M43 Musings

Fri13 wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

Being a dual system user makes perfect sense.

M4/3 (or any system based on a cropped sensor) will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage to full frame systems.

Not true. 4/3" sensor has its benefits too. It gathers 2-stops more light for same DOF. And there is way more photography reasons to get deeper depth of field than narrower. And it can be used as benefit in flashes to wildlife and sports. And size and weight can make such difference that you just don't get the photo with 35mm camera but you get it with m4/3 camera.

If someone would make a 400mm f/1.4 objective for sports photographers in 35mm format, do you believe that all would buy it and everyone would be shooting f/1.4 with it all the time (regardless of weight and size)?

There ain't disadvantages, only different benefits!

Using ANY crop sensor system will be a compromise. But that is what separates amateurs from pros. We amateurs make compromises. The pros can't afford to.

135 format is THE Crop Format.

And professionals doesn't have a pleasure to praise one format like 35mm as the only one or as perfect one, as it is their job to get the photo and to do that it can require to use all kind different gear.

https://youtu.be/AneZXrFdW8M

https://youtu.be/nT6eaBm82bQ

https://youtu.be/q0NyPW-BjpA

https://youtu.be/fdwHVtAan38

https://youtu.be/TOoGjtSy7xY

https://youtu.be/bfAosn6BSgg

https://youtu.be/Zt9P28wKaEA

https://youtu.be/mlmlOpsqBjWXY

https://youtu.be/LlzfqVtmxVA

Etc....

While You can be a amateur (hey, HCB told that he keeps himself as amateur....) but there are many professionals who uses 4/3" cameras or 65mm cameras as they offer them better results than 35mm cameras....

The difference seems to be more that professionals know when the compromise doesn't matter and what they get is good enough.... Why they are not afraid to use wide range of all kind a gear and are not afraid to see something little different than "perfection".

Yes there must be some sort of logic in there somewhere, but man I'm having trouble finding it.

A larger sensor will always have an advantage for noise and IQ. One sensor is a quarter of the size of the other !!

Some FF cameras have the advantages of having certain items built in to allow fast tracking with fast PDAF. They also have lenses that can't be compared to what we have for m4/3.

You need a lens to get the shot and if that lens is not available that is needed, then there is no shot.

You sound like there is only one system and a small one at that. You have what suits you and good on you, but don't think its better than other systems, its not. Some have more and better advantages over m4/3 and m4/3 has other advantages over others. Nothing new there.

Danny.

GV27 wrote:

joeletx wrote:

Most would overlook the fact that an E-M1, says can shoot at ISO-1600 instead of ISO-6400 with FF, because of the E-M1 IBIS. Individual set up may vary but what I am saying is the gain, in less grain or noise from going higher ISO with FF, is now not any better than m43 at ISO-1600 due to 2-stop rise in ISO.

IS is nice, but unfortunately only stabilizes the camera rather that stabilizing reality. Doesn't help even a little for moving subjects.

It does help, vertical or horizontal stabilization helps a lot when tracking a moving subject.

But it fights you back if you keep stabilization for tracking movement.

Jim Salvas wrote:

Birders are a special breed in photography, as they are always attempting the near-impossible and thus are always pushing the technical envelope of photography. Thankfully, they buy a LOT of the most expensive gear, so the manufacturers pay attention to them and try to keep up with the demands.

The very idea of shooting small and fast BIFs was unheard of until just a few years ago. Almost nobody could do this with anything other than the grainiest film and early DSLRs were incompetent at the task. But, better sensors came along, with longer, faster AF lenses.

so now, the rest of us can actually shoot our non moving subjects in near darkness, while the birders complain that their images are just a tad grainy if they use crop sensors under overcast skies. Boo hoo, but it won't be long until they get their wish for a 1000mm lens on a teeny body which can do the job.

At that point, I suspect we will see a demand for a camera which can shoot BIFANs (bats in flight at night).

Thank you, birders.

No matter what is offered there is always another boundary. As someone who photographically grew up in the Kodachrome 25 era and knew going to Ektachrome 64 was risky stuff and the Ekta 160 was stratospheric, I often fall about laughing reading the comments of people on these forums who complain that when they shot their black cat in the coal cellar it came out, well, black (who's a thunk it?).

What gets me, though, is time and again I see terrific BIFs taken in such prima facie light unfriendly places as the UK but the EXIF tells me the ISO was modest and the shutter speeds high. And I sit here in the tropics, just 4 degrees south of the equator, with the sun burning down, and I can't understand how I can't get a higher shutter speed!

Have you noticed vass's recent small bird posts from Australia? Gawd. Impressive. I have difficulty photographing something as big as a pelican.