m43 instead of FF

Started Nov 16, 2013 | Discussions
alexisgreat Veteran Member • Posts: 6,459
Re: sensor size
1

That's ridiculous, the sensor size gap between 4/3 and APS-C is very minor, especially if you only shoot for 8x10 prints AND even small sensor cameras that have 1/2" are fine in this regard up to about ISO 400 or so. So what you're seeing with 4/3 sensors must be something other than a sensor size issue.  I believe Panasonic has made great strides and now they match the best of the APS-C type cameras.

For me, I will NEVER buy a camera that does not have a sensor that has a 4:3 ratio and I strongly suspect the last of the legacy film owners are dead 3:2 format cameras will die a slow death. Also, Olympus has some amazing features like pixel mapping and direct live histograms that make using full manual mode very easily- I will NOT buy a camera that does not have these features. Whether a larger sensor is made that has the same 4:3 ratio (I think Canon has one in one of their cameras), that's open to debate, it might actually be a good thing for a larger 4:3 sensor to come out. That aspect ratio is MUCH more suited to the digital age than these archaic 3:2 sensors.

-- hide signature --

http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com

 alexisgreat's gear list:alexisgreat's gear list
Olympus C-7070 Wide Zoom Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR Olympus E-520 Olympus PEN E-PL6 +3 more
alexisgreat Veteran Member • Posts: 6,459
Re: areas in which 4:3 sensors are FAR better than APS-C

First get rid of that stupid 3:2 ratio that no one in the digital age cares for, secondly 4/3 sensors are FAR better for ultrazoom photography as well as close up macros.

-- hide signature --

http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com

 alexisgreat's gear list:alexisgreat's gear list
Olympus C-7070 Wide Zoom Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR Olympus E-520 Olympus PEN E-PL6 +3 more
alexisgreat Veteran Member • Posts: 6,459
Re: Make a 4/3 FF sensor and lens systems!

why not a 4:3 FF sensor, 36x27mm?

-- hide signature --

http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com

 alexisgreat's gear list:alexisgreat's gear list
Olympus C-7070 Wide Zoom Fujifilm FinePix HS20 EXR Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR Olympus E-520 Olympus PEN E-PL6 +3 more
bowportes Veteran Member • Posts: 3,514
Re: sensor size
1

alexisgreat wrote:

For me, I will NEVER buy a camera that does not have a sensor that has a 4:3 ratio and I strongly suspect the last of the legacy film owners are dead 3:2 format cameras will die a slow death. Also, Olympus has some amazing features like pixel mapping and direct live histograms that make using full manual mode very easily- I will NOT buy a camera that does not have these features. Whether a larger sensor is made that has the same 4:3 ratio (I think Canon has one in one of their cameras), that's open to debate, it might actually be a good thing for a larger 4:3 sensor to come out. That aspect ratio is MUCH more suited to the digital age than these archaic 3:2

I find this amusing.

3:2 is closer to the 16:9 aspect ratio of current computer screens and televisions than 4:3, which is the aspect ratio of films from the 1930s and TV from the 1950s, and yet 3:2 is less suited to the digital age. Sheesh!

You apparently didn't hear the uproar when Panasonic abandoned the MAR (multi aspect ratio) sensor, forcing 4/3 shooters to crop to get a 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratio. Our Fuji 3:2 images have to be cropped less for 16:9.

 bowportes's gear list:bowportes's gear list
Fujifilm X-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +13 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

Stephen787 wrote:

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.

If you can't take a good photo with m43, the problem is with you, not your camera. If people are judging your photos on noise rather than subject & composition, you have failed.

Sorry to be the one to say it.

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

Jeff Charles wrote:

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.

Exactly.  Difference between m43 and FF is what's huge.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

Lets have some cats. All taken with different sized sensors - should be pretty easy to separate them and explain why, shouldn't it?

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

Red5TX wrote:

Jeff Charles wrote:

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.

Exactly. Difference between m43 and FF is what's huge.

You need to think again, the diffrence between m43 and APSC in area is pretty tiny - especially when you consider the narrower width (which is better for portrait orientated photography)

The difference between APSC and FF is however, vast!

Fact: APSC is much much much closer to m43 than it is to FF.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 578
Re: m43 instead of FF
3

well I guess that proves your point entirely, no need for further debate

P.S
Don't let my sarcasm hit you on the rump on your way out

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

stimpy wrote:

Red5TX wrote:

Jeff Charles wrote:

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.

Exactly. Difference between m43 and FF is what's huge.

You need to think again, the diffrence between m43 and APSC in area is pretty tiny - especially when you consider the narrower width (which is better for portrait orientated photography)

The difference between APSC and FF is however, vast!

Fact: APSC is much much much closer to m43 than it is to FF.

Wow that's amazing, I hadn't realized that M4/3rds and APS-C sensors were so close in size, however this then makes me wonder even more why image quality from the APS-C system is so much better than the lifeless M4/3rds.

Najinsky Veteran Member • Posts: 5,739
Re: m43 instead of FF

Dave Luttmann 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.

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

I'd have happily provided some real world images from a variety of cameras, but given the way things work around here, if someone didn't like the outcome, they'd complain and have the posts removed.

-Najinsky

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

LWS2013 wrote:

Wow that's amazing, I hadn't realized that M4/3rds and APS-C sensors were so close in size, however this then makes me wonder even more why image quality from the APS-C system is so much better than the lifeless M4/3rds.

Seriously. Of course, our poster has also used a visual diagram that makes the difference looks smaller than it really is. APS-C has over 50% more surface area than m43 (368sq/mm vs. 224 sq/mm).

Just like any FF sensor will outperform any APS-C sensor of the same vintage, any APS-C sensor will outperform any m43 sensor of the same vintage.

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

LWS2013 wrote:

stimpy wrote:

Red5TX wrote:

Jeff Charles wrote:

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.

Exactly. Difference between m43 and FF is what's huge.

You need to think again, the diffrence between m43 and APSC in area is pretty tiny - especially when you consider the narrower width (which is better for portrait orientated photography)

The difference between APSC and FF is however, vast!

Fact: APSC is much much much closer to m43 than it is to FF.

Wow that's amazing, I hadn't realized that M4/3rds and APS-C sensors were so close in size, however this then makes me wonder even more why image quality from the APS-C system is so much better than the lifeless M4/3rds.

Still waiting on you to identify the m43 shots I posted, obviously it's the ones without life, but can you educate the rest of us with a bit more in-depth critique...

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

Red5TX wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Wow that's amazing, I hadn't realized that M4/3rds and APS-C sensors were so close in size, however this then makes me wonder even more why image quality from the APS-C system is so much better than the lifeless M4/3rds.

Seriously. Of course, our poster has also used a visual diagram that makes the difference looks smaller than it really is.

Eh? You crazy. That is a normal diagram, not an optical illusion.

Sounds like someone is genuinely surprised how close they are, or how small APSC and M43 are to FF perhaps?

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,807
Re: sensor size
2

alexisgreat wrote:

That's ridiculous, the sensor size gap between 4/3 and APS-C is very minor, especially if you only shoot for 8x10 prints AND even small sensor cameras that have 1/2" are fine in this regard up to about ISO 400 or so. So what you're seeing with 4/3 sensors must be something other than a sensor size issue. I believe Panasonic has made great strides and now they match the best of the APS-C type cameras.

For me, I will NEVER buy a camera that does not have a sensor that has a 4:3 ratio and I strongly suspect the last of the legacy film owners are dead 3:2 format cameras will die a slow death. Also, Olympus has some amazing features like pixel mapping and direct live histograms that make using full manual mode very easily- I will NOT buy a camera that does not have these features. Whether a larger sensor is made that has the same 4:3 ratio (I think Canon has one in one of their cameras), that's open to debate, it might actually be a good thing for a larger 4:3 sensor to come out. That aspect ratio is MUCH more suited to the digital age than these archaic 3:2 sensors.

Considering the standard print size for labs in north America is 4x6, good lick with your crusade.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 +16 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 578
Re: m43 instead of FF
2

stimpy wrote:

Still waiting on you to identify the m43 shots I posted, obviously it's the ones without life, but can you educate the rest of us with a bit more in-depth critique...

And I will once you post 3 images from both an M4/3rds and Fuji X of the same subject as agreed yesterday, if you can do that then I'll play along, btw you'll also need to supply the originals with exif data intact to prove which came of each system.

also those cat photos you gleaned are so low rez that resize and compression has knocked the detail out of them, what were you even thinking those would prove.

Stephen787 Regular Member • Posts: 491
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

stimpy wrote:

Stephen787 wrote:

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.

If you can't take a good photo with m43, the problem is with you, not your camera. If people are judging your photos on noise rather than subject & composition, you have failed.

Sorry to be the one to say it.

of course people can take good photo with m4/3.

That is not the point.

I buy the camera, i work for the money, i look at the photo, not you, not anyone else. i take photo for me. not you. not anyone else.

I download photo from the web from review site, like this one, and look at the m4/3 files, i am not happy, too much noise, not enough detail.

sure you can take good photo with an iphone, take good photo with a digicam. But if the owner are not happy with the photo detail or noise, why would he ignore these because someone else think subject composition is more important.

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

LWS2013 wrote:

stimpy wrote:

Still waiting on you to identify the m43 shots I posted, obviously it's the ones without life, but can you educate the rest of us with a bit more in-depth critique...

And I will once you post 3 images from both an M4/3rds and Fuji X of the same subject as agreed yesterday, if you can do that then I'll play along, btw you'll also need to supply the originals with exif data intact to prove which came of each system.

also those cat photos you gleaned are so low rez that resize and compression has knocked the detail out of them, what were you even thinking those would prove.

Well admitting that you can't tell the difference at standard web sizes is a good start, a very good start actually.

Of course when you talk of zooming in and inspecting pixel vs pixel back and fourth between the same subject that isn't judging photography it's pixel peeing / measurbating. Not really my point if I am honest.

Yes, I could post some comparisons such as the one I just made below, but even I' agree it's fairly easy to tell when viewed this way - but this is not judging a photo. Photographers do not want their photos viewed this way, I do not buy a coffee table photography book and want to see 100% crops, I do not go into a gallery and judge the quality of a photo by taking my loupe.

X-E2 and E-M5

RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 28,455
35mm not 'FF"

Christof21 wrote:

If I were Fuji...

I would go to m43 instead of going FF !

You mean 35mm not FF, right?  "full frame" refers to covering the full frame of whatever film format the digital camera is trying to cover.  There is full frame for different medium film format sizes as well as large format (though large format digital is rare and extremely expensive)

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

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

Stephen787 wrote:

I download photo from the web from review site, like this one, and look at the m4/3 files, i am not happy, too much noise, not enough detail.

Yes, you keep saying that but could you please elaborate on what it is that you're not seeing? - Here are 2 100% crops at low and high ISO.

What details are missing that you need to see?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads