m43 instead of FF

Started Nov 16, 2013 | Discussions
ekaton Contributing Member • Posts: 875
Re: m43 instead of FF

Oh boy this is going to be fun. Guys hold the discussion until I`m back with popcorn and beer 

 ekaton's gear list:ekaton's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Hasselblad X1D Sony Alpha a7R III Leica CL Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +15 more
mjl699
mjl699 Regular Member • Posts: 309
Re: m43 instead of FF

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

-- hide signature --

mjl599

 mjl699's gear list:mjl699's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Never said that....

stimpy wrote:

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.

I never said that FF is the only way forward.  I simply said the OPs idea of Fujifilm going to even smaller m43 sensors was simply crazy talk.

Apsc xtrans is dead if the majority of fuji users share your belief because FF from fuji IS coming..

APS-C X-Trans or otherwise is not at all dead.  In fact, AFAIK Nikon and Canon APS-C both outsell FF by a significant margin.  There is no need for Fujifilm to do anything dramatic.  It already competes well with some FFs like Leica for IQ, and X-mount is growing in size (just like m43, I might add).

Interesting times.

People are really overestimating and jumping the gun as far as the new Sony FF.  Like the RX1 before it, it's not going to change the landscape of photography much at all.  Canon and Nikon will continue to dominate FFs with their DSLR systems and APS-C DSLRs will outsell most of the mirrorless cameras.

 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
AlbertTheLazy
AlbertTheLazy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,422
Re: m43 instead of FF

stimpy wrote:

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?

There is no EXIF available on these images. Please would you clarify what you mean by 'low and high ISO'? Actual values would be nice.

-- 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
marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Can't change the laws of physics

mjl699 wrote:

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

Yes, m43 may be improving (so is sensor technology in other formats) but the laws of physics and DOF and its relation to sensor size will never change.  Users interested in selective focus and beautiful shallow DOF will mostly either use APS-C, FF or larger.

 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
G Rothwell Regular Member • Posts: 275
Re: 35mm not 'FF"

RedFox88 wrote:

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)

Clearly using FF (Full Frame) to refer to the entire frame on a 35mm camera is not correct. I know many people have suffered stress and anxiety regarding this matter, people simply won't listen to reason, they just keep doing it. Here's a website that may help http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Change

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

 G Rothwell's gear list:G Rothwell's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +5 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: Can't change the laws of physics

mjl699 wrote:

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

Yes, m43 may be improving (so is sensor technology in other formats) but the laws of physics and DOF and its relation to sensor size will never change.  Users interested in selective focus and beautiful shallow DOF will mostly either use APS-C, FF or larger.

Or maybe they will simply use their m43 bodies with fast glass such as nokton 25/0.95 (also miles faster and more DoF than fuji equivalent).

Even the other less dramatic glass gives more than enough DoF such as the pan leica 25mm f1.4 or the Oly 75.

Next! Lol

G Rothwell Regular Member • Posts: 275
Re: m43 instead of FF

Fuji are a business and businesses are supposed to make profit and grow.

So far they have done an excellent job of growing in a crowded area of the market.  They will analyse everything they can to find a balance that allows them to continue developing new products, increase sales, and increase profits.

The allure of Full Frame (to business) is that it is a more expensive product, which normally means more profit.

There is little benefit to Fuji in creating a m43 system, they already have a competing product which many think is superior.

Maybe they would look into lens adapters so their excellent lenses could be used on m43, making the transition to a Fuji system easier.

Camera companies are not trying to make great cameras, they are trying to make great profits, the cameras themselves are just a necessary evil.

 G Rothwell's gear list:G Rothwell's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +5 more
mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,789
Re: Can't change the laws of physics
1

stimpy wrote:

mjl699 wrote:

In a few years I expect sensor technology to be better and that as a result 4/3 sensors will be good enough most of the time. When that happens 4/3s will be at the level APS-C is now. Then users will be faced with the same question they are now - will you put up with the additional size and weight for narrower DOF? I suspect for many the answer will be "yes". Perhaps that includes me too. Until then FUJI !

Yes, m43 may be improving (so is sensor technology in other formats) but the laws of physics and DOF and its relation to sensor size will never change. Users interested in selective focus and beautiful shallow DOF will mostly either use APS-C, FF or larger.

Or maybe they will simply use their m43 bodies with fast glass such as nokton 25/0.95 (also miles faster and more DoF than fuji equivalent).

Even the other less dramatic glass gives more than enough DoF such as the pan leica 25mm f1.4 or the Oly 75.

Next! Lol

The DOF you get on a 25/0.95 will always be shallower on your APS-C, and even more so on a FF than your M43 sensor. The argument that you can just use a faster piece of glass to get the same thin DOF on a smaller sensor as a larger one doesn't work unless camera companies start manufacturing much faster glass exclusively for M43 than what exists for APS-C or FF. The real question is, what lens should I get to match the DOF I can get on the 25/.095 when matched with an APS-C sensor for my M43 camera?

To put it simply, they are different formats and you can't really make a blanket statement that one is better than the other. If I'm on a tight budget and want a pocket sized ILC, a FF camera isn't going to work, while an M43 will do nicely.

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

Christof21 wrote:

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.

Price is definitely a factor between FF and APS-C/M43, but M43 doesn't offer that much of an advantage. When you look at Fuji's line up, the XA1 kit comes in a few dollars lower than their X20. If Fuji brought out an M43 camera I'm not sure we'd see that much of a price advantage. With the differences between the lowest priced APS-C vs. M43 cameras being less than $100, the price difference is much less of a factor.

As for pixel density and detail. It's a trade off. Lower pixel densities also contribute to achieving a higher level of detail. If you crop a 24MP APS-C camera down to M43 size, you still end up with a 12MP image. I can see an advantage if your APS-C is only 10-12MP to begin with, so cropping down will give you around 5-6MP, but once you hit 16-20MP, that advantage disappears.

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

stimpy wrote:

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?

you cannot be expecting me to comment on m4/3 on two photo at 100% without any metadata.

amalric
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

G Rothwell wrote:

Fuji are a business and businesses are supposed to make profit and grow.

So far they have done an excellent job of growing in a crowded area of the market. They will analyse everything they can to find a balance that allows them to continue developing new products, increase sales, and increase profits.

The allure of Full Frame (to business) is that it is a more expensive product, which normally means more profit.

There is little benefit to Fuji in creating a m43 system, they already have a competing product which many think is superior.

Maybe they would look into lens adapters so their excellent lenses could be used on m43, making the transition to a Fuji system easier.

Camera companies are not trying to make great cameras, they are trying to make great profits, the cameras themselves are just a necessary evil.

You like to act cynical?

The truth is that no mirrorless company has been making a profit so you are just making up things?

At the moment they are trying to establish market share, which is different from profits.

I take Sony's move for a desperate one, because it couldn't really outdo m4/3. The same goes for Fuji and APS mirrorless.

You clever people should ask yourselves why no one has been able to displace m4/3, but why third parties are flocking to it all the times. Why you can have lenses of all sizes and prices.

You live under delusions and legends, while your technology (focus, IBIS, per pixel sharpness) lags behind just like Sony.

People are not blind, that's what they buy. Sony 35mm might be a short lived experiment, just like the others. Follow the lenses.

Am.

Beat Traveller Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: sensor size
4

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.

3:2 might seem 'archaic' to you, but it's a lot closer to the 'golden rectangle' ratio of 1.618 than 4:3 is. 16:9 is even closer. Given that the golden rectangle is an aesthetic preference for rectangular proportions that goes back to Fibonacci in 1202, or even the Greeks, it's hardly something people should discard.

At any rate, choice is better. You get to enjoy shooting with an aspect ratio you're comfortable with, as do I.

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

G Rothwell wrote:

Fuji are a business and businesses are supposed to make profit and grow.

So far they have done an excellent job of growing in a crowded area of the market. They will analyse everything they can to find a balance that allows them to continue developing new products, increase sales, and increase profits.

The allure of Full Frame (to business) is that it is a more expensive product, which normally means more profit.

There is little benefit to Fuji in creating a m43 system, they already have a competing product which many think is superior.

Maybe they would look into lens adapters so their excellent lenses could be used on m43, making the transition to a Fuji system easier.

Camera companies are not trying to make great cameras, they are trying to make great profits, the cameras themselves are just a necessary evil.

You like to act cynical?

The truth is that no mirrorless company has been making a profit so you are just making up things?

At the moment they are trying to establish market share, which is different from profits.

I take Sony's move for a desperate one, because it couldn't really outdo m4/3. The same goes for Fuji and APS mirrorless.

You clever people should ask yourselves why no one has been able to displace m4/3, but why third parties are flocking to it all the times. Why you can have lenses of all sizes and prices.

You live under delusions and legends, while your technology (focus, IBIS, per pixel sharpness) lags behind just like Sony.

People are not blind, that's what they buy. Sony 35mm might be a short lived experiment, just like the others. Follow the lenses.

Am.

No one has been able to displace M43 because it's a really great format. If offers good IQ and low light performance, has the ability to achieve relatively thin DOF, is compact, and is economically priced.

The argument isn't about weather or not Fuji should enter the M43 market, it's that M43 is not a viable replacement for APSC or FF, nor does it offer any optical/IQ advantages over the two.

Moti Veteran Member • Posts: 8,247
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

Stephen787 wrote:

stimpy wrote:

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?

you cannot be expecting me to comment on m4/3 on two photo at 100% without any metadata.

Actually he can, because photography is a visual art and craft and therefore, all you need in order to evaluate a photograph is using your eyes only. He asked you a simple question, why don't you just answer it instead of using all kind of irrelevant excuses.

Moti

-- hide signature --
G Rothwell Regular Member • Posts: 275
Re: m43 instead of FF

I agree with everything you wrote, but the argument is about weather or not Fuji should enter the M43 market

"If I were Fuji...

I would go to m43 instead of going FF !

Here is the list of reasons:..."

 G Rothwell's gear list:G Rothwell's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +5 more
Michael Jardine
Michael Jardine Senior Member • Posts: 1,818
Re: m43 instead of FF

stimpy wrote:

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

One doesn't even need a chart to see the difference, just look at crop factor.  If FF is 1, APSC is (typically) 1.6, and M43 is 2.

The thing about APSC is this: there is only one reason to use APSC over FF, and that is for sports or extreme telephoto photography. There are no size advantages.

On the other hand, when you step down, the M43 makes perfect sense because the average body and lens is 50% the size of APSC/FF.  So, you can 'take it with you'.

And yes, I have all three: D800, D7000, E-M1.

-- hide signature --

--

Michael
www.Qamera.com
www.Qamera.Tumblr.com
www.Pinterest.com/Qamera

 Michael Jardine's gear list:Michael Jardine's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Nikon D800 Olympus E-M1 +12 more
G Rothwell Regular Member • Posts: 275
Re: m43 instead of FF

amalric wrote:

G Rothwell wrote:

Fuji are a business and businesses are supposed to make profit and grow.

So far they have done an excellent job of growing in a crowded area of the market. They will analyse everything they can to find a balance that allows them to continue developing new products, increase sales, and increase profits.

The allure of Full Frame (to business) is that it is a more expensive product, which normally means more profit.

There is little benefit to Fuji in creating a m43 system, they already have a competing product which many think is superior.

Maybe they would look into lens adapters so their excellent lenses could be used on m43, making the transition to a Fuji system easier.

Camera companies are not trying to make great cameras, they are trying to make great profits, the cameras themselves are just a necessary evil.

You like to act cynical?

The truth is that no mirrorless company has been making a profit so you are just making up things?

At the moment they are trying to establish market share, which is different from profits.

I take Sony's move for a desperate one, because it couldn't really outdo m4/3. The same goes for Fuji and APS mirrorless.

You clever people should ask yourselves why no one has been able to displace m4/3, but why third parties are flocking to it all the times. Why you can have lenses of all sizes and prices.

You live under delusions and legends, while your technology (focus, IBIS, per pixel sharpness) lags behind just like Sony.

People are not blind, that's what they buy. Sony 35mm might be a short lived experiment, just like the others. Follow the lenses.

Am.

Sorry if I've offended you in some way, I was just trying to look at the question from Fuji's perspective.

Is there any part of my post that you think is incorrect?

I have no knowledge of the companies profits, but I do not claim to.

You make a good point about market share, with so many companies doing this there is a tremendous amount of development an innovation which is great for the consumer.

I think you've made the assumption that I don't like m4/3, you are mistaken, I'm glad it exists, it's not for me, but it has a positive effect on the whole industry.

I also guess that you think I have some allegiance to Canon (from my gear list) I don't.  I'm planning on selling some of my gear to buy a Fuji x100s.  But I'm not buying it because it is a Fuji Camera, but because it is a camera I'll enjoy using.

 G Rothwell's gear list:G Rothwell's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +5 more
amalric
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Re: m43 instead of FF

I find people find it v. difficult to separate their personal preferences from the economics of the industry.

Since you argued about the latter I answered about that, not judging about any distinct Fuji camera, OC.

The only time when the two considerations come together is the future of a particular system. I.e. do I do well to invest money in it?

Personally I would be v. wary with Sony, but it might be that it would precipitate a shakeout in the mirrorless world.

Consider that a shakeout in the Japanese camera industry is forecast by the WSJ so we all live on borrowed time.

My take is that m4/3 is the least likely to take a sudden downfall, because of the larger penetration (in Asia) but its companies are still not making profits.

Fuji OTH isn't either, although the company is known to have vast funds. But it can't go on losing money. So would a move to FF improve its cashflow?

I am v. skeptical: consider that we are talking about v. expensive equipment, with high performance restricted to v. special uses. Because of the critical combination short distance to flange/big sensor.

So I am not really judging Fuji in terms of present camerasbut of future directions, and more in general where mirrorless is at.

Am.

Beat Traveller Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: m43 instead of FF
1

Michael Jardine wrote:

stimpy wrote:

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

One doesn't even need a chart to see the difference, just look at crop factor. If FF is 1, APSC is (typically) 1.6, and M43 is 2.

The thing about APSC is this: there is only one reason to use APSC over FF, and that is for sports or extreme telephoto photography. There are no size advantages.

On the other hand, when you step down, the M43 makes perfect sense because the average body and lens is 50% the size of APSC/FF. So, you can 'take it with you'.

And yes, I have all three: D800, D7000, E-M1.

Firstly, one reason you might use APS-C over 35mm is because you can't afford 35mm.

Secondly, your comparison only works because you're comparing APS-C DSLRs to mirrorless M43 cameras. Try comparing your E-M1 to an X-E1, an NEX-6 or an EOS-M. Better yet, try comparing it to the A7.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the smallest mirrorless bodies have very few physical controls, so everything becomes some form of trade-off.

 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads