m43 instead of FF

Started Nov 16, 2013 | Discussions
Christof21 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,461
m43 instead of FF
1

If I were Fuji...

I would go to m43 instead of going FF !

Here is the list of reasons:

- the lenses from the APS-C format could be reused without any loss.The image covers all the sensor area whereas this is not true for the Sony FF.

- I would propose 2 adapters: a usual adapter, which would have the advantage to use the lens at a different equivalent focal. The 55-200 will become a 75-270, which is better for wildlife photography. The 23mmf1.4 could be used for portrait. Plus a speed booster adapter for those who want a fast lens.

- Compatible with panasonic/Olympus lens.

- I personally believe that FF is overrated. This is better, I admit but the difference is going to decrease more and more. And  FF does not perform better in low light, I am happy with f1.4, I have no need to go wider (or just for 1℅ of my pictures)

- I would have 2 bodies, a more  pocketable m43 and the APS-C.

- by going FF, they would just be followers.

m43 start to have stunning IQ. Even smaller sensor with RX10 is impressive...

Going to the opposite way (compared to Sony) would not be stupid. Think about the Sony Nex  owners who will have to buy new lenses if they want to switch !!!  Whereas m43 offers a second use for our lenses !!!

Personnaly, I would love it.

Christophe

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 578
Re: m43 instead of FF
12

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

57LowRider Veteran Member • Posts: 3,997
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

I read that the Sony A7 / A7r beats the Fujis in low light - I may have to verify that by finding the article again - but while what Olympus do with m4/3 is amazing, more tends to be better. The IQ of Oly vs Phase One, for an extreme example.

 57LowRider's gear list:57LowRider's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +11 more
OP Christof21 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,461
Re: m43 instead of FF

57LowRider wrote:

I read that the Sony A7 / A7r beats the Fujis in low light

This is exactly the reason why I say that larger sensors are overrated . Do you mean that you compare images at similar ISO ? This comparison is not fair !! Hopefully, the bigger sensor will perform better, if it was not the case (or if it was only 10% better), I would choose the smaller sensor for low light conditions because it would mean the sensor is more efficient.

Even the dxomarks rating is not fair. This rating should be normalized.

But I think you are right in fact just for one reason: the sensor is more recent, you compare 2 sensor which are not in the same generation.

Sony might not release new APS-C sensors (Fuji buys Sony sensors) just to impose their new FF cameras.  Just a guess... Maybe in 1 year.

- I may have to verify that by finding the article again - but while what Olympus do with m4/3 is amazing, more tends to be better. The IQ of Oly vs Phase One, for an extreme example.

Joachim Gerstl
Joachim Gerstl Veteran Member • Posts: 7,905
Re: m43 instead of FF
4

Bigger is better in photography. It was true in the past and it is true today. If Olympus would have the chance to start again they clearly would do so with a bigger sensor. They are stuck now because they would upset their users invested in their lenses.

I'm not talking about high ISO and dynamic range only. I'm talking about the option to create images with a shallow depth of field.

Full frame will always be ahead of APS-C and APS-C will always be ahead of m43. m43 will be always better than 1 inch, ...

I'm happy when Fuji finally brings out the lenses that are on the roadmap and eventually update the XP1.

-- hide signature --
 Joachim Gerstl's gear list:Joachim Gerstl's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +8 more
OP Christof21 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,461
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Bigger is better in photography. It was true in the past and it is true today. If Olympus would have the chance to start again they clearly would do so with a bigger sensor. They are stuck now because they would upset their users invested in their lenses.

I'm not talking about high ISO and dynamic range only. I'm talking about the option to create images with a shallow depth of field.

Full frame will always be ahead of APS-C and APS-C will always be ahead of m43. m43 will be always better than 1 inch, ...

I'm happy when Fuji finally brings out the lenses that are on the roadmap and eventually update the XP1.

I do not deny the fact that bigger sensor is better, the IQ difference is just getting smaller and smaller. The IQ for APS-C now is really acceptable, for me this is now the limit. The limit for reasonnable IQ is now moving to m43. For more demanding photographers, their limits may be higher.

Fuji could boost the m43 market if they join Panasonic and Olympus.

Red5TX
Red5TX Senior Member • Posts: 1,586
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

Indeed. I owned an E-M5 and saw the exact same thing in my images. Landscapes were nice, but portraits lacked depth.

To be honest, if Fuji weren't around, I'd probably be shooting FF.  None of the other APS-C systems have an attractive lens line-up and smaller sensors just don't get the job done.

AlbertTheLazy
AlbertTheLazy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,436
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

I can't see a commercial reason for Fuji to go MFT. It could hit their lens sales per body and I can't see a lot of MFT people wanting to buy X-mount lenses, even with a full-featured adapter. This is because they are probably bigger than a native MFT lens needs to be and they certainly are not cheap, which is the usual draw for using adapted lenses.

-- hide signature --

Albert
Every photograph is an abstraction from reality.
Most people are more interested in the picture than the image.

 AlbertTheLazy's gear list:AlbertTheLazy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm X-T1 Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
RhysM Senior Member • Posts: 2,212
Re: m43 instead of FF
6

Christof21 wrote:

If I were Fuji...

I would go to m43 instead of going FF !

Here is the list of reasons:

- the lenses from the APS-C format could be reused without any loss.The image covers all the sensor area whereas this is not true for the Sony FF.

- I would propose 2 adapters: a usual adapter, which would have the advantage to use the lens at a different equivalent focal. The 55-200 will become a 75-270, which is better for wildlife photography. The 23mmf1.4 could be used for portrait. Plus a speed booster adapter for those who want a fast lens.

- Compatible with panasonic/Olympus lens.

- I personally believe that FF is overrated. This is better, I admit but the difference is going to decrease more and more. And FF does not perform better in low light, I am happy with f1.4, I have no need to go wider (or just for 1℅ of my pictures)

- I would have 2 bodies, a more pocketable m43 and the APS-C.

- by going FF, they would just be followers.

m43 start to have stunning IQ. Even smaller sensor with RX10 is impressive...

Going to the opposite way (compared to Sony) would not be stupid. Think about the Sony Nex owners who will have to buy new lenses if they want to switch !!! Whereas m43 offers a second use for our lenses !!!

Personnaly, I would love it.

Christophe

I'd love a night of passion with Mila Kunis, but the chances of Fuji going m43 are about the same as my chances with her!

Bernie Ess Veteran Member • Posts: 7,088
No because...

because m43 is already very crowded - too many manufacturer sharing the cake already. Oly and Pana being the most important ones. What can Fuji win there? Sell a few lenses (they have to build them first) and a few "we too" cameras. The Panasonic XG-7 (??) looks like a FUJI X - the retro thing is already there in m43...

I am not sure if Fuji can win in going FF, but m43, definately no. If they don't go either way, they will have to further develop their lens system (which is already starting to look complete), and update their sensors and cameras.

Probably the best way...

Bernie

samhain Senior Member • Posts: 1,344
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

Christof21 wrote:

If I were Fuji...

I would go to m43 instead of going FF !

No. Hell no. Fuji is going forwards, not backwards.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: m43 instead of FF
5

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

You're kidding yourself.

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Have said this several times, and am yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

PS: if any format will die it's APSC - m43 provides a size benefit with a slight compromise on IQ; FF provides a quality benefit at the slight compromise of size - they both compliment each-other - whereas APSC is neither.

FF is the new APSC, m43 is the new APSC...

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

Christof21 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Bigger is better in photography. It was true in the past and it is true today. If Olympus would have the chance to start again they clearly would do so with a bigger sensor. They are stuck now because they would upset their users invested in their lenses.

I'm not talking about high ISO and dynamic range only. I'm talking about the option to create images with a shallow depth of field.

Full frame will always be ahead of APS-C and APS-C will always be ahead of m43. m43 will be always better than 1 inch, ...

I'm happy when Fuji finally brings out the lenses that are on the roadmap and eventually update the XP1.

I do not deny the fact that bigger sensor is better, the IQ difference is just getting smaller and smaller. The IQ for APS-C now is really acceptable, for me this is now the limit. The limit for reasonnable IQ is now moving to m43. For more demanding photographers, their limits may be higher.

Fuji could boost the m43 market if they join Panasonic and Olympus.

Very sensible post.

The level of adequacy for 99% of shooters is pretty much here now, there is a small difference but your average enthusiast just does not use the camera in a way that accesses these benefits.

m43 will possibly be boosted by Fuji rumoured to be working with panasonic on organic sensors which could really boost m43 quality even further, and the long rumoured arrival of Leica into m43 bodies, again with Panasonic.

If this happens, and FF mirrorless keeps getting smaller / cheaper, there is no place for APSC.

Red5TX
Red5TX Senior Member • Posts: 1,586
Re: m43 instead of FF
3

stimpy wrote:

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Ah yes, the classic "you couldn't tell the difference" argument. In which case we should all be shooting with $100 compacts or smart phones. The best APS-C sensors still outperform m43. And APS-C still has a 2/3-stop DOF advantage. The differences may be marginal, but they're there. The point isn't that every photograph looks better with APS-C. Duh, with a static subject and good light there are very few differences between ANY sensors. But there are certainly situations in which APS-C will outperform m43 because it is marginally better.  There are no situations in which an m43 sensor will outperform APS-C. That's the point people are making.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: m43 instead of FF
10

stimpy wrote:

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Ah yes, the classic "you couldn't tell the difference" argument. In which case we should all be shooting with $100 compacts or smart phones. The best APS-C sensors still outperform m43. And APS-C still has a 2/3-stop DOF advantage. The differences may be marginal, but they're there. The point isn't that every photograph looks better with APS-C. Duh, with a static subject and good light there are very few differences between ANY sensors. But there are certainly situations in which APS-C will outperform m43 because it is marginally better.  There are no situations in which an m43 sensor will outperform APS-C. That's the point people are making.

Your logic applies equally to FF, so the a7 is better in the same ways vs a fuji x cam. only the difference between FF and apsc is huge compared to the difference between m43 and apsc, again with your logic.

The amusing thing is that the same guys with sensor size complex will say there is no difference or benefit to FF cameras, but in the same breath will put down m43 for having such a small sensor. That is very funny.

Nobody here has claimed there is no difference, of course there is, but it's so small that 99% of the 'check my great Fuji photos' posted on here could be done just as well with an m43 sensor.

Jeff Charles Veteran Member • Posts: 7,514
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

stimpy wrote:

...only the difference between FF and apsc is huge compared to the difference between m43...

I believe the differences are pretty close: about a stop between APS-C and MFT and about 1.3 stops between APS-C and FF.

-- hide signature --

Jeff
"Look it up. It's science." Skinny Pete

 Jeff Charles's gear list:Jeff Charles's gear list
Sony RX100 III Fujifilm X100T Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm X-E2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +5 more
RhysM Senior Member • Posts: 2,212
Re: m43 instead of FF
3

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 578
Re: m43 instead of FF

stimpy wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

You're kidding yourself.

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Have said this several times, and am yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

PS: if any format will die it's APSC - m43 provides a size benefit with a slight compromise on IQ; FF provides a quality benefit at the slight compromise of size - they both compliment each-other - whereas APSC is neither.

FF is the new APSC, m43 is the new APSC...

You provide me with 3 shots from an M4/3rds and 3 shots from a Fuji x of the same subjects (not a test chart) and I'll accept your challenge.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 578
Re: m43 instead of FF

RhysM wrote:

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

when the X-Pro1 was released your statement was true, if the X-Pro1 was released today it would feature a full frame sensor

mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,789
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

What's the advantage of going m43 when you can just crop in?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads