Not sure what you're trying to show me. Looks like a total light comparison between MFT and FF. Seems like you're trying to suggest that total light and exposure are the same thing -- seriously faulty thinking then.Quite right never let facts in the way of a good m43 vs FF post
OM-1 200 base ISO , Z6 II 800 ISO 100%
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Shoot with both M4/3 and Full Frame, or even APS-C
- Thread starter Lepewhi
- Start date
I shot with both full frame and APS-C. I'm a wildlife photographer and that means most photos get cropped, which means I also shoot with m43.
From 2018 to 2024, my primary wildlife and bird kit was APS-C. It had better autofocus, burst rate, buffer, controls & build quality than the full frame camera it replaced.
Last year, I upgraded to a full frame kit for wildlife. Again, the new system came with improved autofocus, a faster burst rate and better controls. The new camera also has greater resolution. I also upgraded my primary lens to one that delivers the same framing as the zoom I used with the APS-C body. However, the new lens collects and delivers a full stop more light from the subject to the sensor so image quality is improved.
I have a second APS-C camera system that's been my primary travel & backpacking kit since 2017. It's the smallest & lightest kit I have. I enjoy that and its old school user interface.
The camera you use is really about your needs & interests. Any system from m43 to medium format can be used to make great photos. The key is to find the one that's the best match for you.
My approach to photographing wildlife and birds is to go to a location where I've seen animals and the light will be good. I arrive before the animals, so I can already be in position when they arrive. In short, I let my subjects come to me and they often come pretty close.
I encourage you to work on developing your fieldcraft to be safely near your subjects without being a disturbance. Also, set a threshold for the largest, heaviest kit you'll be comfortable packing to and from your favorite photo locations. Don't cheat yourself on this. If you're hauling a kit that's too heavy, it will become an impediment to you getting out as often as you'd like.
When you've settled on a format, identify the lens you want to build your kit around. Bear in mind, it's the size of a lens's entrance pupil that determines how much light it collects from the subject. A 300mm f/4 lens is faster than a 500mm f/5.6 optic. However the 500mm lens's 89mm diameter entrance pupil collects 40% more light from an animal or bird in the frame.
If you go with the longer slower lens, you'll enjoy a light-gathering and noise advantage in many scenarios. If you go with the 300mm f/4 and pair that with well-developed fieldcraft, you'll be better able to fill the wider frame with a desirable composition. But if you end up TC'ing the 300 or cropping those photos to match a framing the 500 would've provided, you'll be giving up a bit of image quality for portability.
There's nothing wrong making that choice. Many photographers prioritize portability over image quality. A comparison of EP diameters enables an informed decision.
Get the system that's the best fit for you, and then be brutally honest with yourself about which aspects of your fieldcraft need the most attention to take a deficit and convert it to a strength.
Good luck.
--
Bill Ferris Photography
https://billferrisphotography.pixieset.com/arizonaslittleserengeti/
Last edited:
James Stirling
Forum Pro
I will repeat it again if you want the same end result same diagonal AOV, same DOF /subject isolation same total light gathering . That is exactly what you get if you need to bump the ISO and aperture on the FF shot to get the same shutter speed . Equivalence has been explained here 1000's of times it is an incredibly simple, though some here would make you think it is advanced mathematics. The exposure calculator shows the result of shooting at both settings. The Dpreview samples show that the noise difference between ISO 200 on m43 and ISO 800 on FF to be near identicalNot sure what you're trying to show me. Looks like a total light comparison between MFT and FF. Seems like you're trying to suggest that total light and exposure are the same thing -- seriously faulty thinking then.Quite right never let facts in the way of a good m43 vs FF post
OM-1 200 base ISO , Z6 II 800 ISO 100%
I cannot make the explanation any more basic without dropping to pre school level which some seem to take offence at when their deeply faulty thinking is questioned . The settings I state above will give near identical results . Try it you stated you have FF assuming it is a modern FF camera try shooting the FF at the same shutter speed and DOF as your m43 ( some call this equivalent )
--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
James Stirling
Forum Pro
If I am shooting portraits wide open the difference regarding rendering and DOF is obvious. If you stop the lenses down the differences are much less noticeable assuming shooting in decent light. If you have a high MP FF body the detail difference is also noticeable also if pushing or pulling parts of the scene the FF image will give you a bit more leeway ( for landscapes etc )
Phone camera users can argue the same with small sensor P&S who can argue the same with 1" sensor users and so on all the way up to those £60,000 phase one beasties
Shot only m43 for years, but wanted better high iso performance for available light events, and Tamron came out with their 35-150f2-2.8 zoom only in E-mount, so I bought a Sony A1 to use with the lens I wanted. The A1 is a fine camera, but the m43 gear is close in good light.
But I shoot a lot of video, and wanted to get away from the 30 min time limit and external recorders I was using with the EM-5iii and EM-1iii cameras, so, I bought two S5iiX's primarily for long run video and some low light stills. Main drivers: internal fans and low cost. But the Lumix FF are also good stills cameras and, for me, more enjoyable to shoot with, so I expanded my L-mount lens collection out to 200mm + a 1.4x TC.
But I still use the m43 cameras for wildlife including insects, so now I tend to use m43 with the longer focal length lenses and FF in the mid and wide angle focal length ranges. I still shoot high mp stills with the Sony A1 and Tamron 35-150 but my go to for FF is now the S5iiX, soon to be supplemented with an S1ii, maybe. And I have added a G9ii to the OM-1.1 as a backup for the long lenses, and I've kept an E-M1X as a shop camera. In other words, I have more gear than I need, both m43 and FF.
Joe L
But I shoot a lot of video, and wanted to get away from the 30 min time limit and external recorders I was using with the EM-5iii and EM-1iii cameras, so, I bought two S5iiX's primarily for long run video and some low light stills. Main drivers: internal fans and low cost. But the Lumix FF are also good stills cameras and, for me, more enjoyable to shoot with, so I expanded my L-mount lens collection out to 200mm + a 1.4x TC.
But I still use the m43 cameras for wildlife including insects, so now I tend to use m43 with the longer focal length lenses and FF in the mid and wide angle focal length ranges. I still shoot high mp stills with the Sony A1 and Tamron 35-150 but my go to for FF is now the S5iiX, soon to be supplemented with an S1ii, maybe. And I have added a G9ii to the OM-1.1 as a backup for the long lenses, and I've kept an E-M1X as a shop camera. In other words, I have more gear than I need, both m43 and FF.
Joe L
I love my 50s but never got around to the mkI. In case it helps and since I'm curious now I'll compare the 25 F1.4 mkII to the Olympus 25 F1.8 since it's on the camera right now. But I also have a Sigma 30 F1.4 so just let me know if that would be a benchmark that you'd be more familiar with.How do you find the AF speed? If you had the mk i I before, how much better is it?
(Asking for a friend).
So in my unscientific test going from ~1.5 to 10 feet back and forth I'd say the Olympus feels roughly twice as fast as the PanaLeica 25 F1.4 II BUT we're comparing a small fraction of a second (under half) with the PanaLeica to an even smaller fraction of one with the Olympus.
I'm sure there are edge cases where this will matter but I've shot some pretty active acts with both back to back and didn't notice a huge difference in the keeper rate.
James Stirling
Forum Pro
As someone who has spent a lot of time over the years retouching wedding and event images to make folk look like they think they do rather than actually doI'm OK with 24MP for most of my non-portrait work so a Z5 II would be a solid body. Whenever it drops in price I'll likely trade my current Z5 for one.So am ISide note: that Z9 is just too beastly!I have the Z7 II, Z9 , 50mm Z F/1.8s m43 OM-1 , E-m5 III a GX8 and GH4 and a wide selection of m43 lenses.
I am hopeful when Nikon gets round to a mkIII Z7 they will up the specs as I prefer that size of body myself. The Z8 was not out at the time I got the Z9 or I would probably have went with it
Higher MP portraits with razor sharp lenses may not be the best tool . The reviewers always fill the sample shots from 100mp MF cameras with portrait images , few faces beyond children can stand that kind of scrutiny I think the longer PL lenses have a lovely bokeh . Panasonic managed to make their 100mm macro quite small. Rumours seem to be gathering steam about upcoming Sigma lenses not sure if any of them fit in the smaller side though
I don't want that; I think wanting that is silly nonsense. There are real differences between different formats. Trying to make them the same is ridiculous. And conflating exposure and total light as the same thing is incorrect.I will repeat it again if you want the same end result same diagonal AOV, same DOF /subject isolation same total light gathering .Not sure what you're trying to show me. Looks like a total light comparison between MFT and FF. Seems like you're trying to suggest that total light and exposure are the same thing -- seriously faulty thinking then.Quite right never let facts in the way of a good m43 vs FF post
OM-1 200 base ISO , Z6 II 800 ISO 100%
The exposure calculator says; Exposure difference is: B is 0 EV less than A when the exposure noted for A is 1/100 sec. f/1.4 and for B is 1/100 sec. f/2.8. That's incorrect. Does whoever put that calculator together think ISO is an exposure determinant?!! Yikes!!! The exposure difference between B and A is two stops. f/1.4 versus f/2.8. Exposure is defined as per unit area and is a function of scene luminance, shutter speed and f/stop.
Exposure is not total light.
That would be because FF sensor area captures more total light than MFT sensor area.
I understand that. I would never in practice want that -- silly nonsense. There are benefits and downsides to in-practice using different format cameras -- good thing. One of those good things about MFT format cameras is that the lenses tend to be smaller and lighter overall making the cameras lighter to carry. I don't need or want a 12mm f/1.4 for my MFT camera -- that would make the lens too big and heavy.
Equivalence theory is fine and it helps explain why we see differences between different format cameras -- it's useful for understanding how things work. But folks don't actually try and put it into practice do they? I have different format cameras because I want the differences they provide!
Last edited:
If you did, the difference would be even less, if you could see it at all.
James Stirling
Forum Pro
That is a bit personal
Since you mention birding and wildlife I'll give you just a personal opinion on that.
I shoot around 95% birds, so specific subject for sure. Shot the first m4/3 camera, the G1, then the G2, Oly EM-10, EM1, the EM1 MKII and also shot along side with my Sony APS-C and Sony FF.
Since well over 70% of my shots are birds in flight, I end up with shadows under the wings. Find with FF, I can get much better details in the shadows and less noise. APS-C falls in between and is excellent for all round. Now days I prefer FF for birds with a high res sensor, just a personal thing.
In short, m4/3 is excellent quality with weight savings. APS-C is also excellent quality and FF is the same, excellent quality with heavier gear, but brings out lower light details with less noise. All that just depends on what you want and need. Nothing wrong with any format, they are just different.
All the best.
Danny.
--
------------
https://www.flickr.com/photos/194823742@N03/
-----------------
Theorists. Looks good on paper, just not photographic printing paper.
Last edited:
Please don't equate popularity with anything else, but especially not with quality.
philzucker
Forum Pro
Different tools for different jobs.
That depends. For static subjects M43's excellent IBIS reduces FF's advantages in low light. For subjects in motion FF is much more versatile in dim or low light.
It's not what you can see but more what you can shoot. Subject isolation in cramped spaces is where FF and MF really shine. Impossible to reproduce what my 135/f1.8 does on my FF body with my M43 gear. On the other hand with M43 I get pictures using pro-capture I simply can't get with my FF gear. Different tools for different jobs, as I said.
It actually is, but IMHO the more interesting question is: in what cases does it matter? It does in some, but in others you won't notice it. I'll repeat myself a last time: different tools...
Apart from that: dynamic range suffers for every sensor when high ISOs are used. Best Ai noise reduction software can almost miraculously restore detail seemingly lost in noise, but it can't restore lost dynamic range AFAIK.
I'd recommend to get FF if it fits your own specific needs. And to not get it if you don't need what it offers. I use FF almost exclusively with reasonably fast primes, some of them quite small like my 35/1.8 and 75/1.8, for expanded flexibility as far as subject isolation is concerned and for dynamic low light scenarios. I also love it in combination with legacy FF glass - using a smaller sensor wouldn't show its inherent quirks and special renderings fully. These are some of my specific needs as an example.
Too unspecific IMO. You can do all that with everything from smartphones to MF. But you sure will get different (not better or worse) results in specific situations.
Again that depends. A 600/f4 lens on FF is far superior to an 300/f4 on M43 in multiple ways. At the same time it loses spectacularly as far as portability and affordability are concerned. Because of that I'm personally quite content with the M43 variant and will never get the mentioned FF one. ;-)
So loan a FF body with an 35/1.8 or an 50/1.4 (or get cheap used ones, any system, and re-sell it later) and test for yourself if it makes a difference for you!
You're welcome.
Phil
Bassam Guy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,889
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 7,578
Are you saying that the behavior that I described is abnormal and mine is faulty?
SrMi
Veteran Member
Mainly because we do not need to shoot at equivalent aperture and can accept reduced DOF to give the larger sensor more light.
Dynamic range is defined by noise. If you reduce noise, you increase DR.
I'd recommend to get FF if it fits your own specific needs. And to not get it if you don't need what it offers. I use FF almost exclusively with reasonably fast primes, some of them quite small like my 35/1.8 and 75/1.8, for expanded flexibility as far as subject isolation is concerned and for dynamic low light scenarios. I also love it in combination with legacy FF glass - using a smaller sensor wouldn't show its inherent quirks and special renderings fully. These are some of my specific needs as an example.
Too unspecific IMO. You can do all that with everything from smartphones to MF. But you sure will get different (not better or worse) results in specific situations.
Again that depends. A 600/f4 lens on FF is far superior to an 300/f4 on M43 in multiple ways. At the same time it loses spectacularly as far as portability and affordability are concerned. Because of that I'm personally quite content with the M43 variant and will never get the mentioned FF one. ;-)
So loan a FF body with an 35/1.8 or an 50/1.4 (or get cheap used ones, any system, and re-sell it later) and test for yourself if it makes a difference for you!
You're welcome.
Phil
--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com
My benchmarks would be the 12-45/4 and 12-40/2.8 which are both very fast. Definitely a small fraction of a second given how fast they can AF on an OM1/3.I love my 50s but never got around to the mkI. In case it helps and since I'm curious now I'll compare the 25 F1.4 mkII to the Olympus 25 F1.8 since it's on the camera right now. But I also have a Sigma 30 F1.4 so just let me know if that would be a benchmark that you'd be more familiar with.How do you find the AF speed? If you had the mk i I before, how much better is it?
(Asking for a friend).
So in my unscientific test going from ~1.5 to 10 feet back and forth I'd say the Olympus feels roughly twice as fast as the PanaLeica 25 F1.4 II BUT we're comparing a small fraction of a second (under half) with the PanaLeica to an even smaller fraction of one with the Olympus.
I'm sure there are edge cases where this will matter but I've shot some pretty active acts with both back to back and didn't notice a huge difference in the keeper rate.
I wouldn’t say the 25/1.4 mk i is slow, but it wouldn’t keep up with a child on a swing, definitely into fractions of a second.
I’d rather not know about the Sigma 30/1.4 - get behind me Santa!
That’s very helpful - appreciate the courtesy.
A
ardohy
Well-known member
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 514
Not sure what you're trying to show me. Looks like a total light comparison between MFT and FF. Seems like you're trying to suggest that total light and exposure are the same thing -- seriously faulty thinking then.Quite right never let facts in the way of a good m43 vs FF post
OM-1 200 base ISO , Z6 II 800 ISO 100%
Except your examples are not equivalent. The DoF was most certainly not the same. The MFT was shot at F5.6 which means the FF should be at F11 to achieve the same DoF. Even if those two setups were shot wide open, the FF would only achieve less than one stop more light in total. You need a 85mm F1.2 lens to get a 2 stop advantage with FF.
Hello , first post on DPreview but old photographer.I came from film photo FF then digital APSC,Nikon 1, MFT then return to digital FF : Nikon Df and Zf.
currently i shoot with Panasonic G100 and Nikon ZF , il like G100 for travel with small lenses (pana 9/1,7;15/1,7;12-35/2,8) but i shoot more and more with Zf especially with long focal length(sport, events and Wild life).
When light is poor FF is obviously better but with good light you can get very good results with MFT if you use good lenses, have a good post processing and don't crop so much.
Difference may be viewable on screen with pixel peeping but not on printing A3.
Yes ,FF Lenses are heavy and expensive , especially tele-zooms but now the same for equivalent in MFT (see olympus 300/F4 or 150-400).
I use both systems because there are complementary rather than opposite.
currently i shoot with Panasonic G100 and Nikon ZF , il like G100 for travel with small lenses (pana 9/1,7;15/1,7;12-35/2,8) but i shoot more and more with Zf especially with long focal length(sport, events and Wild life).
When light is poor FF is obviously better but with good light you can get very good results with MFT if you use good lenses, have a good post processing and don't crop so much.
Difference may be viewable on screen with pixel peeping but not on printing A3.
Yes ,FF Lenses are heavy and expensive , especially tele-zooms but now the same for equivalent in MFT (see olympus 300/F4 or 150-400).
I use both systems because there are complementary rather than opposite.
richj20
Forum Pro
Last edited:
JohnnyFair
Active member
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 103
This is a great question and I'm enjoying the responses. It's clear to me that we photo enthusiasts are a diverse bunch, and that's great. I'll add a few words to describe my experience, with the caveat and understanding that each of us have differing priorities and goals with our picture making.
I've used FF, APSC, and M43, each a significant amount. Each format works fine for me. Recently I've sold my Canon R6 and R7, along with lots of matching lenses, and have purchased an Olympus E-M5-3 and a Panasonic G85. I loved the R6 and R7, but I have come to realize that my "Goldilocks (just right)" camera is more like these two M43 models I have chosen. I've previously owned and used a G85 so I knew I would like it. The Olympus is a first for me and I'm still evaluating its place in my bag.
I'm 76 now and prefer lighter equipment, but some can be too light. I like the ergonomics and menu/controls of some cameras much more than others. I won't argue that there is no image quality differences among sensor sizes, but the M43 is good enough for me. When I print 20 x 30 my software allows me to ensure the results are very good. I have the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 to use if/when I want blurred background (don't need often).
I would love a Canon R10 if it incorporated ibis. That's a dream cam for me.
I like: ibis, fully articulated rear screen (I keep mine turned inward most of the time and do not choose to review most images immediately), evf, smaller and lighter lenses, ergonomics of Canon and Panasonic.
Learning what system is enjoyable and satisfying to us individually is a process, and worth the effort.
I've used FF, APSC, and M43, each a significant amount. Each format works fine for me. Recently I've sold my Canon R6 and R7, along with lots of matching lenses, and have purchased an Olympus E-M5-3 and a Panasonic G85. I loved the R6 and R7, but I have come to realize that my "Goldilocks (just right)" camera is more like these two M43 models I have chosen. I've previously owned and used a G85 so I knew I would like it. The Olympus is a first for me and I'm still evaluating its place in my bag.
I'm 76 now and prefer lighter equipment, but some can be too light. I like the ergonomics and menu/controls of some cameras much more than others. I won't argue that there is no image quality differences among sensor sizes, but the M43 is good enough for me. When I print 20 x 30 my software allows me to ensure the results are very good. I have the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 to use if/when I want blurred background (don't need often).
I would love a Canon R10 if it incorporated ibis. That's a dream cam for me.
I like: ibis, fully articulated rear screen (I keep mine turned inward most of the time and do not choose to review most images immediately), evf, smaller and lighter lenses, ergonomics of Canon and Panasonic.
Learning what system is enjoyable and satisfying to us individually is a process, and worth the effort.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum