’t have a second camera in my bag.
 
Griff X said:
Hi everyone:

I too am considering between MFT and FF and I couldn't help but noticed some of the MFT samples posted on here seemed a bit blotchy at times and details could have been better resolved. Am I being deceived by webpage compression or I need my eyes checked, or better yet, visit the crazy house?
Click to expand...

No, you’re not crazy. Other than DOF, noise and DR, there are other advantages with bigger sensors that you can’t see on a chart.



There’s more to resolution than how many megapixels are on a sensor.



If you take a MFT and FF sensor, both with 20 mp, same lens quality and settings, the FF image will be cleaner and have better resolution. That’s why the FF file will be considerably larger even though it’s the same number of megapixels. More light = more information.



That said, I find MFT files are plenty good in many cases.
 
JKdad said:
Griff X said:
Hi everyone:

I too am considering between MFT and FF and I couldn't help but noticed some of the MFT samples posted on here seemed a bit blotchy at times and details could have been better resolved. Am I being deceived by webpage compression or I need my eyes checked, or better yet, visit the crazy house?
Click to expand...
No, you’re not crazy. Other than DOF, noise and DR, there are other advantages with bigger sensors that you can’t see on a chart.

There’s more to resolution than how many megapixels are on a sensor.

If you take a MFT and FF sensor, both with 20 mp, same lens quality and settings, the FF image will be cleaner and have better resolution. That’s why the FF file will be considerably larger even though it’s the same number of megapixels. More light = more information.

That said, I find MFT files are plenty good in many cases.
Click to expand...
I also noticed that some of the MFT pictures published here and there are blotchy, or plasticky pixelated. I always try to check the EXIF but my general conclusion is, these questionable pics are either cropped or denoised heavily.

YMMV
 
Tommy S said:
JKdad said:
Griff X said:
Hi everyone:

I too am considering between MFT and FF and I couldn't help but noticed some of the MFT samples posted on here seemed a bit blotchy at times and details could have been better resolved. Am I being deceived by webpage compression or I need my eyes checked, or better yet, visit the crazy house?
Click to expand...
No, you’re not crazy. Other than DOF, noise and DR, there are other advantages with bigger sensors that you can’t see on a chart.

There’s more to resolution than how many megapixels are on a sensor.

If you take a MFT and FF sensor, both with 20 mp, same lens quality and settings, the FF image will be cleaner and have better resolution. That’s why the FF file will be considerably larger even though it’s the same number of megapixels. More light = more information.

That said, I find MFT files are plenty good in many cases.
Click to expand...
I also noticed that some of the MFT pictures published here and there are blotchy, or plasticky pixelated. I always try to check the EXIF but my general conclusion is, these questionable pics are either cropped or denoised heavily.

YMMV
Click to expand...
 
As long as it doesn't push the ISO up too much or the shutter speed down too much. The light-gathering advantage of the larger sensor goes away. In enough light, it does not matter.
 
Choose your MFT lenses carefully. Some highly regarded ones make sharp images but sometimes ugly out-of-focus backgrounds. In OLY/OMS the more recently developed are better.
 
All systems are improving. Eyesight is constant. It's like a runner jumping hurdles. You only have to get over them. How much higher above them doesn't matter. The rest is art.
 
EZGritz said:
As long as it doesn't push the ISO up too much or the shutter speed down too much. The light-gathering advantage of the larger sensor goes away. In enough light, it does not matter.
Click to expand...
The light advantage from a larger sensor never really goes away. The more light used to compose the same image, the better. The more light, the larger the file, the larger the file, the better the resolution, assuming around equal megapixels.
 
Not enough attention is paid to image processors. The faster they are the better the final image will be. They are processing time-restricted.

As long as I don't have to crop 2MP is enough. I can use my ancient C2100 if I want to but it can't go over ISO400. At ISO800 it might not focus in shadows and would be too grainy.

This is silly but one site I freelance for considers itself to be high quality and requires 2000 lines on the long side. I can sell them photos taken with a 20+-year-old 10X zoom compact camera worth maybe $20. I need to do it for fun. I don't think the operations people would say anything. They just lay out articles. I sent them a batch of 20MP photos recently. They complained and asked me to resize and resend them. Too big! Don't do that again!

For email attachments and social sharing with friends, 2MPs are big enough for monitors and for me even though my monitor is 2500X1500. If I limited to 4MP it would stop me from pixel peeping and that might be a good thing. Not for prints but generally 5MP is enough for everything else.
 
You give up something. Weight/size, speed or both. The longer the FL the greater the delta. Little to nothing is gained.
 
When OLY had a loner program the local store told me some people who borrowed an EM1.3 said they didn't know you can make a good photo with an M43 sensor camera.

I knew someone who bought a D90 back in the day and took a photo of something he wanted to print as a label. He owned the print shop. It was important so I asked him if he wanted to use the LCD to see if he took a good image. He asked me, "Is that what the LCD is for?"

A lot of people do not know a lot about cameras, even when they own them. Nikon and Canon sold a lot of entry-level DSLR kits to people who thought they had to have one, hardly ever used them, and used them as a P&S. I bet you can buy most of them at garage sales for $20 with less than 1,000 shots on the shutter.

It's easy to see how a simple comment like - "You can't make a good photo with a Micro Four Thirds camera because the sensor is too small" was widely believed by most DSLR owners, including ASP-C camera owners even those who also used compact cameras with sensors smaller than 1" and thought they were great. Most people don't take photography seriously enough to invest the time to learn about it. They just want a photo.

As time goes on there will be fewer who do understand cameras because their only experience with them will be cell phones.

It's unfortunate that naming the system Micro Four Thirds was a world-class marketing blunder that labeled the system less capable than it ever was compared to larger sensor cameras. The system might just be climbing out of the hole bad branding put it in.

It looks that way in this forum where the narrative has changed significantly but how about the Nikon, Canon, SONY, and Fuji forums? I don't go there because I don't have one. Would I still find the people who post there think you have to have a full-frame sensor?

Full Frame. Good branding. Why is it a standard to be measured against other than 35mm was/is a general purpose professional film standard?
 
EZGritz said:
When OLY had a loner program the local store told me some people who borrowed an EM1.3 said they didn't know you can make a good photo with an M43 sensor camera.

I knew someone who bought a D90 back in the day and took a photo of something he wanted to print as a label. He owned the print shop. It was important so I asked him if he wanted to use the LCD to see if he took a good image. He asked me, "Is that what the LCD is for?"

A lot of people do not know a lot about cameras, even when they own them. Nikon and Canon sold a lot of entry-level DSLR kits to people who thought they had to have one, hardly ever used them, and used them as a P&S. I bet you can buy most of them at garage sales for $20 with less than 1,000 shots on the shutter.

It's easy to see how a simple comment like - "You can't make a good photo with a Micro Four Thirds camera because the sensor is too small" was widely believed by most DSLR owners, including ASP-C camera owners even those who also used compact cameras with sensors smaller than 1" and thought they were great. Most people don't take photography seriously enough to invest the time to learn about it. They just want a photo.

As time goes on there will be fewer who do understand cameras because their only experience with them will be cell phones.

It's unfortunate that naming the system Micro Four Thirds was a world-class marketing blunder that labeled the system less capable than it ever was compared to larger sensor cameras. The system might just be climbing out of the hole bad branding put it in.

It looks that way in this forum where the narrative has changed significantly but how about the Nikon, Canon, SONY, and Fuji forums? I don't go there because I don't have one. Would I still find the people who post there think you have to have a full-frame sensor?

Full Frame. Good branding. Why is it a standard to be measured against other than 35mm was/is a general purpose professional film standard?
Click to expand...
No, folks in those forums don’t waste time justifying their choices like many do here.



Nobody needs FF and nobody needs MFT.

Does FF do many things better? Of course. Do I still use MFT for the size/weight advantage even though I know bigger sensors collect more light which has real benefits? Yep.
 
My judgement between FF and m 4/3 or even apsc isn’t what I can see on a big high rez monitor or pixel peeping but the final output viewing of the images. For post processed images in 13 x 19 prints or 55 in tv I can’t see a significant difference. So why carry larger, heavier more expensive. Even 30 year color slides projected with a high quality projector and lens and 60 in screen look very good.

greg
 
A few years ago I shot an auto Concours with a 20MP camera and took the photos to a friend's house to display on his 4K 65" TV monitor.

I expected great things but didn't see them. The reason I concluded, was that you view a 65" monitor from multiples of feet further away than you do a 32" monitor.

The detail in the photos is presented on the 65" monitor but my eyes could not see it because I sat too far away.

There is some ratio between the resolution of the monitor or print and your eyes beyond which more resolution spread over a bigger surface does not improve the image because you view it from further away. I don't know what the ratio is but I know it when I see it.

A roadside billboard is an extreme case where it looks great from the road but standing next to it the pixels are the size of saucers. They used to be printed 50DPI. Would they look better from the road if they were printed 300DPI? I doubt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeroen1969
Personal Deep investigation in the MFT vs FF everlasting debate
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
890
cba_melbourne
cba_melbourne
Rene Gr
Picking up my GX85 MFT again
Replies
4
Views
5
Keit ll
K
D
M43 vs Full Frame real world
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
150
HicHic
HicHic
faunagraphy
  • Question Question
Rent FF prime + body to use alongside M43?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
James Stirling
James Stirling
manso
Pulled the Trigger on S5II - Goodbye MFT? (Maybe Not 😅)
Replies
6
Views
4K
memo90061
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top