My real world experiences with mft and FF

plantdoc said:

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

Click to expand...

Oh, this forum lol.



Not sure if you have access to an Olympus camera with Hi-Rez mode. But if you do, are you telling me right now that if you take an image in regular mode, and then immediately the same exact image with the same settings in hi-res mode, you won’t see the difference on a 4K monitor? My high resolution images coming from my OM5 even look better on my damn iPhone. It’s not just dpi.

JKdad said:

plantdoc said:

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

Click to expand...

Oh, this forum lol.

Not sure if you have access to an Olympus camera with Hi-Rez mode. But if you do, are you telling me right now that if you take an image in regular mode, and then immediately the same exact image with the same settings in hi-res mode, you won’t see the difference on a 4K monitor? My high resolution images coming from my OM5 even look better on my damn iPhone. It’s not just dpi.

Click to expand...

I have MFT and Sony FE. For sure I can see a difference between 61Mpix and 20Mpix, 14 bit RAW etc on a 4k 32” monitor viewing a quarter of the image with the screen across a desk, ie filling my field of view.

Printed at 13” by 19”, I’m very doubtful I could see the difference. TVs are usually viewed at a distance.

Also the subject matter needs to have enough interesting detail that looking a bit closer makes sense. Landscapes can be like that, many other subjects not so much. I don’t regard looking closer at landscapes as pixel peeping, just as sub-plots and minor characters in novels are not unnecessary distractions.

Andrew

ahaslett said:

JKdad said:

plantdoc said:

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

Click to expand...

Oh, this forum lol.

Not sure if you have access to an Olympus camera with Hi-Rez mode. But if you do, are you telling me right now that if you take an image in regular mode, and then immediately the same exact image with the same settings in hi-res mode, you won’t see the difference on a 4K monitor? My high resolution images coming from my OM5 even look better on my damn iPhone. It’s not just dpi.

Click to expand...

I have MFT and Sony FE. For sure I can see a difference between 61Mpix and 20Mpix, 14 bit RAW etc on a 4k 32” monitor viewing a quarter of the image with the screen across a desk, ie filling my field of view.

Printed at 13” by 19”, I’m very doubtful I could see the difference. TVs are usually viewed at a distance.

Also the subject matter needs to have enough interesting detail that looking a bit closer makes sense. Landscapes can be like that, many other subjects not so much. I don’t regard looking closer at landscapes as pixel peeping, just as sub-plots and minor characters in novels are not unnecessary distractions.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Sure. Add in an extraordinarily bright sky, with a very shadowed area as your subject, and the difference becomes even more pronounced. I’m only making a point that certain people on this forum tend to downplay real differences in sensor size to support their bias and preferred truth.

Sounds like you are like me and use both formats like me.

I only call these things out because I don’t think it helps new folks choose gear.

JKdad said:

ahaslett said:

JKdad said:

plantdoc said:

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

Click to expand...

Oh, this forum lol.

Not sure if you have access to an Olympus camera with Hi-Rez mode. But if you do, are you telling me right now that if you take an image in regular mode, and then immediately the same exact image with the same settings in hi-res mode, you won’t see the difference on a 4K monitor? My high resolution images coming from my OM5 even look better on my damn iPhone. It’s not just dpi.

Click to expand...

I have MFT and Sony FE. For sure I can see a difference between 61Mpix and 20Mpix, 14 bit RAW etc on a 4k 32” monitor viewing a quarter of the image with the screen across a desk, ie filling my field of view.

Printed at 13” by 19”, I’m very doubtful I could see the difference. TVs are usually viewed at a distance.

Also the subject matter needs to have enough interesting detail that looking a bit closer makes sense. Landscapes can be like that, many other subjects not so much. I don’t regard looking closer at landscapes as pixel peeping, just as sub-plots and minor characters in novels are not unnecessary distractions.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Sure. Add in an extraordinarily bright sky, with a very shadowed area as your subject, and the difference becomes even more pronounced. I’m only making a point that certain people on this forum tend to downplay real differences in sensor size to support their bias and preferred truth.

Sounds like you are like me and use both formats like me.

I only call these things out because I don’t think it helps new folks choose gear.

Click to expand...

I thought that plantdoc was very specific about how they enjoy pictures. While there are members on both FE and MFT forums in denial about their real needs, plantdoc seems in tune with theirs. Depending on the nature of my outings, I use a range of kit.

DR at base ISO is also important but there are workarounds, familar to anyone who has used Foveon sensors.

On the FE forum there are some strange discussions about lenses, here about bodies (and sometimes lenses).

There seem to be an increasing number of dual-system MFT and FE owners. Two mounts with a huge choice of lenses and only a modest overlap between them in lens shooting envelopes. Finally Sony have decent IBIS and sensor cleaning, although I'm not upgrading just for that.

Just got my (used) 300/4 today and looking forward to testing it against my other teles. Already tried it with an MC14 and established that I can only just handhold a 420mm lens even with Dual IS. I need more resistance training, not just a return to anaerobic work. After a day of emptying the feeders yesterday, no birds at all today. Maybe better luck tomorrow. My wife has a list of occasional visitors she would like reference shots for.

Andrew

I can remember when 4Mp was thought amazing and all we might ever need and FF sensors were for the professional who could afford and arm and leg.

.... and yet the then ahead of its time Canon Pro90IS camera with an IS lens and (only) 2.6Mp was rejected as too expensive and Mp starved despite still being cutting edge compared to most if not all the new 4Mp breed. The Canon cameras that replaced the Pro90IS had sensors with more Mp at the dawn of the megapixel race were not as good but that was what the market wanted - like how many fairy-pixels can be fitted on the head of a pinhead-sensor?

Extra pixels sold compact cameras right up until the point of being ridiculous and then the Mobile Phone Camera appeared and that was that.

Lets just hope that the 4/3 sensor format that is quite capable can hold on long enough until the current fashion for everything large meets the face of market saturation.

Currently the sell word for the uninitiated has been FF sensor which has replaced the previous 'more megapixels' that was seriously promoted and worked.

Nothing basically wrong with FF but the reality might be that 4/3 can give everything that most photographers might need image wise.

Strange that we might exercise our inferiority complex regularity over sensor size as regards FF or even aps-c and then turn around and be very happy with an RX100 and a 1" sensor or be shocked rigid at the possibility of Mobile Phone Cameras destroying the M4/3 format.

If the 4/3 sensor no longer existed then would the insecurity then be transferred up the line to aps-c?

I've said this in a few threads before and I'll say again. MFT is the best for portraiture. MFT gives the speed and DOF required for results. I hardly shoot wide open on full frame as everthing is too blurry. You need to stop down to capture the detail of your subject.

There are additional benefits in NR and color you can sometimes see. Cleaner skies , smoother large expanses of water as if you used a slower shutter speed. I can always see some additional resolution on monitors. It isn't always as much as I expected and it doesn't always take a significantly better image. 20MP looks pretty good, enough resolution for me. There are some cases where I thought HRM was worth the effort. Not always.

Sometimes there is some situation that will see the limit of m43. For example, shooting my kid under dim light at night.
But you could solve this easily - just turn on another light.
I've borrowed the A74 with 24-70 GM2, and compare to 12-40 OM-1. The photo produced by them almost looks the same. Even my friend fail in the blind test.
However, if you look closer, even after downsizing the photos of A74 to 20MP,it is sharper with more detail. I think it is because downsizing does reserve detail and GM2 is a bigger glass with better resolution.
On the other side, you need to pay a lot for the resolution and sharpness , for example lost of great functionality (HHHR. LIVEND, AI detection, 120fps etc) and the price (in my market, the price of 24-70 GM2 is almost triple of 12-40).
Do I prefer FF? NO! The trade off is too big.
But do I miss A74? Yes! The eye detection and tracking is another level!
As a result, I would consider if they release new APSC camera that I may buy if solely for family photo.

EZGritz said:

There are additional benefits in NR and color you can sometimes see. Cleaner skies , smoother large expanses of water as if you used a slower shutter speed. I can always see some additional resolution on monitors. It isn't always as much as I expected and it doesn't always take a significantly better image. 20MP looks pretty good, enough resolution for me. There are some cases where I thought HRM was worth the effort. Not always.

Click to expand...

Resolution, DR at base ISO and 14 bit RAWs are my main reasons when shooting landscape. It all depends how you compose and what viewing conditions you are aiming for.

Andrew

I always think it's interesting how different systems can scale up/down, for instance on my FF body I could get/mount a 40/2.5 lens that's smaller than the 20/1.4 Pro (or even a 45/1.8 that's still a touch smaller) and an 18/2.8 lens that's in the same realm as the PL9/1.7, meanwhile there's a 28-200 super zoom with comparable IQ and size to the 12-100 but it misses out on the wide end (while gaining some speed, starts at f2.8).

At the same time, there's no modern internal zooming FF f5.6 tele that I know of, and no tele zooms of any kind which weigh as little and are as small as the Pana 35-100/2.8... Could make a similar argument in favor of the Oly 75/1.8, but I can't quite do so for the normal/wide M4/3 primes or the UWA zooms where a lot of the FF options are about the same size as the premium M4/3 ones (the 9-18 is another story).

I shoot both formats too and even tho I've ended up with a complete kit for both I actually went about it in quite a different way to leverage each one's strengths (more prime heavy on FF, more tele heavy on M4/3 now after shuffling and selling some stuff). I definitely think they can be quite complementary, in my case in a completely different way than yours, and that's cool.

Impulses said:

I always think it's interesting how different systems can scale up/down, for instance on my FF body I could get/mount a 40/2.5 lens that's smaller than the 20/1.4 Pro (or even a 45/1.8 that's still a touch smaller) and an 18/2.8 lens that's in the same realm as the PL9/1.7, meanwhile there's a 28-200 super zoom with comparable IQ and size to the 12-100 but it misses out on the wide end (while gaining some speed, starts at f2.8).

At the same time, there's no modern internal zooming FF f5.6 tele that I know of, and no tele zooms of any kind which weigh as little and are as small as the Pana 35-100/2.8... Could make a similar argument in favor of the Oly 75/1.8, but I can't quite do so for the normal/wide M4/3 primes or the UWA zooms where a lot of the FF options are about the same size as the premium M4/3 ones (the 9-18 is another story).

I shoot both formats too and even tho I've ended up with a complete kit for both I actually went about it in quite a different way to leverage each one's strengths (more prime heavy on FF, more tele heavy on M4/3 now after shuffling and selling some stuff). I definitely think they can be quite complementary, in my case in a completely different way than yours, and that's cool.

Click to expand...

I’m the same way. I use my EM10 with the 40-150 for long stuff. FF with primes for everything else.

Great Bustard said:

d_chiesa said:

To be fair, you can just close the aperture more on FF if you need or want more DoF. Shallow DoF is not inherent to the format.

Click to expand...

...how many simply either don't understand that or somehow think that's hard to do, for reasons that have never been explained to me (despite asking what the reason is).

Click to expand...

It’s because it doesn’t fit the narrative here that the little, noisy MFT sensor is just as good as bigger sensors because you can shoot with a bigger aperture and get the same DOF.



Those folks seem to think a FF sensor is terrible at F8 or so.



Bottom line is zoom here work really hard to justify MFT.



I love my MFT gear btw, but fully understand bigger sensors are generally better in many ways.



MFT has size.

I can see how your strategy can work pretty well for events when you take two cameras. I considered doing this myself but so far I'm satisfied with the results I get from M43 for everything and I use zooms more so it hasn't made sense for me to go FF with primes. I keep looking though.

EZGritz said:

I can see how your strategy can work pretty well for events when you take two cameras. I considered doing this myself but so far I'm satisfied with the results I get from M43 for everything and I use zooms more so it hasn't made sense for me to go FF with primes. I keep looking though.

Click to expand...

If I was a zoom guy, it would be MFT all day, every day.



I did have my EM 10 with me today along with my 17 mm, I was around lots of people, so I had a blast with that little combo.

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.

Great Bustard said:

Every system is awesome these days.

Click to expand...

For a fact!

Click to expand...

I agree in general!

Great Bustard said:

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...

I know that's just an example but it was actually the FF wides in large part that drew me to shoot both formats... There's no M4/3 8.5-14mm f1.4 (about the size of my PL8-18mm f2.8-4), no 17/0.7 (not much bigger than my 17/1.2 Pro, tho heavier), or 67/0.95 (kind of a splurge!), and even tho there's actually a 10.5/0.95 it's a little heavier, not as well corrected, pricier, and MF vs the AF 20/1.8 I bought (one of the first lenses I got actually).

OTOH I can't find a FF 135mm of any speed with AF (or w/o!) that's quite as small as the Oly 75/1.8 (even adapted vintage stuff doesn't quite manage it, ignoring the lack of AF), or teles that can compare to the 35-100 (either one, f2.8 or f4-5.6), or any short tele with as small a MFD as the 42.5/1.7...

For other stuff there's loads of overlap, my FF 11/4.5 doesn't look too different than the M4/3 6/2 (not shocking, thanks Laowa!). My FF 45/1.8 is about the size of my PL25/1.4, and the 24/2.8 is the size of the Oly 12/2 (and priced about the same as my refurb sample of that one). There's a little equivalent speed gain there but it isn't as significant to me as in the other instances.

Both systems can scale relatively well, which I really appreciate. Not all systems in similar formats can or will ever manage that. I didn't add FF gear just for the lenses tho, that wouldn't necessarily have been worth it, more like a combination of that + processing & cropping leeway + AF tracking.

Excellent analysis and comments. I switched over from film to digital about 10 years ago and my first digital camera was a GX7 with a really crappy kit lens. This was purely the result of what was available about a week before we went on an overseas vacation. I was tired of lugging tons of film and dealing with airport security to protect the film from damage. Next came Fuji for awhile and over the next 10 years I have switched between MFT and Fuji multiple times. I also acquired several digital Leica Ms with a respectable set of lenses. I have no explanation for the constant churn in my kit except for for some reason it began with digital.

Last year, because of age and health issues, I decided to let go of my Leica M kit and go back to M43 with my second GX9, four primes, and the 12-60mm kit lens. I have always been a prime user but now I'm considering putting the primes on the shelf for now and just shoot with the 12-60mm. If I like that, then I may change over to a two lens, 12-35mm and 35-100mm f2.8 kit with the GX9 or possibly a G9.

Interesting discussion. I think this would be a good place to ask my question.

MFT vs FF preference/superiority discussions seem to center on application, i.e. portraiture and bokeh, DOF for landscape, size and weight, etc. which makes sense.

What interests me is how things play out when printing. For example, I’ve come across several discussions regarding how large one can print an iPhone image and still get a “good” result. Most seem to conclude that it is somewhere between A2 and A4, though I have seen a couple even larger than that that looked fine to me.

Anyway, for those who use both what do you consider the upper limit of acceptable print size for your MFT system vs your FF system?

Is anyone aware of a source (www site, You Tube, etc.) that goes into this?

Thanks!

A_Mist said:

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...

Exactly! Funny how everyone just assumes that less DOF is always better, therefore FF is better. The larger sensor is only better for getting pixels, slightly more dynamic range (if light is available), and slightly less DOF (if the subject permits).

tm255 said:

Interesting discussion. I think this would be a good place to ask my question.

MFT vs FF preference/superiority discussions seem to center on application, i.e. portraiture and bokeh, DOF for landscape, size and weight, etc. which makes sense.

What interests me is how things play out when printing. For example, I’ve come across several discussions regarding how large one can print an iPhone image and still get a “good” result. Most seem to conclude that it is somewhere between A2 and A4, though I have seen a couple even larger than that that looked fine to me.

Anyway, for those who use both what do you consider the upper limit of acceptable print size for your MFT system vs your FF system?

Is anyone aware of a source (www site, You Tube, etc.) that goes into this?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

For me this is a subject dependent question.

Landscape can be viewed at any scale from a mountain range to leaves on a plant. You can't compose beyond your ability to see plus visualise detail from where you are standing. You can't see detail in the final image beyond the capability of the display medium to enable people to see it.

Some people argue that you should never compose landscape where the viewer can enjoy details at a lesser scale than the whole image but I don't share this opinion.

I use both MFT (for everything, handheld) and FF (for landscape on a tripod).

The advantages of FF for landscape are: resolution, DR (full well capacity) at base ISO, and 14 bit tonal representation. These only matter if the scene needs them, and you compose to use them.

I happened to take this with an FF camera, but it would actually have been easier with my MFT one.



I had a small MFT camera with me, when I took this and it might have been a small bit better with an FF one, but not so much that it really matters:


look at the aircraft in the middle

This image could not have been improved by using an FF camera, no matter how large you print it:


You are always going to stand back far enough to see the whole image

I don't print, but I'd say that 20" by 15" is a perfectly reasonable expectation for a 20Mpix MFT camera for even demanding landscapes. People have done blind print sharing tests where experienced photographers can't tell which type of body was used.

This image from an MFT camera was always going to be taken handheld and my personal opinion is that it would print fine at 20" by 15", maybe quite a bit larger.



I'm happy taking pictures of people with MFT. I defer to people with the skill to take portraits with very shallow DoF - there is a lot more to that than having the gear. In any case, environment matters to me when taking pictures of people - they are doing something somewhere that is part of my intent.

DoF is not a decisive issue for landscape - diffraction becomes an issue well before f22 on an FF lens, especially if you are thoughtfully using a higher resolution sensor. Composing to view large using a high resolution sensor is very different from viewing at small scale with a lower resolution sensor. You really have to think about where you place critical focus and how you want to manage focus fall off.

If you have a Tilt-Shift lens, that allows you to decide where to lay the plane of critical focus (using tilt), which provides a further degree of freedom (or something to think about when composing):


Here the plane of focus dips slightly from horizontal, which produces a different effect than where it is vertical - the shrub in the foreground and greenhouse in the background are both in focus, but the grasses below the plane of focus are not

Hope that helps.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

I don't know. MFT - pretty big. This is from an EM5.2. Not the best example because it's an early implementation of hires mode so it has some artifacts and ghosting of a truck chugging up a road. The current body would do better and a Panasonic better still because won't produce the ghosting or the artifacts. This has as many lines as a high-resolution FF camera does. Stacking in the camera improves the color fidelity and smoothes bodies of water and skies. Should help with the print. This is almost 64MP from an old body. How big would it print? Don't know. As big as a 64MP FF body. Can't use this mode for sports but you can for everything else. That isn't moving. On a tripod.

View attachment cb548d81971e4d648a1185cab7985046.jpg

These were handheld. 50MP. Should print as big as most single-shot FF images. They had a lot of detail in very dark shadows but very little noise. Cameras are getting better at this. You can see ghosting where people are walking around. FF is better at this but printed big at viewing distance you might not see the defects unless you put your nose on it. Use FF if you pixel peep or extreme crop. Hazy day in Seattle and some over long distances makes it tough for any camera I might have used. Sometimes the single 20MP image looks better but there are other attributes to these besides resolutions that will show up in the print.