M43 vs canon apsc

Jorginho wrote:

My bad.  Missed that.  Don't have any 20MP m43 yet so I'll withhold comment on that one.

IBIS stabilizes ALL LENSES, including without IS and adapted.

IBIS offers 5-axis of stabilization. Lens stabilization = 2-axis. You get more stops of stabilization with IBIS. With DUAL IS, more than just IBIS.

IBIS stabilizes ALL shutter speeds including 1/125 and up. Photographers write they shoot 600mm 1/15 hand held with DUAL IS. With lens IS - no.

IBIS better than lens IS when you have it, better than that if the lens doesn't have it.

The need for IBIS depends on what you photograph. It won't hurt you if you shoot people or other moving subjects, but it will help you everywhere else.

For general photography you can live with IBIS easier than you can you can live without it.

All ASP-C sensors are not equal. Some beat the best M43 sensors, some are not as good in noise tests and DR. The newer ones do have more resolution, but 24MP is not much different than 24MP from a practical matter. It doesn't make much of a difference in most photos.

The DPR M50 review also suggests the Canon ASP-C sensor performs better at ISO400.

I use the 15mm prime for race car track video. Works great for that - it isn't sharp. But the 9mm fisheye is fun and cheap and sharp in the middle, and if you know how to use it, a wide angle, not a fisheye. Put the center of the images at the horizon. I de-fish the images when I need to with a $20 app.

MShot wrote:

IBIS stabilizes ALL LENSES, including without IS and adapted.

IBIS offers 5-axis of stabilization. Lens stabilization = 2-axis. You get more stops of stabilization with IBIS. With DUAL IS, more than just IBIS.

IBIS stabilizes ALL shutter speeds including 1/125 and up. Photographers write they shoot 600mm 1/15 hand held with DUAL IS. With lens IS - no.

IBIS better than lens IS when you have it, better than that if the lens doesn't have it.

The need for IBIS depends on what you photograph. It won't hurt you if you shoot people or other moving subjects, but it will help you everywhere else.

For general photography you can live with IBIS easier than you can you can live without it.

I love IBIS, and Oly pioneered here... & still sets the standard.  But at really long EFL's, OIS becomes more effective.  The beauty of dual IS is that it covers that end of 'envelope'

How did you light the beach and the wave? That's the sun coming around the other side of the earth?

OLY also has DUAL IS, just not for as many lenses as Panny - I think, and the more expensive ones.

OLY doesn't claim a big improvement from their IBIS to their DUAL IS. 5 to 6.5 stops, whatever it actually is. When you get up to 5 you pretty much have what you need. I'm happy with the older 3-axis IBIS that are only 3-4 stops. I don't see a difference between 4 and 5 stops.

I too noticed a big improvement on all sorts of photography and lenses when I went to IBIS. I don't want to go back to lens IS.

MShot wrote:

OLY also has DUAL IS, just not for as many lenses as Panny - I think, and the more expensive ones.

OLY doesn't claim a big improvement from their IBIS to their DUAL IS. 5 to 6.5 stops, whatever it actually is. When you get up to 5 you pretty much have what you need. I'm happy with the older 3-axis IBIS that are only 3-4 stops. I don't see a difference between 4 and 5 stops.

I too noticed a big improvement on all sorts of photography and lenses when I went to IBIS. I don't want to go back to lens IS.

yes - amounts to a tacit admission that there is need for OIS (@ long end).  Unfortunately only on 2 Oly lenses.

Panasonic has FINALLY (w/ G9) caught Oly for IBIS effectiveness.  (or very close)

I will always give them credit for pioneering!

Something hasn't been mentioned about DOF. If you have to shoot f/8 on MFT to make DOF big enough to put everything in focus, then you have to use f/10 on ASP-C?

If so, you have to bump the ISO on your ASP-C camera if you can't adjust the shutter speed. Take away a stop of light from the ASP-C camera the light gathering ability is about even with MFT.

DOF, often presented as a disadvantage of MFT, can be an advantage. It can also help with MACRO photography.

I agree it takes pixel peeping to see the difference between them. I crop tiny bird photos down to 1750X1500 that are amazingly detailed with a 16MP MFT sensor. The quality of the lens make a big difference. Sometimes you mount a big MFT lens to acquire that extra sharpness, and you lose a lot of the size/weight advantage.

It seems like for every argument for one sensor or the other, there is another argument for the opposite. They are pretty even in the end, so you can choose either and be happy.

For short reach only, I think I'd lean ASP-C or FF. For short and long, or long only, MFT is the only way for me.

Very nice. I thought it had to be a restaurant at the beach. It would have been a lot of work to set up lights on an empty beach though I'm sure it's been done.

I like the 40-150PRO so much I just bought the 12-40. I'm holding on to the Rokinon 12 f/2 MF until I can try the 12-40. I suspect .8 will not make much of a difference, but I might keep the Rokinon because it's lighter.

I have the 17 f/2.8, bought before faster primes were available. I like it though I'm thinking of buying the f/1.8, might keep the f/2.8 though because its fast enough sometimes and its a pancake.

Really nice that you can do this hand held with confidence. Thanks for sharing the photo.

007peter wrote:

siberstorm27 wrote:

M43 with f1.7 and 3 axis IBIS versus canon apsc with f2. Which is better in low light? Looking for trouser pocketable camera that is better than a 1" compact. Specifically the e-pl9 vs m100. Both are under 40mm. Add pancake around 60-70mm. The Canon has a bigger sensor and more megapixels and I like to zoom into pictures. However, the e-pl9 has IBIS which helps with the smaller sensor and videos look much better with it. I also like olympus color more. It would've been easier if there was an e-pm3 or something. Not into the panasonic look.

I shot Canon for many years, I even have a Canon EOS-M + 22mm f/2 before I switch over to M43. In my experience with lowlight:

Olympus E-PL9 (with 16mp Sony sensor) is superior to Canon in lowlight,

Canon, both 24mp or 18mp, is better than Panasonic in lowlight

But once you factor in the 3 stop IBIS advantage, it becomes a definite win for Olympus E-PL9

Keep in mind that Canon M100 don't have IBIS, and Canon 22mm f/2 prime lack stabilization. Still, I'm quite happy shooting Canon 22mm f/2 in lowlight without stabilization: smaller the camera, easier it is to hold without stabilization.

16mp Sony sensor in Olympus is quite good, I prefer it over both Canon 24mp and 18mp due to its slighlty cleaner iso3200 performance, where I shoot mostly. I'm comfortable using iso3200 with Olympus, with iso6400 as last result. The biggest advantage in lowlight is that Olympus has 3 stop IBIS. That means under these same conditions of extreme lowlight:

Canon with 22mm f/2 (no stabilization), I have to rely 100% on high iso. I dont' find iso6400 tolerable for my portait photography: too noisy result in poor skintones, so I will rather under-exposed @iso3200 then post-processing to brighten the image with noise reduction.

Where as Olmpus E-PL9 (under the same condition) in theory can be shot @3 stop lower. That means instead of noisy iso6400 → iso3200 → iso1600 → iso800, I can shoot @much cleaner iso800 without noisy images.

These are just theory, in real life, I'm more conservative with 2 stop estimation. Still, that means I can shoot @iso1600 (very clean) without worrry.

Canon biggest advantage is in Dual-CMOS-AF for superior Video Tracking for Vlog. If you Vlog, forget Panasonic or Olympus, just stick with the Canon. For still, shooting, I'll take either Olympus E-PL9 / E-PL8 / E-PL7 over Canon M5 / M6 / M50 / M100.

Canon 22mm f/2 is a great lens, but it also FLARE quite easily and doesn't have a lens hood to prevent lens flare.

That sums up my experiences with those cameras as well. For me, focusing on the Canon drove me nuts. Plus, when enlarging prints from both cameras, I really could not see any differences.

GR
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gqr/
http://photo.net/g_richards

You can't beat it for telephoto either.

I get excited about every new SONY A7 body until I look at the size of the G telephoto lenses. The 70-200 f/4 could work with the 1.4 and 2X TC but the TC's knock the lens down to the OLY 40-150PRO. I end up in the same place in speed and DOF but with more resolution for a big pile more money when 16MP is enough, and migrating to M43 20MP is less expensive than changing systems.

OLY has 5-axis IBIS worth 5 stops in the entry level OMD and so does Panasonic. I find 3-axis adequate and I have both. I would not want to be without it.

MShot wrote:

For short reach only, I think I'd lean ASP-C or FF. For short and long, or long only, MFT is the only way for me.

Interesting.  I'm the opposite of this mindset.  For long, I'd reach for the FF since it yields better bokeh (portraits) and better resolution for cropping (landscapes).  For short reach, APS-C is fine.