Reading mode: Light Dark

More pixels on your telephoto & macro subject with M43—Huh?

Go to last post
luxborealis said:
jjbinx said:
When you’re not limited by focal length

jj
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, when you’re not limited by focal length. But when you are, and a 100-400 is about the limit of your spending, then M43 will put more pixels on your subject than any FF camera. Which is what I stated.
Click to expand...
you selectively quoted me, editing out and ignoring the point I made about the high pixel count APS-C cameras.

I’ll restate my point and use a 100-400mm lens as an example since you’ve now brought it into the ‘conversation’ . . .

When I use my EF100-400mm with my Canon R7 shooting birds at a given distance I can put at least as many pixels on my subject as I could using a 100-400mm on my E-M1III. ie, at the same focal length my E-M1III offers no advantage to me in terms of pixels on subject.

Note that I’m only talking about ‘pixels on subject’ here.

jj
 
luxborealis said:
Couldn’t agree more about the mp race!! But, the pixel-peeping pundits earn their cash through clicks from the SoNiCan masses, the ‘bigger is better’ crowd who think ‘Why drive a Ford when I can drive a Ferrari’. The same lot who use a 20-foot ladder to scale a 10-foot wall.

There is no reasoning with them. They continue to pay a Full Frame Premium for megapixels that they throw away every time they use the file for anything smaller than a 16x20”.

And when full framers talk about cropping . . . DYK when your shooting at, say 400mm, and cannot get physically closer to your subject, maybe a bird, people don’t realize that the same subject that fills a 17.3x13mm M43 frame (5184x3888px), actually COVERS MORE PIXELS with an OM-1 than with a 60mp Sony at the same focal length from the same distance! It’s true—do the math.

Take that same 17.3x13mm and transpose it onto the 9504x6366 60mp Sony, measuring 35.7x23.8mm:

17.3mm / 35.7mm * 9504px = 4604px AND 13mm / 23.8mm * 6366px = 3640px

So with a 400mm lens on a Sony, you get 4604x3640px—fewer pixels on a small subject too far away to fill the frame of the Sony, but not for the OM-1. See illustration below. BTW, the Sony + 100-400mm is about $2K more expensive.

And with Nikon’s 46mp sensor, it’s an even fewer pixels: 3979x2993px; almost $3K more expensive—part of the Full Frame Premium.

Funny that, isn’t it?! More pixels with an M43. Love it!

Cheers,

Terry
______________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com

Put more pixels on your subject with M43!
Click to expand...
Since more than a year we have MFT cameras with 25MP and very good image quality, especially at ISO 100. Thus situation is even better (5760 x 4320 pixel) than you say, especially for tele and macro work (but not so with microscope lenses or wide lenses).
With a phone you may get even more pixel on the birds... it is not only about pixel count.
 
Last edited:
Does this forum need to rehash this topic. Good Grief the topic hits the front page weekly...

Go enjoy you gear and take pictures.

JJ
 
I use to pixel peep with my Sony full frame at 800% a while ago. Then I realized I'm driving myself crazy if I keep doing it. I decided to go take pictures instead.
 
SonyX said:
really? what about perfect framing? beautiful image like this one
Click to expand...
It is very simple - buy a zoom lens like 150-600mm. Then you can frame however you like.

But for most of the birders, the longer reach, the better it is.

Personally I use 300mm+MC-20 in most of the cases.
 
Last edited:
Toni Genes said:
SonyX said:
really? what about perfect framing? beautiful image like this one
Click to expand...
It is very simple - buy a zoom lens like 150-600mm. Then you can frame however you like.

But for most of the birders, the longer reach, the better it is.

Personally I use 300mm+MC-20 in most of the cases.
Click to expand...
Wow I'm just using a Super Multi Coated Takumar 200mm f4, with a C-210 TC attached to a couple of EM1.1's (Just Perfect!)... cost me less than 100 Euro for both lens and TC, pin sharp, and although Manual focusing only, with Peaking and proper knowledge of using a telephoto lens like focus bracketing and utilizing proper Depth of Field, everything is possible.
..
Personally I think the need for the latest and greatest is a bit of a fad, and in this age of hyper-commercialization, most consumers are being had.

--
Photography is poetry made visible; it is the art of painting with light!
 
Last edited:
Asherax said:
Toni Genes said:
SonyX said:
really? what about perfect framing? beautiful image like this one
Click to expand...
It is very simple - buy a zoom lens like 150-600mm. Then you can frame however you like.

But for most of the birders, the longer reach, the better it is.

Personally I use 300mm+MC-20 in most of the cases.
Click to expand...
Wow I'm just using a Super Multi Coated Takumar 200mm f4, with a C-210 TC attached to a couple of EM1.1's (Just Perfect!)... cost me less than 100 Euro for both lens and TC, pin sharp, and although Manual focusing only, with Peaking and proper knowledge of using a telephoto lens like focus bracketing and utilizing proper Depth of Field, everything is possible.
..
Personally I think the need for the latest and greatest is a bit of a fad, and in this age of hyper-commercialization, most consumers are being had.
Click to expand...
pls share some pin sharp images done with this combo. tnx
 
luxborealis said:
Couldn’t agree more about the mp race!! But, the pixel-peeping pundits earn their cash through clicks from the SoNiCan masses, the ‘bigger is better’ crowd who think ‘Why drive a Ford when I can drive a Ferrari’. The same lot who use a 20-foot ladder to scale a 10-foot wall.

There is no reasoning with them. They continue to pay a Full Frame Premium for megapixels that they throw away every time they use the file for anything smaller than a 16x20”.

And when full framers talk about cropping . . . DYK when your shooting at, say 400mm, and cannot get physically closer to your subject, maybe a bird, people don’t realize that the same subject that fills a 17.3x13mm M43 frame (5184x3888px), actually COVERS MORE PIXELS with an OM-1 than with a 60mp Sony at the same focal length from the same distance! It’s true—do the math.

Take that same 17.3x13mm and transpose it onto the 9504x6366 60mp Sony, measuring 35.7x23.8mm:

17.3mm / 35.7mm * 9504px = 4604px AND 13mm / 23.8mm * 6366px = 3640px

So with a 400mm lens on a Sony, you get 4604x3640px—fewer pixels on a small subject too far away to fill the frame of the Sony, but not for the OM-1. See illustration below. BTW, the Sony + 100-400mm is about $2K more expensive.

And with Nikon’s 46mp sensor, it’s an even fewer pixels: 3979x2993px; almost $3K more expensive—part of the Full Frame Premium.

Funny that, isn’t it?! More pixels with an M43. Love it!

Cheers,

Terry
______________________________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com

133238397e8744c3bb5a6cfb9ff7b9f4.jpg.png

Put more pixels on your subject with M43!
Click to expand...
Posts like this make me glad I shoot Full Frame as well. Imagine if this post was posted on open discussion or wildlife subpage and the comments that would generate. Flipping hell!

Anyway like I said in one of my threads, image quality + better low light shooting (Full Frame vs longer reach (M43).

This guy look like he like shooting Full Frame and not Om1.







--

Sean Miller’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
SonyX said:
is attached TC better solution than cropping from the hi-res image?
Click to expand...
MC-20 mounted on 300mm provides nearly the same IQ as the lens alone. So practically you don't loose IQ, but you loose 2 stops and the focus is a bit slower.

Here you can see a comparison in real world made by me: with TC 2X vs without TC. You can also see the 100% crops.

MC-20 comparison in the real world

A comparison from the real world : 300mm alone vs 300mm + MC-20. I added bellow the pictures in original size + 2 comparison crops at 100%. My findings : -there are more details in the picture done with MC-20; -the picture done with 300mm alone has moiree, while MC-20 does not have. OM-1...
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
 
Last edited:
Toni Genes said:
SonyX said:
is attached TC better solution than cropping from the hi-res image?
Click to expand...
MC-20 mounted on 300mm provides nearly the same IQ as the lens alone.
Click to expand...
https://www.lenstip.com/478.4-Lens_..._300_mm_f_4.0_ED_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html
Toni Genes said:
So practically you don't loose IQ, but you loose 2 stops and the focus is a bit slower.
Click to expand...
you loose sharpness, there is no magic
you loose 2 stops, you loose AF speed, you loose time to attach and remove converter
Toni Genes said:
Here you can see a comparison in real world made by me: with TC 2X vs without TC. You can also see the 100% crops.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4752268
Click to expand...
I see more details with TC, but I also see some CA and slight ghosting

--
Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy
 
Last edited:
LastLapPass said:
Does this forum need to rehash this topic. Good Grief the topic hits the front page weekly...

Go enjoy you gear and take pictures.

JJ
Click to expand...
 
I am completely relaxed. If others choose to buy FF gear because it suits what they wish to do then what is the issue? On the other hand if someone completely leaves the M4/3 format after being happy with what it does for FF sensor kit because it has become more fashionable and everyone says it is better then this is a pity.

So much of the quality of imaging is based on the operator skills and uprating kit usually does nothing much for the skills but usually just makes us luckier. Yes you can actually buy luck - I have more kit than I care to admit to (blush) and I have been quite lucky at times as even great M4/3 kit has an internal good luck charm concealed within it.

I will tell one of my little stories:

I had already bought some base M4/3 kit after being enamoured by the GM1 as a Ricoh GRD with a mount system. I fitted it up quite quickly with quality lenses - Olympus 12/2.0 Black Limited, Panasonic Nocticron 42.5/1.2 IS, and Panasonic 35-100 OIS. These lenses provided the greatest luck for the images made by my lowly GM1. :)

After expanding to the GX7 Metabones had offered electronic adapters fro EF-M4/3 and I had a number of EF lenses so I bought one of each - sincerely believing Brian Caldwell's* assertion that their Ultra Focal Reducer made every lens attached perform better.

Along the way I bought a few Sigma DC (aps-c) for their exotic specifications in EF mount (solely for use on M4/3 bodies). The Ultra adapter nicely put the full aps-c image circle on the 4/3 sensor. What was not to like with (say) a Sigma DC 18-35/1.8 super fast wide zoom on it and turning it into an equivalent 12.6-24.5/1.3 and still use the full aps-c image circle in the process? Once the 20mp sensor this and other combos were putting their images on 20mp 4/3 sensors. (Come the G9II this has changed to 25mp - but I don't make that much of it).

When I bought the 24mp S1 with FF to put my foot in the FF door I found that it was a pretty good camera. Somewhat on the large size but made great images with an assortment of pre-existing EF mount lenses. Obviously my Sigma DC EF mount lenses should be tried - auto crop adjusted to just 10mp of the S1 sensor they did their job well - giving me their aps-c equivalents on a cropped part of the FF sensor. The 18-35/1.8 became 27-52.5/1.8 - nothing to be sneezed at. The fact is that full image circle and 20mp 4/3 sensor contrasted to only 10mp crop sensor FF does not worry me and I have not even bothered to try to make a comparison. The images satisfy me and that is all I need.

I already had the lenses and the the adapters for EF-M4/3 and to get into the S1 and FF only required an EF-L electronic adapter and re-use the same EF lenses that I have kept in service since my dslr days.

To my way of thinking this was dabbling in FF on the cheap. M4/3 where I have another substantial investment in camera bodies and lens stock remains my first love. I don't compare between sensor sizes and I just enjoy what I have.

More pixels just mean more storage space for the files no matter what the sensor size.

Noteworthy Panasonic's camera body pixels for L-Mount have been restricted to the lower density of 24mp and only the S1R (47mp) packs more in.

* No relation

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Last edited:
LastLapPass said:
Does this forum need to rehash this topic. Good Grief the topic hits the front page weekly...

Go enjoy you gear and take pictures.

JJ
Click to expand...
Going by the history of this forum, apparently we do. We'll get another variant this week , and next week, and the week following that and it will keep on happening until we all just nod our heads and agree with the grumpy old men that full frame is just unnecessary waste and m4/3 is the sweet spot.
 
Last edited:
Tom Caldwell said:
More pixels just mean more storage space for the files no matter what the sensor size.

Noteworthy Panasonic's camera body pixels for L-Mount have been restricted to the lower density of 24mp and only the S1R (47mp) packs more in.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. No, it does not "just" mean more storage space for the files. It is more cropping latitude. It is more flexibility with what gear you may carry and what you choose to buy. It is more printing leeway. It is more detail for when the medium can accommodate it--8k will come eventually, even if it is only really a thing in East Asia at the moment.
 
unhappymeal said:
LastLapPass said:
Does this forum need to rehash this topic. Good Grief the topic hits the front page weekly...

Go enjoy you gear and take pictures.

JJ
Click to expand...
Going by the history of this forum, apparently we do. We'll get another variant this week , and next week, and the week following that and it will keep on happening until we all just nod our heads and agree with the grumpy old men that full frame is just unnecessary waste and m4/3 is the sweet spot.
Click to expand...
I used Nikon 1 for the longest time. Wonderful system, sadly many of the lenses had an issue with the aperture. I miss those great tiny lenses.

BTW - I'm young and happy.

JJ
 
LastLapPass said:
I used Nikon 1 for the longest time. Wonderful system, sadly many of the lenses had an issue with the aperture. I miss those great tiny lenses.

BTW - I'm young and happy.

JJ
Click to expand...
60FPS Phase detect J1 in London Olympics was terrific innovation. I recall sitting near some Pro photographers with their Canon Nikon photographing horse jumping. They couldn't believe what this tiny J1 could do when I showed some of them.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:
LastLapPass said:
unhappymeal said:
LastLapPass said:
Does this forum need to rehash this topic. Good Grief the topic hits the front page weekly...

Go enjoy you gear and take pictures.

JJ
Click to expand...
Going by the history of this forum, apparently we do. We'll get another variant this week , and next week, and the week following that and it will keep on happening until we all just nod our heads and agree with the grumpy old men that full frame is just unnecessary waste and m4/3 is the sweet spot.
Click to expand...
I used Nikon 1 for the longest time. Wonderful system, sadly many of the lenses had an issue with the aperture. I miss those great tiny lenses.

BTW - I'm young and happy.

JJ
Click to expand...
Such a sad tale. It could've been a wonderful system. We will probably never get anything like it again.
 
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:
LastLapPass said:
I used Nikon 1 for the longest time. Wonderful system, sadly many of the lenses had an issue with the aperture. I miss those great tiny lenses.

BTW - I'm young and happy.

JJ
Click to expand...
60FPS Phase detect J1 in London Olympics was terrific innovation. I recall sitting near some Pro photographers with their Canon Nikon photographing horse jumping. They couldn't believe what this tiny J1 could do when I showed some of them.
Click to expand...
60fps with 12 frames buffer... with buffer clearing time ± 10 second - a PRO photographer dream!
 
SonyX said:
you loose sharpness, there is no magic
you loose 2 stops, you loose AF speed, you loose time to attach and remove converter
Click to expand...
Do you have any experience with this combo ? Or your experience is related to what you read in the internet ?
I am using this combo in real life.
300mmm has excelent sharpness. When I mount MC-20, the sharpness is still very good, better than a zoom lens like 150-600mm especially when the subject it is far away.

SonyX wrote:

60fps with 12 frames buffer... with buffer clearing time ± 10 second - a PRO photographer dream!

I have a friend wich has a Sony A7IVR (60Mp) + 180-600mm.
He is frustrated because the lens is soft, the camera has rolling shutter, the focus is slow. It cannot keep up with fast subjects.

He wants to upgrade the camera, but there is no better&affordable Sony camera at this budget.

He wants to upgrade the lens, but there is no better&affordable Sony lens at this budget.

Are you using such system ? Or your experience is related to what you read from internet?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

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