Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.

Started 1 month ago | Discussions
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 18,213
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
2

PhotoFactor wrote:

If I want shallow DOF I can buy brighter lenses for my APSC, but I can also buy say f2.8 lenses and have a really small package.

You probably understand that those f/2.8 lenses can be beaten with one f/4 zoom on FF?

I can also choose high end FF class glass that's big and heavy and expensive,

and cripple it...

or smaller lenses than you can use on FF or APSC.

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 20,139
Re: No free lunches
3

George1958 wrote:

The problem is the discussion rarely gets past counting mpx and comparing metrics between formats.

The thing is, it was a potentially interesting topic if you go past sensor size to answer "what does your crop *system* offer that FF doesn't" because then you can get into actual features and benefits (like tilting EVF or Olympus' live composite & live ND or whatever other feature gets you excited about whatever system you're using.

But even the OP opened it up with a fallacy relating to sensor size (DOF) and closed it out with a rationalization for the IQ being "good enough". (Hint: if you're trying to find out what people like better about their crop sensors, IQ being "good enough" isn't something you should be talking about).

For me there is too much BS spoken about IQ and formats. If we insisted on competitions showing images and judged them by their artistic content these forums would largely be quiet and poorly subscribed too.

The thing is, photography serves a million different purposes and few among us are artists. Many of us are hobbyists, some are pros, and we enjoy shooting, even if all we're doing is recording our kids' high school robotics competitions. It's fair to wonder why people insist on gear that's good enough for pros to print 40x60" prints just to shoot "memories" ... but then again, what's harmful about it ? I think digital has led photographers to get an enjoyment out of viewing their results on their computer (pixel peeping) Much the way we used to look at slides with a loupe on a light table, independently of sharing them.

Personally, I don't submit my photos to competitions to be judged on any merit - technical or artistic. I shoot for me and for friends & family; I'm content with what I shoot; I know I could do a better job technically and artistically (limited by the amount of time I spend practicing and that's not likely to change), but I like the idea that when I shoot, I'm not limited by my gear. (That doesn't mean FF, either - for me, I feel like my APS-C kit does not limit me in any way ... other than occasionally being too much kit to bring somewhere, and then I have other options).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

spider-mario
spider-mario Contributing Member • Posts: 761
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
1

robgendreau wrote:

But take DOF. I more often need more of that, not less, and while yes, one can stop down on the FF lens I'd rather choose a better sensor for that job and keep the aperture in the lens' sweet spot.

Do you know why it’s the lens’ sweet spot, though? It’s typically because as you stop down further, the effect of diffraction is felt more and more. But equivalence tells us that at equivalent DOF and angle of view, we also get the same amount of diffraction relative to the image. Therefore, if a M43 lens is at its sharpest at f/4, but some equivalent FF lens is sharper at f/5.6 than at f/8, what does that really tell us?

 spider-mario's gear list:spider-mario's gear list
Canon G1 X III Olympus TG-6 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus E-M1 III Canon EOS R6 +16 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 18,213
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
1

spider-mario wrote:

robgendreau wrote:

But take DOF. I more often need more of that, not less, and while yes, one can stop down on the FF lens I'd rather choose a better sensor for that job and keep the aperture in the lens' sweet spot.

This is like buying good wine and adding water to it.

Do you know why it’s the lens’ sweet spot, though? It’s typically because as you stop down further, the effect of diffraction is felt more and more. But equivalence tells us that at equivalent DOF and angle of view, we also get the same amount of diffraction relative to the image. Therefore, if a M43 lens is at its sharpest at f/4, but some equivalent FF lens is sharper at f/5.6 than at f/8, what does that really tell us?

George1958 Senior Member • Posts: 1,269
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.

I thought DoF and aperture were optical effects ? There are differences in the characteristic of different formats but F1.8 is F1.8. As far as I know there are no FF primes that weigh as little as these M4/3. I accept that the FF sensor combined with good lenses will deliver an optimal image quality. In most circumstances other than low light so will M4/3

17mm F1.8 120g

25 min F1.8 137g

45mm f1.8 116g

 George1958's gear list:George1958's gear list
Sigma DP1s Sigma SD15 Olympus PEN E-P3 Sigma sd Quattro Olympus E-M1 II +6 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 68,335
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
2

J A C S wrote:

spider-mario wrote:

robgendreau wrote:

But take DOF. I more often need more of that, not less, and while yes, one can stop down on the FF lens I'd rather choose a better sensor for that job and keep the aperture in the lens' sweet spot.

This is like buying good wine and adding water to it.

You mean, like the more good wine you drink the blurrier the photo looks?

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Toronto Photography Contributing Member • Posts: 527
Re: How about ILLOGICAL NO HOLDS BAR Choice?
1

bobn2 wrote:

BrownieVet wrote:

Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
Assuming you are a PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER

If you are given the opportunity to select and KEEP AT NO COST, any one of the four, which one would you pick.
You must keep whatever you choose for life. You must use the gear on regular basis
You cannot sell, rent, loan, give away.
.
A. Hasselblad 50CM + Planar CF 80mm F/2.8 A12 Film Back

B. Canon EOS-1D X Mark III + RF 85mm F1.2 L USM

C. Nikon D6 + AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G

D. Olympus OM-D E-M1X + M. ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75MM F1.8

There are many different varieties of professional photographer. Which one would be more appropriate depends on what kind of work you do. Plus, professionals are as subject to whims as much as everyone else. Sometimes it just comes down to personal preference.

Non existent conditions but assuming it wold last forever, and the extras around where free as well B or A, with B being first because I now I like b//  A from reputation but certainly you can do things better with A than b and vic versus. I be reluctant to use either underwater.

My tiny fuji xp-10 can beat both in the water issue, and in other situations as well, like a wild party with food and drink splash.

guy_incognito1 Junior Member • Posts: 31
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
1

George1958 wrote:

I thought DoF and aperture were optical effects ? There are differences in the characteristic of different formats but F1.8 is F1.8. As far as I know there are no FF primes that weigh as little as these M4/3. I accept that the FF sensor combined with good lenses will deliver an optimal image quality. In most circumstances other than low light so will M4/3

17mm F1.8 120g

25 min F1.8 137g

45mm f1.8 116g

The problem is MFT's most hated word, equivalence. (cause really there is no such thing as equivalence). Because DOF gets thinner as focal length increases more than DOF gets thicker as sensor size increases.

So if your goal is thin depth of field for nice currently in-style bokeh:

Say on MFT, you like your 17mm f/1.8 and take a photo, and like your product.

Since the FF sensor is larger, if you want the same framing and use your full sensor instead of cropping, you use a 35mm lens instead of 17mm.

For a 35mm lens on FF to have similar DOF to a 17mm f/1.8 on MFT, you would use f/3.6 (and you can use the light samyang 35mm f/2.8 at 108g and stop it down) and you end up with a photo with same framing and DOF.

MFT fans though always like comparing FF to nice value and sized MFT lenses, which is kind of a biased comparison.  Instead, if you look at it the other way, comparing to the good value and sized FF options.

Like say you liked the output of your sony FF 50mm f/1.8 (186gm, $250) wide open, and you wanted to compare it to MFT.  You would need a 25mm f/0.9 to get equivalent DOF, which doesn't exist, so no comparison really is possible.  If you compare it to the closest thing,  like olympus 25mm f/1.2 (410gm $1150) then MFT doesn't have an advantage in size and price anymore.

But it's not completely 100% equivalent, because of differences of perspective distortion by the different focal lengths and by the differences in exposure (not to mention differences in actual real life specific model lens performance and performance of FF over MFT sensors at same exposure).

So to get a similar framing, DOF, AND exposure, FF would need to have a shutter speed 4x slower.  But, as many people point out, depending on the situation, you could just open up your FF camera, and have a thinner DOF than possible on MFT and have the same SS, which covers a lot of the real-world use scenarios.

spider-mario
spider-mario Contributing Member • Posts: 761
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
6

guy_incognito1 wrote:

But it's not completely 100% equivalent, because of differences of perspective distortion by the different focal lengths

There is no such thing.

and by the differences in exposure (not to mention differences in actual real life specific model lens performance and performance of FF over MFT sensors at same exposure).

Do you think it’s a coincidence that the exposure would be two fewer stops on FF at equal DOF, AOV and shutter speed, and that FF sensors just so happen to be approximately two stops cleaner at a given exposure?

 spider-mario's gear list:spider-mario's gear list
Canon G1 X III Olympus TG-6 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus E-M1 III Canon EOS R6 +16 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 18,213
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.
1

George1958 wrote:

I thought DoF and aperture were optical effects ? There are differences in the characteristic of different formats but F1.8 is F1.8.

It is not, those two F's are usually different.

As far as I know there are no FF primes that weigh as little as these M4/3.

Why primes? An FF zoom can do what a bag of m43 primes can.

guy_incognito1 Junior Member • Posts: 31
Re: Let's reverse the narrative and see what happens logically.

spider-mario wrote:

guy_incognito1 wrote:

But it's not completely 100% equivalent, because of differences of perspective distortion by the different focal lengths

There is no such thing.

Oops, you are correct. My bad.

Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,800
My thoughts...
2

I use m43 too... I can't afford multiple systems. I think that the imago quality is great and I made sure of that before I bought my first of these cameras. I looked very carefully at lots of images online and I could see that this format was capable of capturing lots of detail, great colors, etc.

Still, I like it because it's more compact and more affordable than other options but I have no allusions about its relative shortcomings compared to larger formats. The IBIS might be great in certain cameras (I really like the way that it works in my Pen F) but I think that on balance it isn't so much better than in other formats that it wins for low light shooting, particularly if you're shooting things that move, in which case the stabilization isn't useful anyway. I think that the greater DOF that m43 has over larger formats too isn't really all that useful and that more often than not, shallower DOF is desired. Of course you can use fast lenses with m43, but then you're loosing some of the advantage of having a compact system.

The point for me is that I acknowledge these shortcomings of having a smaller format system, just the advantages are more than enough for me to stay with it. My photography doesn't focus too much on shallow DOF and even then, I can get more than enough of that with a few fast primes that I have (though admittedly, with FF you could get a lot of the same even with a slower zoom, which would be nice). Better high ISO performance would be nice, but even then, with careful exposure and processing in not too, poor light, I can get some good images with my m43 stuff. There's something satisfying too about learning how to work right on the edge of you'r camera's capabilities and still produce good images.

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,800
Re: No free lunches
2

Pixel Pooper wrote:

The truth is that smaller sensors have only two advantages, smaller size and lower cost, but the trade-off is lower image quality.

As someone who only has an m43 kit, I pretty much agree with you. Still, I think that the tech for digital imaging these days has reached a level where even small cameras are capable of amazing results and if that's the case, then even if the bigger formats are better there's still a less than compelling case to bother with them. Small too means that you're more likely to care the thing and get the shot, or maybe that you'll carry an extra lens to give you an even better shot. These things ultimately can be more important than a bit of extra IQ, particularly if that extra IQ is nearly imperceptible.

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,800
Re: No free lunches

Donald B wrote:

George1958 wrote:

The problem is the discussion rarely gets past counting mpx and comparing metrics between formats.
When it comes to taking photographs in most situations the various advantages/disadvantages are not so marked as the metrics seem to imply. In short it’s really hard to tell the differences between formats by looking at images.
BTW I don’t see there is a consensus on what good image quality actually is, or whether that is more important that the content of an image.
I’m not convinced that the most resolution, DR, sharpness, lowest noise etc is the same thing as the best image quality. If anything and IMHO the current IQ debate is an argument about what is fashionable as a look and what is marketable as a product.
Look back far enough through film and digital there is plenty of outstanding images and examples of excellent image quality that stand today. Better is something that has become a technical comparison of image production rather than photography and a pointless distraction from the artistry and craft of photography. We seem to live in a world of mainly banal photographs that are forgiven because they have a given look.
For me there is too much BS spoken about IQ and formats. If we insisted on competitions showing images and judged them by their artistic content these forums would largely be quiet and poorly subscribed too.

Shoot professionally for a few years and then come back with your comments, I can guarantee it will be quite the opposite to this post

Don

Shooting professionally is a totally different sort of thing than what a lot of us are interested in. Back in the film days professional typically meant medium format gear and yet a lot of photographers that a whole lot of us look up to shot 35mm, which is REALLY rough looking by today's standards... but still the images are considered classics.

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
George1958 Senior Member • Posts: 1,269
Re: My thoughts...

DoF is an optical effect , m4/3 can give you shallow DoF but you either need to get closer to the subject or use a longer focal length with a larger aperture.

 George1958's gear list:George1958's gear list
Sigma DP1s Sigma SD15 Olympus PEN E-P3 Sigma sd Quattro Olympus E-M1 II +6 more
Shadowsurfer
Shadowsurfer Regular Member • Posts: 135
Or look at it this way.
3

Glen Barrington wrote:

When discussing "Crop" cameras compared to "FF", we always view it from an exclusive, "What crop cameras lack, compared to FF" POV. But I think when we view it from a "What FF lacks compared to crop cameras, it becomes less clear. And the issue is rarely viewed from that perspective.

I use a little LX100 with a M43 sensor as well as a 24x36mm sensor system. Neither lacks anything when I choose the right tool for the subject matter.

Full disclosure, I am a satisfied Olympus m43s user, and I believe that the m43s, and Fuji communities (including the manufacturers) have done a terrible job in trying to steer the narrative in their favor. I'm going to use what I know best, which is the Olympus m43s system as an example, but from everything I've read, much of this applies to Fuji cameras as well as the seemingly abandoned crop cameras of Canon and Nikon as well (at least theoretically, we can't account for Canikon's marketing decisions).

Fuji seems to be very popular. I think they even make a profit.

M43s offers a significant Depth of Focus advantage over FF, allowing more forgiveness of sloppy focus techniques. Useful in birding, news, and other action photography. When I need a shallow DOF, there are workarounds, not only including larger, heavier, faster, lenses, but longer lenses, and software solutions. In the meantime, though VERY small and very good lenses, both kit and pro level, and some in between, are available for the times when DOF is not an issue.

Switching from a M43 sensore to a camera with a 24x36 sensor camera, I have no problems getting the DOF that I want.

With my TS lens, using tilt, I can get focus from a few centimetres to infinity at F3.5 if I wish.

The truth is, IBIS is MUCH easier to implement with a smaller sensor. I've read that the Olympus 5 axis IBIS has gotten to the point where the next step in IBIS is to account for the rotation of the earth. I don't think that advantage is going away. And in my opinion, THAT also mitigates at least some of the advantages of a larger sensor.

My FF camera has an IBIS that gets me sharp shots down to 1/6 of a second. It is plenty enough for my need. I believe all brands do decent IBIS now.

How many stops of IBIS is very dependent on the operator.

I use a tripod whenever I can. This is the "ultimate IBIS". I have done exposures of 30 seconds or more and got perfect results.

Noise, and dynamic range is quite good on my E-M5 III (and my E-M10 II, FTM). I concede FFs extreme low light capability, but up to about ISO 6400 it simply is not an issue, particularly when viewed through the perspective of a wildlife and action photographer.

Compared to the M43 sensor, the tonal and colour transitions are smoother and more subtle with the 24x36mm sensor

The truth is, I will stack my m43s photos against any other brand of camera (FF, & smaller) out there in normal viewing situations. But I will have the advantage of size, weight, cost, and reduced camera movement 95% of the time.

It is in more demanding situations of colour transitions that FF reveals the better tonal transitioning.

Noise is better at a given ISO with FF too and at base ISO you get more DR with FF

Context is everything, Crop camera users (esp non m43s users) can you think of other things FF lacks compared to your system of choice? I'm genuinely NOT interested starting a flame war, though I concede it is possible if people think with their backsides and not their brains.

But I'd like to see the reasons you continue to use your crop system cameras.

Be happy, do not worry about what others think and use what suits you best and which you find the most convenient.

Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,800
Re: My thoughts...

George1958 wrote:

DoF is an optical effect , m4/3 can give you shallow DoF but you either need to get closer to the subject or use a longer focal length with a larger aperture.

Obviously... a statement like "larger formats do better shallow DOF," for me is just shorthand for the fact that it's easier to get shallow DOF with those formats. Even with a small format camera like m43 and a slow zoom lens on the camera shallow DOF is still possible if you set up the shot correctly. Sometimes, I just go out with a slower, compact zoom on my Pen F and then if I want shallow DOF for a certain shot I just orient my camera the background, etc a certain way and I'm able to get it...

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 18,213
Re: My thoughts...
1

Aaron801 wrote:

George1958 wrote:

DoF is an optical effect , m4/3 can give you shallow DoF but you either need to get closer to the subject or use a longer focal length with a larger aperture.

Obviously... a statement like "larger formats do better shallow DOF," for me is just shorthand for the fact that it's easier to get shallow DOF with those formats. Even with a small format camera like m43 and a slow zoom lens on the camera shallow DOF is still possible if you set up the shot correctly. Sometimes, I just go out with a slower, compact zoom on my Pen F and then if I want shallow DOF for a certain shot I just orient my camera the background, etc a certain way and I'm able to get it...

You can get shallow DOF with a phone, just need to shoot near macro... I guess that observation just made FF obsolete.

Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,800
Re: My thoughts...

J A C S wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

George1958 wrote:

DoF is an optical effect , m4/3 can give you shallow DoF but you either need to get closer to the subject or use a longer focal length with a larger aperture.

Obviously... a statement like "larger formats do better shallow DOF," for me is just shorthand for the fact that it's easier to get shallow DOF with those formats. Even with a small format camera like m43 and a slow zoom lens on the camera shallow DOF is still possible if you set up the shot correctly. Sometimes, I just go out with a slower, compact zoom on my Pen F and then if I want shallow DOF for a certain shot I just orient my camera the background, etc a certain way and I'm able to get it...

You can get shallow DOF with a phone, just need to shoot near macro... I guess that observation just made FF obsolete.

No, as I said, "its's easier to get shallow DOF," with larger formats... I was just responding to the earlier post where it was said "DoF is an optical effect , m4/3 can give you shallow DoF but you either need to get closer to the subject or use a longer focal length with a larger aperture."

If shallow DOF is really important to your photography than obviously a cell phone, even if you can create a bit of that effect with it, isn't going to cut it and even a m43 camera might not be up to the task...

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 18,213
Re: My thoughts...

Aaron801 wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

George1958 wrote:

DoF is an optical effect , m4/3 can give you shallow DoF but you either need to get closer to the subject or use a longer focal length with a larger aperture.

Obviously... a statement like "larger formats do better shallow DOF," for me is just shorthand for the fact that it's easier to get shallow DOF with those formats. Even with a small format camera like m43 and a slow zoom lens on the camera shallow DOF is still possible if you set up the shot correctly. Sometimes, I just go out with a slower, compact zoom on my Pen F and then if I want shallow DOF for a certain shot I just orient my camera the background, etc a certain way and I'm able to get it...

You can get shallow DOF with a phone, just need to shoot near macro... I guess that observation just made FF obsolete.

No, as I said, "its's easier to get shallow DOF," with larger formats... I was just responding to the earlier post where it was said "DoF is an optical effect , m4/3 can give you shallow DoF but you either need to get closer to the subject or use a longer focal length with a larger aperture."

If shallow DOF is really important to your photography than obviously a cell phone, even if you can treat e a bit of that effect with it, isn't going to cut it and even a m43 camera might not be up to the task...

"Shallow DOF" is poorly understood. Very often, it might be "shallow" but deep enough. You might be stuck with DOF which is too deep with a lower sensor or a slower lens, not because you want it but because this is what you can do.

Next, sometimes this "shallow" DOF can be infinite, if you focus far enough with f/1.2 - f/1.4 on FF, for example.

Finally, there is more to larger sensor than the potential for a shallower DOF.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads