m43 instead of FF

Started Nov 16, 2013 | Discussions
MrGubrz
MrGubrz Senior Member • Posts: 1,210
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

Red5TX wrote:

There are no situations in which an m43 sensor will outperform APS-C. That's the point people are making.

low light and needing more dof?

 MrGubrz's gear list:MrGubrz's gear list
Sony Alpha a99 Sony a77 II Sony a99 II Sony a9 Sony 85mm F1.4 ZA Carl Zeiss Planar T* +12 more
OP Christof21 Senior Member • Posts: 2,911
Re: m43 instead of FF

mr moonlight wrote:

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

The pixel density is generally higher. For instance the 55-200 mm might not be sufficient for bird photography. I would rather choose a m43 if it has also 16Mp, it will be equivalent to 270mm.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
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.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

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

mr moonlight wrote:

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

The pixel density is generally higher. For instance the 55-200 mm might not be sufficient for bird photography. I would rather choose a m43 if it has also 16Mp, it will be equivalent to 270mm.

Wouldn't a better option be to just offer a higher Rez APSC or ff sensor for bird shooters?

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 19,000
Re: m43 instead of FF
4

stimpy wrote:

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.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

Something is missing in this post....oh ya, it's your comparison images.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
OP Christof21 Senior Member • Posts: 2,911
Re: m43 instead of FF

mr moonlight wrote:

mr moonlight wrote:

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

The pixel density is generally higher. For instance the 55-200 mm might not be sufficient for bird photography. I would rather choose a m43 if it has also 16Mp, it will be equivalent to 270mm.

Wouldn't a better option be to just offer a higher Rez APSC or ff sensor for bird shooters?

More expensive...

Do you know any FF camera which has the same density as 1/2.3" sensors which has let's say 12mp ? The croping advantage of smaller sensors is a reality.

Limburger
Limburger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,812
Fuji pls keep making good aps-c's (nt)
-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha a7 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +3 more
Cailean Gallimore Veteran Member • Posts: 6,083
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.

-- hide signature --

I walked away from m3 for four reasons:

1. Relatively poor dynamic range - blown highlights were unavoidable in many situations. This has been improved quite a bit, but can still problematic.

2. Poor high iso performance. Greatly improved, but still lags behind APS-C.

3. A less useful range of DOF flexibility. Will never change.

4. The very inconvenient 2X crop factor. Will never change.

I loved the cameras and loved the lenses, but the overall experience was one of major compromises that became irksome to me.

But hey, each to their own.

FF is not a magic format either. In many cases APS-C is the most convenient option, even if the FF format is ultimately the best re IQ and resolution.

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

stimpy wrote:

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.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

I don't see how asking for the same subjects proves your point, the same subject could only further validate your point since there would be no chance of you submitting 3 of the best M4/3rds images you could find and 3 of the poorest Fuji X ones.

come on just do it you know you want to

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

stimpy wrote:

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.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

I don't see how asking for the same subjects proves your point, the same subject could only further validate your point since there would be no chance of you submitting 3 of the best M4/3rds images you could find and 3 of the poorest Fuji X ones.

come on just do it you know you want to

So you're saying a good image will be better than a bad image irrespective of format. That's good!

I'll try get some comps sorted tomorrow if I can. No pixel peeping though.

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

stimpy wrote:

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.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

Something is missing in this post....oh ya, it's your comparison images.

In good time.

Likewise, if you can provide anything to the contrary that'd be good....

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

stimpy wrote:

stimpy wrote:

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.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

I don't see how asking for the same subjects proves your point, the same subject could only further validate your point since there would be no chance of you submitting 3 of the best M4/3rds images you could find and 3 of the poorest Fuji X ones.

come on just do it you know you want to

So you're saying a good image will be better than a bad image irrespective of format. That's good!

I'll try get some comps sorted tomorrow if I can. No pixel peeping though.

Well yes, a good photograph is a good photograph regardless of its format or image quality.

ok if you have time that would be good

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

Christof21 wrote:

- 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.

That would defeat any size advantage.

- Compatible with panasonic/Olympus lens.

That would defeat lens attachment.

- I personally believe that FF is overrated. This is better, I admit but the difference is going to decrease more and more.

The DOF difference is never going to change. The IQ difference will remain as long as both use the same generation of technology.

And FF does not perform better in low light,

it does. more light collected = better IQ

I am happy with f1.4, I have no need to go wider (or just for 1℅ of my pictures)

Which is FF at F2.1 for all intended purposes. With FF you would then be more than happy with F1.8

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

Then shouldn't everyone just stick to 1inch? yet why does Aptina themselves want to go larger?

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 !!!

no different to any other APS-C owner moving up to FF.

Whereas m43 offers a second use for our lenses !!!

Then why  bother change body at all?

awelch100
awelch100 Regular Member • Posts: 394
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

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.

How would you gain anything by using a M43 sensor rather than simply cropping the regular APS-C image?

- 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.

Once again, how would this be preferable to simply cropping an APS-C image?

- Compatible with panasonic/Olympus lens.

not going to happen

- 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)

If you think that m43 cameras can come close to FF image quality in low light then you are insane.

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

- by going FF, they would just be followers.

the same thing could be said about going to m43. Also, the ONLY advantage to going with a m43 sensor is to reduced body size, and that would be negligible. As we have seen with Sony's cameras, a camera's sensor size is not much of a limiting factor when it comes to camera size.

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 !!!

NEX users don't have to switch, the lenses will work in cropped mode or normally with heavy vignetting.

Personnaly, I would love it.

Christophe

-- hide signature --

Fuji X100S
Fuji X-E2 and X-E1 w/ 35mm f/1.4 and 18-55mm f/2.8-4
Canon 5D MkII w/ 24-70 f/2.8, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8, etc, etc...
www.apwimages.com

 awelch100's gear list:awelch100's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D750 Sony Alpha a7R II Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +2 more
Clayton1985 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,895
Re: m43 instead of FF

RhysM wrote:

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!

Actually your chances are better... 

marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Creative but crazy idea...
1

Assuming that Fujifilm wants to try to compete with FF camera from Canon, Nikon, Sony, what would possibly be gained by going to an even smaller sensor than the current APS-C sensors that Fujifilm X cameras use?

The two main reasons you offer are the fact that the current X lenses already cover m43 sensors and a desire to get more reach out of telephotos.  You do realize that the 2x crop will also make ultra wides like the 14 2.8 into rather pedestrian 28 f/2.8 lenses (with f/5.6 DOF in FF terms)?  So while the 2x crop factor of the m43 sensor could be an advantage for telephoto lenses it is a big non-starter disadvantage for wides and ultra wides.

Moving to a m43 sensor offers no advantage for IQ and many disadvantages -- significantly worse high ISO ability, less total sensor area for light to reach, and increased DOF at any given aperture. Not exactly a way to compete with FF vendors whose cameras offer superb high ISO ability and great overall IQ. And most FF vendors, especially Canon and Nikon offer large aperture lenses from ultra wide angles, to super-telephotos and everything in between.

So what you are suggesting is not even a lateral move, but a backwards move with almost no benefits. So it most certainly will not happen.

Anyway, creative idea but basically crazy talk (no offense).

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Beat Traveller Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

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.

Yeah, but why would you want to use them with a smaller sensor? Other than using the telephoto lenses for extra reach, what do you gain out of it? You're using a bigger lens than necessary, and it's not even optimised for the sensor.

- 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.

You'd almost turn the 23 into a 50mm. Why? What do you gain from it that you couldn't get from the 35 1.4 on an APS-C body anyway? You'd have to buy a whole new body to use the camera this way, so at that price you might as well just get the lens.

- Compatible with panasonic/Olympus lens.

I'll give you this one.

- 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)

Right, but why should they spend money on a different format at all?

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

It won't be terribly pocketable if you stick any lens bar the 27 on it...

- by going FF, they would just be followers.

As opposed to just following Olympus and Panasonic?

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

It sounds like you want a second m4/3 body to complement the Fuji. You should just get one. Yes, in an ideal world it would be nice if all cameras were compatible with all lenses, but some things just aren't meant to be.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Nikon D60 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: Creative but crazy idea...

Assuming that Fujifilm wants to try to compete with FF camera from Canon, Nikon, Sony, what would possibly be gained by going to an even smaller sensor than the current APS-C sensors that Fujifilm X cameras use?

The two main reasons you offer are the fact that the current X lenses already cover m43 sensors and a desire to get more reach out of telephotos.  You do realize that the 2x crop will also make ultra wides like the 14 2.8 into rather pedestrian 28 f/2.8 lenses (with f/5.6 DOF in FF terms)?  So while the 2x crop factor of the m43 sensor could be an advantage for telephoto lenses it is a big non-starter disadvantage for wides and ultra wides.

Moving to a m43 sensor offers no advantage for IQ and many disadvantages -- significantly worse high ISO ability, less total sensor area for light to reach, and increased DOF at any given aperture. Not exactly a way to compete with FF vendors whose cameras offer superb high ISO ability and great overall IQ. And most FF vendors, especially Canon and Nikon offer large aperture lenses from ultra wide angles, to super-telephotos and everything in between.

So what you are suggesting is not even a lateral move, but a backwards move with almost no benefits. So it most certainly will not happen.

Anyway, creative idea but basically crazy talk (no offense).

Surely If you really believe that, then FF has to be the only way forward for Fuji film as it offers all your perceived important benefits in a similar size now mirrorless FF is developing. Apsc xtrans is dead if the majority of fuji users share your belief because FF from fuji IS coming..

Interesting times.

Stephen787 Regular Member • Posts: 491
Re: m43 instead of FF

i love light weight and small camera.

i would move to m4/3 if the IQ is acceptable for me.

I have not seen a single m4/3 camera that have good IQ and noise performance.

so sorry i do not agree with fujifilm going to m4/3.

full frame is the only way to go. The only way is up.

amalric
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Re: No because...
2

Bernie Ess wrote:

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...

You are probably right but only because it's too late. In fact Fuji was expected from the beginning at the m4/3 consortium, but in order to protect it's stuff it took the wrong decision. Why?

Because m4/3 is showing every day it can do v. small lenses with no sacrifice in quality (we are expecting a Pancake like Leica 15mm soon, we already have another five, including zooms).

Following what I take a temporary trend others are flocking to mirrorless FF.

So APS mirrorless , Fuji, is falling between two chairs, with its not so small, not so cheap lenses. These are the market forces at work.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric/sets/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads