Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
A2T2 Regular Member • Posts: 278
Is FF really better than m43? and why?

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

The Jacal
The Jacal Senior Member • Posts: 1,268
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
13

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

I would because I can see the exif. 

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.

 The Jacal's gear list:The Jacal's gear list
Olympus SH-50 Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Nikon D80 Olympus PEN E-P1 Olympus PEN E-P2 +17 more
Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,919
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
43

FF cameras give you a wider envelope of shooting conditions - for example a wider choice of DOF (depending on the lens, of course) and lighting conditions under which you can get the same shot.

M43 cameras have a smaller shooting envelope.   If you can take an acceptable picture with an M43 camera, then of course an FF camera can also take a similar image.   So a comparison of acceptable pictures taken with M43 and FF is bound to show more similarities than differences.  It's when you get outside the range of what's possible with M43 where the differences show up.

You pay more for FF in terms of bulk and weight, and if you usually shoot pictures that fall within the capabilities of M43 then there's really no good reason to put up with that.   You can take terrific pictures within that M43 shooting envelope that are essentially just as good as if you had a FF camera.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for FF cameras for the photographers who need their expanded capabilities.

A2T2 OP Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

The Jacal wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

I would because I can see the exif. 

And, 56mm f6.3, ie 100mm f12.6 FF, no way hey!

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7467981@N05/
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.

A2T2 OP Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Sean Nelson wrote:

FF cameras give you a wider envelope of shooting conditions - for example a wider choice of DOF (depending on the lens, of course) and lighting conditions under which you can get the same shot.

M43 cameras have a smaller shooting envelope.   If you can take an acceptable picture with an M43 camera, then of course an FF camera can also take a similar image.   So a comparison of acceptable pictures taken with M43 and FF is bound to show more similarities than differences.  It's when you get outside the range of what's possible with M43 where the differences show up.

You pay more for FF in terms of bulk and weight, and if you usually shoot pictures that fall within the capabilities of M43 then there's really no good reason to put up with that.   You can take terrific pictures within that M43 shooting envelope that are essentially just as good as if you had a FF camera.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for FF cameras for the photographers who need their expanded capabilities.

No to all of the above, answer the question? dof blur is all acheivable now in post, the envelope you talk about is in your head.

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,362
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
12

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

I'm shooting m4/3 now after selling off first my FF D700 and then my APS-C D7000 .... but it is plain silly to pretend that m4/3 makes images that look like FF ... they do not. You shot this at f/6.3 ... my D700 should get an identical image at f/13 at double the focal length. But I would use f/2.8 or 4 and get a far less distracting background. Of course, you could have done that too with a wider aperture, but the 2 stop advantage never goes away ...

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 +16 more
A2T2 OP Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Kim Letkeman wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

I'm shooting m4/3 now after selling off first my FF D700 and then my APS-C D7000 .... but it is plain silly to pretend that m4/3 makes images that look like FF ... they do not. You shot this at f/6.3 ... my D700 should get an identical image at f/13 at double the focal length. But I would use f/2.8 or 4 and get a far less distracting background. Of course, you could have done that too with a wider aperture, but the 2 stop advantage never goes away ...

Are you for real, far less distracting background, its completely blurred. You need to shoot f2.8 FF to get a similar image.

-- hide signature --
Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,919
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
24

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

FF cameras give you a wider envelope of shooting conditions - for example a wider choice of DOF (depending on the lens, of course) and lighting conditions under which you can get the same shot.

No to all of the above, answer the question? dof blur is all acheivable now in post, the envelope you talk about is in your head.

You can level the playing field a bit with software blurring, but it's very difficult to use for some kinds of subjects such as the one below and it can result in some very unnatural looking edges.

And none of that says anything about the ability of FF cameras to capture lower-noise images in poor lighting conditions.

M43 is perfectly adequate for many people and it certainly sounds like you're very happy with it - I'm glad.   It's perfectly adequate for me, too.   But to imply that what's good enough for you and me must therefore be good enough for everyone is simply wrong.

A2T2 OP Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Sean Nelson wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

FF cameras give you a wider envelope of shooting conditions - for example a wider choice of DOF (depending on the lens, of course) and lighting conditions under which you can get the same shot.

No to all of the above, answer the question? dof blur is all acheivable now in post, the envelope you talk about is in your head.

You can level the playing field a bit with software blurring, but it's very difficult to use for some kinds of subjects such as the one below and it can result in some very unnatural looking edges.

And none of that says anything about the ability of FF cameras to capture lower-noise images in poor lighting conditions.

M43 is perfectly adequate for many people and it certainly sounds like you're very happy with it - I'm glad.   It's perfectly adequate for me, too.   But to imply that what's good enough for you and me must therefore be good enough for everyone is simply wrong.

Sean, that's an aps-c image, its a breeze with OOC m43 to do that, the point with m43 and really I am talking the OMD is the IBIS and primes. FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

The Photo Ninja Senior Member • Posts: 2,239
YES! However, not today...
6

My main camera is a 5D Mark III.  Its focus is amazing, the fps blistering, the lenses astounding, the noise performance is amazing.  However, it's a monster to carry around.  This weekend, my wife was off visiting her sister and I decided to take our 5.5 and 1.5 year old girls to the zoo.  No stroller - they are a pain.  So, I grabbed my Thinktank backpack which usually stores a 5DIII with a 24-70 or a 70-200mm, a flash, smaller lens, batteries, etc. and made it into a diaper bag.  Today I was able to pack an epl5 with 17mm 1.8 with flash attached, diapers, wipes, ointment, 2 peaches, an apple, granolla bars, seed and nuts, raisons, and goldfish crackers.  I haven't seen the pics yet, but they will not be nearly as good as a well done shot composed with a 5D III which has more field of view and better optics.  The new Sigma 35mm 1.4 beats the Olympus 17mm 1.8 as does the Canon 50mm 1.2.  However, there is NO WAY I would have been able to manage today with a DSLR!  Today it was all point and shoot style with facial autofocus.  Today is the day that the Micro 4/3 format was designed for!

Ulric Senior Member • Posts: 3,595
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
7

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

If you said you used a FF camera to take a picture of a guy standing in front of a painted background, I would absolutely believe it.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +9 more
MAubrey
MAubrey Senior Member • Posts: 1,598
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
3

A2T2 wrote:

FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

Bump the ISO up by two stops and close your aperture by two stops and then its taken care of. A D600 has two stops better ISO than the E-M5...and if you downsize the images to the 16MP of the E-M5, then its even better. The one eye in focus issue is only a problem if you're shooting the eight year old 5Dc.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

 MAubrey's gear list:MAubrey's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 +2 more
A2T2 OP Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Ulric wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

If you said you used a FF camera to take a picture of a guy standing in front of a painted background, I would absolutely believe it.

, isn't this what FF users rave about, blurred backgrounds, seriously that not painted but if you think it is I am even better than I though.

Ulric Senior Member • Posts: 3,595
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
2

A2T2 wrote:

Ulric wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

If you said you used a FF camera to take a picture of a guy standing in front of a painted background, I would absolutely believe it.

, isn't this what FF users rave about, blurred backgrounds, seriously that not painted but if you think it is I am even better than I though.

Yeah, that's the problem: creating real looking background blur in post is very difficult. If I wanted more background blur, I think I would just go for the bigger gear. But I don't, so I won't.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +9 more
A2T2 OP Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
3

MAubrey wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

Bump the ISO up by two stops and close your aperture by two stops and then its taken care of. A D600 has two stops better ISO than the E-M5...and if you downsize the images to the 16MP of the E-M5, then its even better. The one eye in focus issue is only a problem if you're shooting the eight year old 5Dc.

OMD has 2-4 stops better stabilisation, iso 1600 OMD vs iso 6400 FF, plus 2 stops dof better, I think you'll need iso12800 in low light mostly? to match this hand-held you'd be at iso25600 lol.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

cosmonaut
cosmonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,202
Re: YES! However, not today...
6

Yes it is certainly. I have shot with the OMD EM-5. The biggest difference is in dynamic range. I no longer struggle to keep the highlights under control. Then there is color depth. The a99 has a wider range of colors. Not to forget lower noise at high ISO. I am not convinced that the full frames have less noise due to the sensor being bigger or that full frame sensors just have much more R&D in them or something. The Xpro1 pretty much proved to me a cropped sensor can have low noise.

Then there is the DOF. Say what you will I just like DOF on full frames. I don't have to think about equivalent focal lengths and full frame just looks right to me.

-- hide signature --

www.gregmccary.com

A2T2 OP Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Ulric wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Ulric wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

If you said you used a FF camera to take a picture of a guy standing in front of a painted background, I would absolutely believe it.

, isn't this what FF users rave about, blurred backgrounds, seriously that not painted but if you think it is I am even better than I though.

Yeah, that's the problem: creating real looking background blur in post is very difficult. If I wanted more background blur, I think I would just go for the bigger gear. But I don't, so I won't.

It looks real to me, I took it.

RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,104
define "better"
2

Please define what you mean by "better".

Some say peanut butter is better than butter. But that is a personal preference.

hindesite Senior Member • Posts: 1,999
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
4

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

FF cameras give you a wider envelope of shooting conditions - for example a wider choice of DOF (depending on the lens, of course) and lighting conditions under which you can get the same shot.

M43 cameras have a smaller shooting envelope.   If you can take an acceptable picture with an M43 camera, then of course an FF camera can also take a similar image.   So a comparison of acceptable pictures taken with M43 and FF is bound to show more similarities than differences.  It's when you get outside the range of what's possible with M43 where the differences show up.

You pay more for FF in terms of bulk and weight, and if you usually shoot pictures that fall within the capabilities of M43 then there's really no good reason to put up with that.   You can take terrific pictures within that M43 shooting envelope that are essentially just as good as if you had a FF camera.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for FF cameras for the photographers who need their expanded capabilities.

No to all of the above, answer the question? dof blur is all acheivable now in post, the envelope you talk about is in your head.

I think you are completely wrong and Sean is right on the money and explained his viewpoint clearly.

Some people seem to have this hangup, that everything is about DOF. If you widen your experience you'll soon learn that this fascination with DOF is an artefact of this forum.

Sean did not mention DOF in his reply, yet that is the only thing you focussed on.

-- hide signature --
A2T2 OP Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: define "better"

RedFox88 wrote:

Please define what you mean by "better".

Some say peanut butter is better than butter. But that is a personal preference.

I say m43 is better actually, in every way, size, weight is important to me and so is an evf, so apart from the a99 I say m43 is better. The better everyone talks about with FF is DOF, which basically I say is utter nonsense. But I asked the question, what do you think?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads