Misinformation about m4/3

Started Feb 14, 2014 | Discussions
El Chubasco
OP El Chubasco Contributing Member • Posts: 717
Re: Sounds like

Art_P wrote:

He might have never shot extensively w an APS camera, otherwise he would have noticed the difference in FoV. He was partially right tho, there is no 'crop' when using an APS camera w an APS lens, just as there is no crop using a 4/3 camera w a 4/3 lens.

I wonder just how much was that he didn't like being corrected in front of the class, and held to his comment rather than listening.

I agree. I think that was the exact situation. I did not want to insist trying to convince him as a sign of respect.

 El Chubasco's gear list:El Chubasco's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Panasonic LX100 Fujifilm XP120 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +8 more
El Chubasco
OP El Chubasco Contributing Member • Posts: 717
Re: So, what are the real problems?

Geo Wharton wrote:

El Chubasco wrote:

"well, with a micro 4/3 you have a real problem"

I think it is interesting to see what a non 4/3 or m4/3 user thinks is so problematic.

- George

I think that is only misinformation, confusion, and fear. Perhaps the combination of the three. I believe that there is a myth running around discrediting m4/3. I remember when I went to the local store pretending I was going to check a camera, the guy on the counter told me that I should not consider m4/3 because the sensor was "garbage."

 El Chubasco's gear list:El Chubasco's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Panasonic LX100 Fujifilm XP120 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +8 more
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Heavens no :D
1

Sergey_Green wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

texinwien wrote:

You're being too kind. It would appear that at least one of the primary participants in this thread is too intellectually challenged to manage simple division by two on the fly. For anyone with average intelligence or above, you're right - it shouldn't be a problem.

Actually of all the posters on this thread you are the one who should really consider some photographic classes, or assistance. Before you even mention the word "intelligence".

I don't care a whit for the opinions of imbecilic t-rolls

Why I say it.

You're powerless in that respect. It would take someone with a far sharper wit and intellect than you possess to make me angry.

The only emotions you evoke in me are those of pity and contempt.

I'd much prefer to be a bad photographer and a decent person than an excellent photographer who's anti-social and maladjusted

 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 OnePlus One Canon EOS 300D +20 more
Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,428
lazy is as lazy does ...

How unfortunate that your course was taught by a Luddite with so little interest in following the trends and technologies ... that would suck all the fun out of it for me ...

The human race has many traits that adhere to the bell curve ... and we cannot escape the fact that many will cling to the wrong end for as long as they can get away with it if they feel comfortable ...

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +17 more
Vlad S Veteran Member • Posts: 3,751
It's not about the formal logic, it's about what people believe
2

Beau Nash wrote:

Yes it is a rather trite saying but like Martin.au suggests, in no way does it imply that "Those who teach, can't do". Nor does it imply "Those who can't teach, do" come to that.

Mathematically speaking, you are correct. But in real life I see this saying coming up every time when teachers try to get better professional benefits. The implication every time is that teaching somehow does not deserve compensation as good as in other industries, because if those who went to teach were capable professionals, they would have been raking up the money in more commercial fields.

Vlad

 Vlad S's gear list:Vlad S's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +2 more
Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 10,297
An appropriate follow-up: other formats

El Chubasco wrote:

Well, the funny thing started when the instructor stated that crop factor does not apply to APS sensors when you use APS designed lens. In other words, he stated that the 18mm lens of an APS canikon covers the exact same angle as if using a full frame 18mm lens in a FF camera. I tried to explain that the 18 lens in APS sensor would be close to a 28mm of FF but he refused to believe me. When I said that I use m4/3 as an example to make my point (multiplying focal length by 2) he said "well, with a micro 4/3 you have a real problem" making everyone believe that m4/3 cameras actually pose problems for photographers.

"So, if an 18mm lens covers the same angle on APS as on FF, does it do the same on 645? How about 4x5?"

-- hide signature --

jacquescornell.com

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +29 more
amalric
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Re: So, what are the real problems?

El Chubasco wrote:

Geo Wharton wrote:

El Chubasco wrote:

"well, with a micro 4/3 you have a real problem"

I think it is interesting to see what a non 4/3 or m4/3 user thinks is so problematic.

- George

I think that is only misinformation, confusion, and fear. Perhaps the combination of the three. I believe that there is a myth running around discrediting m4/3. I remember when I went to the local store pretending I was going to check a camera, the guy on the counter told me that I should not consider m4/3 because the sensor was "garbage."

People are not very cultivated, even in what they do daily. Just take as an example all the 4/3 proper owners who were spitting on m4/3, and that are now indignantly defending it in a crowd here, as if they didn't dream to kill it since it existed.

At least they understand the proportion 4:3. The other thing that they understand is money.If their money is safe, then they can go brag in a new forum. Perhaps as they, your teacher will become a m4/3 enthusiast if he sees the money advantage.

Am.

Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 10,297
Venn diagram of doing & teaching

Vlad S wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

"Those who can't do, teach." perhaps?

And those who "do" learned everything by themselves, perhaps? There are some bad teachers for sure, but this generalization that only unsuccessful people become teachers, really hurts those, who went into the profession out of passion for education and for sharing their knowledge. Think about where all those "doers" would be without teachers before you say this again.

"Those who can't do teach."

Is not the same as

"Those who teach can't do."

The first describes a smaller subset of a larger group. The second describes two groups as being entirely overlapping.

I'm a professional photographer. And a photography teacher. I do and teach.

-- hide signature --

jacquescornell.com

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +29 more
Ido S
Ido S Veteran Member • Posts: 4,955
There are still ignorant people

Sadly, ignorant people are aplenty out in the world. Even more saddening and discomforting is the fact that many of those ignorant people, are so-called professional photographers, who actually have a decent work ethic and results.

Those who come from a film background can be understood. They have never had the urge or need to research and look into cropped-sensor equipment, let alone use them. But the next time you're faced with someone who makes those claims -- or the next time you run into that same guy -- don't just tell him how it theoretically works; people like that need proof. If someone has a Nikon DX body and 18-55mm, and another has a Nikon FX body and 18-35mm lens, then it's the perfect opportunity to prove him wrong. If not, well ... figure out something.

Oh, and if he bashes on µ4/3 again, present him a fine art print of a photo taken using µ4/3 equipment.

Another option: ignore and let them live their lives as they have been living them until now. I'm not this kind of person though; I hate ignorants.

 Ido S's gear list:Ido S's gear list
Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +1 more
Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,700
Agree

Kim Letkeman wrote:

How unfortunate that your course was taught by a Luddite with so little interest in following the trends and technologies ... that would suck all the fun out of it for me ...

If technology is what he was teaching. It does not have to be if it was only a workshop. But I agree, he should have taken few minutes to clarify and explain it, it would not even take that long.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,700
Bad or hopeless ;) ?
1

texinwien wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

texinwien wrote:

You're being too kind. It would appear that at least one of the primary participants in this thread is too intellectually challenged to manage simple division by two on the fly. For anyone with average intelligence or above, you're right - it shouldn't be a problem.

Actually of all the posters on this thread you are the one who should really consider some photographic classes, or assistance. Before you even mention the word "intelligence".

I don't care a whit for the opinions of imbecilic t-rolls

Why I say it.

You're powerless in that respect. It would take someone with a far sharper wit and intellect than you possess to make me angry.

The only emotions you evoke in me are those of pity and contempt.

Anger. Or you would not be coming back again and again with the same irrelevance.

I'd much prefer to be a bad photographer and a decent person than an excellent photographer who's anti-social and maladjusted

You'd much rather prefer to be a bad photographer than whatever else you could not even guess? - Sounds reasonable.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,700
Good catch!

Martin.au wrote:y

Funny thing about that shot. If both shots were using the same EFL, then either both shots would be bad (if using the GH3's EFL), or good, if using the D4's wider EFL.

The actual difference in the bird's location is only about half the length of the bird.

Was that the point you were making Sergey?

It is something I did not think about, you got a point here. The bird is simply cropped out from the frame.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,428
Re: Agree
2

Sergey_Green wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

How unfortunate that your course was taught by a Luddite with so little interest in following the trends and technologies ... that would suck all the fun out of it for me ...

If technology is what he was teaching. It does not have to be if it was only a workshop. But I agree, he should have taken few minutes to clarify and explain it, it would not even take that long.

The instructor did not understand it, so he could have taken an hour and it would have had no positive effect for anyone who understands crop factor ...

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +17 more
tt321
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,916
Re: Misinformation about m4/3
2

Martin.au wrote:

Alan Lai wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

Alan Lai wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

"Those who can't do, teach." perhaps?

I hope you realize that teaching requires more than just "do", but able to "explain" clearly to people who are not familiar with the field.

The problem presented here? Too many people claim they are photographers, but in the end, they aren't photographer in any way. Similar to the thinking that you own pro gear you are a pro, you

read forums and you are an expert.

Wow. I didn't realise so many people would be unfamiliar with that phrase.

No, it's not supposed to apply to every teacher. I know there are a hell of a lot of really great teachers out there, with exceptional skills.

On the other hand, there are also "teachers" out there who are happy to "educate" about things they don't understand. Case in point. That is the type of person the phrase is used to refer to.

Dunno what the rest of your post is about. Perhaps you could draw up some guidelines so we can distinguish between these "photographers" and people who "aren't photographer in any way".

The meaning for that phrases is indeed "People who are able to do something well can do that thing for a living, while people who are not able to do anything that well make a living by teaching." I understand it pretty correctly. So what's the "unfamiliar with that phrase" about?

You surely don't think it applies to all teachers? I don't, as you can identify by the question mark at the end of my original post, thereby identifying, in my opinion, the situation described as an example of the phrase.

For the rest of your post, I think you know those guidelines very well so there's no need for me to draw up any.

Well, apparently not. After all, there are apparently people here who are calling themselves pro, because they own pro gear, and calling themselves photographers, even though they "aren't photographer in any way". Would you like to give us some examples, or some way of determining which is which?

The fundamental problem with that oft-quoted and oft-misused sentence is the assumption that one has to be able to do something to make a living in order to qualify as a teacher of said activity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Which coaches of Olympic winning athletes have themselves won Olympics? Teachers must be good at teaching because that's what they do, the thing they teach is not necessarily what they do.

tt321
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,916
Re: Venn diagram of doing & teaching

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Vlad S wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

"Those who can't do, teach." perhaps?

And those who "do" learned everything by themselves, perhaps? There are some bad teachers for sure, but this generalization that only unsuccessful people become teachers, really hurts those, who went into the profession out of passion for education and for sharing their knowledge. Think about where all those "doers" would be without teachers before you say this again.

"Those who can't do teach."

Is not the same as

"Those who teach can't do."

The first describes a smaller subset of a larger group.

And some more. It implies that all that can't do teach. It's plainly untrue. Many of those can't do don't teach. Actually most of those can't do don't teach.

The second describes two groups as being entirely overlapping.

I'm a professional photographer. And a photography teacher. I do and teach.

-- hide signature --

jacquescornell.com

tt321
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,916
Re: Agree
1

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

How unfortunate that your course was taught by a Luddite with so little interest in following the trends and technologies ... that would suck all the fun out of it for me ...

If technology is what he was teaching. It does not have to be if it was only a workshop. But I agree, he should have taken few minutes to clarify and explain it, it would not even take that long.

The instructor did not understand it, so he could have taken an hour and it would have had no positive effect for anyone who understands crop factor ...

At this point, the student who knows this stuff, from a pragmatic point of view, should let the subject leave the room. Much better to get one's money's worth by spending time on topics the instructor does know better than oneself.

krugman Contributing Member • Posts: 957
Re: It's not about the formal logic, it's about what people believe

Vlad S wrote:

Beau Nash wrote:

Yes it is a rather trite saying but like Martin.au suggests, in no way does it imply that "Those who teach, can't do". Nor does it imply "Those who can't teach, do" come to that.

Mathematically speaking, you are correct. But in real life I see this saying coming up every time when teachers try to get better professional benefits. The implication every time is that teaching somehow does not deserve compensation as good as in other industries, because if those who went to teach were capable professionals, they would have been raking up the money in more commercial fields.

Vlad

Vlad,

I agree entirely and  you have said it better than I did. I think you would like the Kristoff article I mentioned in my earlier post.

Krugman

Kim Letkeman
Kim Letkeman Forum Pro • Posts: 33,428
Re: Agree

tt321 wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

How unfortunate that your course was taught by a Luddite with so little interest in following the trends and technologies ... that would suck all the fun out of it for me ...

If technology is what he was teaching. It does not have to be if it was only a workshop. But I agree, he should have taken few minutes to clarify and explain it, it would not even take that long.

The instructor did not understand it, so he could have taken an hour and it would have had no positive effect for anyone who understands crop factor ...

At this point, the student who knows this stuff, from a pragmatic point of view, should let the subject leave the room. Much better to get one's money's worth by spending time on topics the instructor does know better than oneself.

One presumes that said student performed said actions as soon as he realized that said instructor was a confirmed Luddite.

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +17 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 650
Get your photography understood, first.
2

El Chubasco wrote:

I am taking a photography workshop and las night I found myself in a funny or frustrating situation. First, the group is about 15 people and of course, I am the only one who uses a m4/3 camera. Everyone else in the room uses nikon or canon.

Well, the funny thing started when the instructor stated that crop factor does not apply to APS sensors when you use APS designed lens. In other words, he stated that the 18mm lens of an APS canikon covers the exact same angle as if using a full frame 18mm lens in a FF camera. I tried to explain that the 18 lens in APS sensor would be close to a 28mm of FF but he refused to believe me. When I said that I use m4/3 as an example to make my point (multiplying focal length by 2) he said "well, with a micro 4/3 you have a real problem" making everyone believe that m4/3 cameras actually pose problems for photographers.

The discussion went on and it deviated in something else. I just learned that some old-fashion pros who have always used FF have no idea of what cropping factor means and how lenses compensate to sensor's size. Even worse, people have the conviction that m4/3 are "problematic" and make believe other the same. Anyway, I do not know where I am going with this, perhaps I am just venting.

What matters, of course, is what your photography does. If your photography pleases clients, generates passion, motivates appreciation or action, or just satisfies you, then what does it matter what some troglodyte somewhere thinks of your tool set?

It's possible to understand a lot about photography and yet know / care relatively little about cameras and imaging technology. If you're looking for technical insight, interviews with renowned, successful, talented artists like Annie Liebovitz or Mario Testino will leave you pulling your hair out--they really just don't care. Likewise, lots of people know everything about the technology in play but know nothing about how to actually capture a compelling image. Cue just about every post in DP Review fora for that extreme. You're going to have to make peace with photography's dual character--that of technical and aesthetic craft--and learn to live with the crazy juxtapositions that this interesting and often conflicting duality sometimes creates. One of them: a photography instructor who doesn't understand much or anything about format sizing.

Another thing you'll likely have to make peace with: m4/3 is probably destined to be a niche and largely misunderstood product, especially in the era of 135-format mirrorless and 40-megapixel cell phones cameras. The message that communicates m4/3's unique strengths and wonderful core capabilities is pretty subtle and depends, a lot, on first-hand experience with the product. Meanwhile, Sony can just bark about 36 megapixels at ISO 25600, and Nokia can talk about 40 megapixels, always connected, in the palm of your hands. People interested in technology for specification bragging rights are never going to love m4/3.

There were interesting, subtle strengths to the 4/3 system, too, that didn't find much mainstream appeal. That lovely color signature of the early Kodak CCD sensors? The unique, crystalline quality of the Zuiko f/2 pro zoom lenses? Most people skipped it. But some didn't, and there are *incredible* images out there for it.

Hey, medium format is niche, too. So is film. So are lots of other really interesting, powerful, vital ways to make visual art. Lots of people will tell you that medium format sucks and fewer really understand what it's capable of doing--but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use it if you have an idea and you know it's the best way to make it happen.

The healthy way to go about this? "Yeah yeah yeah m4/3 sucks, now look at my images." You don't need people to appreciate your camera--you need them to appreciate your photography.

Aberaeron Veteran Member • Posts: 6,735
Re: Venn diagram of doing & teaching

tt321 wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Vlad S wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

"Those who can't do, teach." perhaps?

And those who "do" learned everything by themselves, perhaps? There are some bad teachers for sure, but this generalization that only unsuccessful people become teachers, really hurts those, who went into the profession out of passion for education and for sharing their knowledge. Think about where all those "doers" would be without teachers before you say this again.

"Those who can't do teach."

Is not the same as

"Those who teach can't do."

The first describes a smaller subset of a larger group.

And some more. It implies that all that can't do teach. It's plainly untrue. Many of those can't do don't teach. Actually most of those can't do don't teach.

The second describes two groups as being entirely overlapping.

I'm a professional photographer. And a photography teacher. I do and teach.

Wow, this is deep man!

Really DEEP!

Are you are that you are photography teachers, not philosophy teachers?

 Aberaeron's gear list:Aberaeron's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Sony SLT-A57 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Olympus 7-14mm F2.8 Pro +21 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads