Is FF maybe better than M43 for me ??

[jagge]

Hey

I am reaching out to users who have been choosing between ff and m43, and interested in users with experience with both platforms.

I still try to love m43, I have written about it before. I have had a g2 and now I have a g6. I have invested in the 20 mm 1.7 and 45 mm 1.8 and have a couple of lowgrade zooms. I have adaptor and use manual 50 mm 1.4 nikkor also.

Now I find myself ALWAYS shooting wide open. The 20 mm at 1.7 and the 45 mm at 1.8, almost exclusively. Often shutter maxout is a issue though. Still with the 20 mm i often just long for more shallow dof AND wider perspective. Now the 45 mm at 1.8 is sweet, but usage is also limited to portraits, torso shoots etc. I do want to do more environmental portraits.

I have been thinking about going for the 15 mm 1.7 but i guess lack of short dof is even more pronounced. I am thinking hard about going for teh more pro omd em5 mark 2 due to newer sensor, and very nice output from cam that I highly prefer BUT now i cant shake the idea that maybe I am just born for a ff a7 instead. I know the shortcomings of the optics but the perspectives of a sigma 24 mm 1.4 on that soccer which would give 12 mm f 0.7 equivalent make me wonder.

So, inputs to this ????

If you dont have anything more substantial to add than "just get a sony" please just ignore the thread, my request is honest.

Kind regards

Jakob

 

[Eric Nepean]

Hey

I am reaching out to users who have been choosing between ff and m43, and interested in users with experience with both platforms.

I still try to love m43, I have written about it before. I have had a g2 and now I have a g6. I have invested in the 20 mm 1.7 and 45 mm 1.8 and have a couple of lowgrade zooms. I have adaptor and use manual 50 mm 1.4 nikkor also.

Now I find myself ALWAYS shooting wide open. The 20 mm at 1.7 and the 45 mm at 1.8, almost exclusively. Often shutter maxout is a issue though. Still with the 20 mm i often just long for more shallow dof AND wider perspective. Now the 45 mm at 1.8 is sweet, but usage is also limited to portraits, torso shoots etc. I do want to do more environmental portraits.

I have been thinking about going for the 15 mm 1.7 but i guess lack of short dof is even more pronounced. I am thinking hard about going for teh more pro omd em5 mark 2 due to newer sensor, and very nice output from cam that I highly prefer BUT now i cant shake the idea that maybe I am just born for a ff a7 instead. I know the shortcomings of the optics but the perspectives of a sigma 24 mm 1.4 on that soccer which would give 12 mm f 0.7 equivalent make me wonder.

So, inputs to this ????

If you dont have anything more substantial to add than "just get a sony" please just ignore the thread, my request is honest.

Kind regards

Jakob

Hi Jakob

I think the audience could be more helpful if you posted an image that shows what you are targeting, or one that didn't quite make it but would be a little bit better if you could have a little less DOF ...

Is it that you want narrower DOF or more background blur?

 

[TheManWhoWas]

When you say "shallow dof" what I assume you mean is "more blurred backgrounds". A wide lens is a bad start for blurring backgrounds, and FF will only quadruple the blurriness, so "hardly blurred" on m43 will only become "a bit blurred" on FF i.e. don't expect a magical difference.

Long lenses magnify the background more, and the background being further away increases the out of foucs effect - these two things are a bigger factor than doubling sensor size.

 

[gear1box]

Jakob --

Hmmm. i've been shooting Nikon for four-plus decades (Gawd! just to type those words is . . .) and have been a Nikon dSLR shooter since 2006, and FF d600 since 2013. Also bought my first m4/3 (a G1) in 2010, have a GH1, G5 and EM5. So i shoot with both systems and find them complementary and, actually, rather poor substitutes. I can make either fit any assignment but i'd rather not.

And i'd also rather not enumerate a detailed list of all the things i find advantageous -- for me! -- about FF compared to m4/3 here; i've done so in numerous other posts. (Rest assured, i also think m4/3 has its advantages too; that is why i shoot both).

In your case, though, just about any FF body and a small collection of sharp (and inexpensive) primes -- in Nikon's case, they may well be 30 year-old MF -- can meet your DoF/isolation needs exquisitely. In the bargain you will get a couple of stops more DR, better high ISO treatment, more pixels, refined, superior ergonomics, reliable wireless flash, and generally less hassle getting a sharp, deep, rich image on the print compared to m4/3. At least that is my experience; YMMV. I know that the sentiment i just expressed is a minority one on this board, but it is my experience.

But it won't be light and small; you may need a tripod for some of your work. I think of my FF gear now how we thought of medium format in the film era: a slower way of working for getting superior images. If m4/3 could do all i need, i would walk away from FF today. It cannot . . . for me.

You will have to choose a system; your choice is Canon, Nikon, or Sony. I'd get an entry level body and budget for two or three primes. Sony is innovative, has mirrorless options, and cheap to start with a kit lens. Gawd-only-knows Sony's strategy five years hence. Their better lenses -- when they have one you wish -- are pricey. Canon and Nikon are a push; yah gotta pick one, but it really doesn't matter in your image. If i were you, i'd pick the one that your friends shoot . . . so that you may borrow lenses, flashes, etc. They are both really really good.

Good luck.

-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.

 

[jagge]

Hey Eric

Thx for the suggestion, but I believe shooters who are used to the m43 platform and ff will now what I am talking about.

I guess I would want to know how users of both systems experience them.

Jakob

 

[Skeeterbytes]

At the very least you need a body with 1/8000 shutter and the ability to pull ISO to 100. That generally allows shooting faster lenses wide open in sunlight. However, it's still not enough for the 1.2, 1.0 and 0.9 lenses. The E-M5ii with 1/16000 begins to look like the paring to choose without resorting to ND filters.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[jagge]

When you say "shallow dof" what I assume you mean is "more blurred backgrounds". A wide lens is a bad start for blurring backgrounds, and FF will only quadruple the blurriness, so "hardly blurred" on m43 will only become "a bit blurred" on FF i.e. don't expect a magical difference.

Long lenses magnify the background more, and the background being further away increases the out of foucs effect - these two things are a bigger factor than doubling sensor size.

Hi

Know I mean what i write, less depth of field, BUT that will also give more blured bacground. Same same. I think your statement goes in two directions, only a quadrupling ? to me that sounds like a lot actually ?

Kind regards

Jakob

 

[M43 Dude]

Lets just put this out in the open, both lenses are at about the same vantage point, you're not going to gain much at all. The wider the lens you go the even less pronounced the bokeh will be. You're not going to really get much more shallow depth of field. This is the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 at F/1.8.

This is the Panasonic Leica 25mm F/1.4

 

[jalywol]

Hey

I am reaching out to users who have been choosing between ff and m43, and interested in users with experience with both platforms.

I still try to love m43, I have written about it before. I have had a g2 and now I have a g6. I have invested in the 20 mm 1.7 and 45 mm 1.8 and have a couple of lowgrade zooms. I have adaptor and use manual 50 mm 1.4 nikkor also.

Now I find myself ALWAYS shooting wide open. The 20 mm at 1.7 and the 45 mm at 1.8, almost exclusively. Often shutter maxout is a issue though. Still with the 20 mm i often just long for more shallow dof AND wider perspective. Now the 45 mm at 1.8 is sweet, but usage is also limited to portraits, torso shoots etc. I do want to do more environmental portraits.

I have been thinking about going for the 15 mm 1.7 but i guess lack of short dof is even more pronounced. I am thinking hard about going for teh more pro omd em5 mark 2 due to newer sensor, and very nice output from cam that I highly prefer BUT now i cant shake the idea that maybe I am just born for a ff a7 instead. I know the shortcomings of the optics but the perspectives of a sigma 24 mm 1.4 on that soccer which would give 12 mm f 0.7 equivalent make me wonder.

So, inputs to this ????

If you dont have anything more substantial to add than "just get a sony" please just ignore the thread, my request is honest.

FF will absolutely give you shallower DOF for any given focal length and aperture setting.

The questions that you should be asking, though, are: 1) Can changing my lens usage accomplish the same thing (for instance, using a telephoto instead of a wide, if the shooting situation allows it, or changing the distance to subject), and 2) Which system fits your shooting needs overall the best, not just in terms of only DOF?

Both M43 and the Sony FF systems have strengths and weaknesses. If you want fast AF in lower light, the M43 is going to be better to use. If control over DOF is your primary goal, then FF will give you more options than M43.

To get very shallow DOF in M43, you need very fast lenses, especially if you want to go wide, and you have to work at it a bit. FF shallow DOF is effortless, although it can get in the way if you want deeper DOF, sometimes too (for instance macro or landscape).

Shooting with each format is different, and it does take a while to switch from one to the other and adjust to the strengths and weaknesses of each.

I would suggest you rent a FF and a lens or two for a few days, and see if the system is a good match to your needs. A little bit of time spent with the cameras and lenses you would be using should very quickly tell you whether this is a good way for you to go.

-J

The first three of these were taken with 50mm f1.7 lenses, wide open (the cat with a legacy Yashica, the dog with a Minolta AF lens, on the A7). The last one was taken with a Nikon 24mm f2.8 wide open, and you can see how shallow the DOF is even for that wide a lens, at this distance.

 

[M43 Dude]

The difference in depth of field should be 2 stops, in reality it's not as much as you would think. You can fix the issue by buying one of the Voightlander manual focus primes, which will give you F/1.8 equivalency.

As I said previously though, the wider you go the less pronounced the difference will be, and that's just a matter of optics. Wider lenses don't generally possess the same depth of field as narrower telephoto lenses.

 

[jagge]

thx Gary

1) for net getting emotional :0)

and 2) for a really usefull answer. It seems a alfa a 7 could meet the small size requirement but off course you have a very valid point about the lenses. As a previous aps-c shooter i just cant go back to a d700 size house I think, but a used a7 just might...

thx

Jakob

 

[M43 Dude]

I don't think there's too much emotion in it, it's just a matter of what you want. If you can live with manual focus as you obviously can if you buy an A7 then you can buy a Voightlander prime for the same price as an A7 body and not have two kits.

That's semantics.... But if you're trying to use this to justify buying an A7 I wont stop you. I'll just say the AF speed and accuracy of the A7 MKI is horrendous and reportedly so by many more people with much more knowledge than I have.

 

[jagge]

Lets just put this out in the open, both lenses are at about the same vantage point, you're not going to gain much at all. The wider the lens you go the even less pronounced the bokeh will be. You're not going to really get much more shallow depth of field. This is the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 at F/1.8.

This is the Panasonic Leica 25mm F/1.4

sorry man non of those are in focus in the first place especially not the one using the nikon. Not quite sure what the point is what cam are the lenses on ?

 

[jagge]

I don't think there's too much emotion in it, it's just a matter of what you want. If you can live with manual focus as you obviously can if you buy an A7 then you can buy a Voightlander prime for the same price as an A7 body and not have two kits.

That's semantics.... But if you're trying to use this to justify buying an A7 I wont stop you. I'll just say the AF speed and accuracy of the A7 MKI is horrendous and reportedly so by many more people with much more knowledge than I have.

so you are of the opinion that the a7 lacks an AF module ?

 

[M43 Dude]

Lets just put this out in the open, both lenses are at about the same vantage point, you're not going to gain much at all. The wider the lens you go the even less pronounced the bokeh will be. You're not going to really get much more shallow depth of field. This is the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 at F/1.8.

This is the Panasonic Leica 25mm F/1.4

sorry man non of those are in focus in the first place especially not the one using the nikon. Not quite sure what the point is what cam are the lenses on ?

You can argue "the point" with DPREVIEW I chose their samples they're not my work. If you're using it as a base to argue the point of an A7 I'll have no part of that, that wasn't my point. My point was as you go wider the actual effect of bokeh is increasingly less pronounced.

If you think DPREVIEW takes crappy photos you can argue that to them not to me.

 

[Xenomorf2007]

Regarding shallow DoF on M43, this one's taken with the Voightlander 42,5 @ 0,95

You have to give up some sharpness below say 1,4 but It's a really nice lens

 

[M43 Dude]

so you are of the opinion that the a7 lacks an AF module ?

My point is that the A7 MKI has an auto focus system that has been labelled as various versions of crap to very crap by multiple reviewers and has also been labeled as missing the point of focus and consistently hitting the wrong target. Again not my words on the matter.

I wouldn't be running off to buy an A7 MKI if part of my intent was to use its auto focus... I'd be running off to buy an A7 MKI at cheap prices if my intent was dynamic range, but otherwise I'd caution the purchase.

I hear the II is better.

 

[neil holmes]

Hey

I am reaching out to users who have been choosing between ff and m43, and interested in users with experience with both platforms.

I still try to love m43, I have written about it before. I have had a g2 and now I have a g6. I have invested in the 20 mm 1.7 and 45 mm 1.8 and have a couple of lowgrade zooms. I have adaptor and use manual 50 mm 1.4 nikkor also.

Now I find myself ALWAYS shooting wide open. The 20 mm at 1.7 and the 45 mm at 1.8, almost exclusively. Often shutter maxout is a issue though. Still with the 20 mm i often just long for more shallow dof AND wider perspective. Now the 45 mm at 1.8 is sweet, but usage is also limited to portraits, torso shoots etc. I do want to do more environmental portraits.

I have been thinking about going for the 15 mm 1.7 but i guess lack of short dof is even more pronounced. I am thinking hard about going for teh more pro omd em5 mark 2 due to newer sensor, and very nice output from cam that I highly prefer BUT now i cant shake the idea that maybe I am just born for a ff a7 instead. I know the shortcomings of the optics but the perspectives of a sigma 24 mm 1.4 on that soccer which would give 12 mm f 0.7 equivalent make me wonder.

So, inputs to this ????

If you dont have anything more substantial to add than "just get a sony" please just ignore the thread, my request is honest.

Kind regards

Jakob

I have a GX7 and both a Sony A7s and original A7.

There IS a place in my bag for the GX7 (have seriously thought about selling it for an LX100) and am keeping it despite my HATING its grip.

I love using different formats BECAUSE they are different and I am not interested in shooting them alongside each other for equivalence.

The A7 cameras are the ones I have been looking for.....FF sensor with an EVF.

I love that I can use lenses from many systems....have spent thousands on Canon EF mount lenses lately including expensive manual focus TS-E lenses. Some of the Sony lenses are first class too (Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 is a bargain and very nice lens).

I use a mixture of E mount lenses (full frame and APSC), EF lenses and A mount lenses all with AF (EF lenses AF slowly) and electronic connection/communication as well as Canon FD L lenses (at their intended focal length as well as APSC mode), Nikon F and Pentax K mount lenses with dumb adapters (others too).

To ME, there are far MORE useable lenses available to the A7 cameras than anything.



The A7s is simply wonderful in low light and is a great video camera too.

The original A7 has quite useable high ISO and ok video in itself (A7ii better for video).

The GX7 has things I would like in an A7/A7s camera......touch screen and tilting EVF and IBIS......not enough to prefer the GX7 though ....I have hardly used the GX7 since getting the A7s but will still use it from time to time....maybe today for a Cricket match (both A7 and GX7 likely with the same old manual focus 300 2.8).

M4/3 is great but for ME is a backup system really now.

I have used and love FF, APSC, M4/3 and Pentax Q for ILCs (as well as a large Polaroid 600SE film camera and smaller difital point and shoot cameras).

If the latest greatest tracking AF is important, then the A7 series is not a good choice though neither is most cameras from most systems to be fair......the A7 and A7ii are also not THAT bad for AF with E and A mount lenses (A mount with an LA-EA4 adapter) anyway......A7s is not for tracking AF at all but does focus well and amongst the best cameras for AFs at EV -4.

The GX7 also has EV -4 AFS focusing but from my experience of both, at that light level, the A7s focuses far better....maybe it is the lenses I used though (sold off most of my M4/3 lenses now).

 

[jagge]

The difference in depth of field should be 2 stops, in reality it's not as much as you would think. You can fix the issue by buying one of the Voightlander manual focus primes, which will give you F/1.8 equivalency.

As I said previously though, the wider you go the less pronounced the difference will be, and that's just a matter of optics. Wider lenses don't generally possess the same depth of field as narrower telephoto lenses.

Hey

I actually dont think you are right. Off course its correct that the difference is two stops I guess. And also that its in the wideangle region the battle is. From the 90 mm equivalent onwards ( the 45 mm 1.8) I am actually very happy. I think 1.8 at 45 mm m43 is a very good example of usefull low DOF that gives subject isolation in torso shots, without being too shallow.

But your argument looses out to reality since the distance between systems is highly magnified by the lack of fast wideangle glass in the m43 world. Sigma just put out the 24 mm FF f 1.4 lense. The fastes lense with AF in that range is the 12 mm oly f 2.0. Now you are looking at a huge distance between systems.

ANd thx to all for suggestion the manual glass, to be honest i dont see that as an option for anything else than stil life, environmental shots, and portraits of adults. For anything involving kids its just not an option, I have not met one person who could reliably hit focus in such a situation

Best wishes

Jakob

 

[jagge]

so you are of the opinion that the a7 lacks an AF module ?

My point is that the A7 MKI has an auto focus system that has been labelled as various versions of crap to very crap by multiple reviewers and has also been labeled as missing the point of focus and consistently hitting the wrong target. Again not my words on the matter.

I wouldn't be running off to buy an A7 MKI if part of my intent was to use its auto focus... I'd be running off to buy an A7 MKI at cheap prices if my intent was dynamic range, but otherwise I'd caution the purchase.

I hear the II is better.

hmm ok, I know its not m43 fast, but was not aware that it was borderline useless ?? I will look into that off course.