Full Frame vs Micro 4:3

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
dmanthree
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 9,613
Re: To summarize my experience...
1

D Cox wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

M4/3: smaller and lighter

Are you sure ?

Yes. 100% certain. I'm talking about a system weight including lenses, etc, not just bodies.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#633,858

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

Don Cox

Focus stacking and other methods for greater DoF? But that's a pretty specific case, don't you think? Overall, FF has better IQ. Do you agree or disagree?

-- hide signature --

---on the cutting edge---

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Sony Mavica FD-200 Apple iPhone 12 Pro
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 19,573
Re: To summarize my experience...
1

D Cox wrote:

J A C S wrote:

D Cox wrote:

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

You can't stop down on FF?

You can stop the 100mm Laowa down to f/45, and I think adding two tele converters will effectively stop it down further.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4587632

I don't know if there's a comparable lens for m4/3. If not, your point is correct.

Don Cox

When you stop down so much, the DOF starts to evaporate because of diffraction. Also, again because of diffraction, pixel count/density does not matter much and m43 is just a cropped version of FF. You can always crop FF.  What is left are the available FL's but for macro, too short is not good anyway.

gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 9,074
Re: To summarize my experience...
1

J A C S wrote:

D Cox wrote:

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

You can't stop down on FF?

Yes, but (sort of) "not as far" as you can with micro four thirds.

Suppose you have a lens that goes to f/22. If you use it at f/22 on full frame then the effective f-number at 1:1 will be around f/45. That will give you a certain amount of depth of field, and that will be the most you can get with that setup.

Suppose you use the same lens at f/22 on micro four thirds to photograph the same scene. You would need to use 1:2. The effective f-number would be around f/32. This is equivalent to f/64 on full frame, so you would get greater depth of field than the most you could get with the full frame. (Since depth of field roughly doubles for each two stops decrease in aperture, and since f/64 is one stop smaller than f/45, you would get around 40% greater depth of field.)

Many people wouldn't want to use apertures that small because of the loss of detail from diffraction softening, so this difference would not be of practical significance. However, some people do use apertures that small and indeed smaller so it could make a difference. As it happens though with full frame you can (for example by using teleconverters) decrease the effective f-number beyond f/22 to the point where even large DOF/small aperture enthusiasts (like me) won't use them because of the unmanageable amount of diffraction softening. So I think the m43/FF smaller aperture/large depth of field issue is not of huge practical significance. Not for me at least.

gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 9,074
Re: To summarize my experience...
1

D Cox wrote:

J A C S wrote:

D Cox wrote:

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

You can't stop down on FF?

You can stop the 100mm Laowa down to f/45,

No, the lens is f/2.8 to f/22. The f/45 you see on the images in the linked post comes from setting the lens to f/11 and then adding the effect of the two 2X teleconverters.

and I think adding two tele converters will effectively stop it down further.

Adding two 2X teleconverters moves the range from f/2.8 - f/22 to f/11 - f/90. On top of that, as the magnification goes up the effective aperture gets smaller.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4587632

I don't know if there's a comparable lens for m4/3. If not, your point is correct.

You can use the same lens on micro four thirds. In fact, I have done so (and on APS-C). I use it on full frame because I get better focus peaking than with my micro four thirds cameras (and I don't get focus peaking at all on my APS-C camera). The choice of which camera and sensor size to use has, for me, nothing to do with the amount of DOF I can get. I want as much as I can get from a single shot, and with any of my setups, FF, APS-C and micro four thirds, I can push the aperture to the point where the images become unusable for my purposes.

Don Cox

J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 19,573
Re: To summarize my experience...
3

gardenersassistant wrote:

J A C S wrote:

D Cox wrote:

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

You can't stop down on FF?

Yes, but (sort of) "not as far" as you can with micro four thirds.

Suppose you have a lens that goes to f/22. If you use it at f/22 on full frame then the effective f-number at 1:1 will be around f/45. That will give you a certain amount of depth of field, and that will be the most you can get with that setup.

See above. Then the DOF would be almost zero due to diffraction softening. Besides, you can always crop on FF to make it m43.

gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 9,074
Re: To summarize my experience...
3

J A C S wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

J A C S wrote:

D Cox wrote:

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

You can't stop down on FF?

Yes, but (sort of) "not as far" as you can with micro four thirds.

Suppose you have a lens that goes to f/22. If you use it at f/22 on full frame then the effective f-number at 1:1 will be around f/45. That will give you a certain amount of depth of field, and that will be the most you can get with that setup.

See above. Then the DOF would be almost zero due to diffraction softening.

Almost zero DOF due to diffraction softening at f/45 works well enough for my purposes. Your mileage obviously varies. We all manage the many macro trade-offs according to our own preferences.

Besides, you can always crop on FF to make it m43.

Indeed so. And sometimes that will work very well. And sometimes it won't.

D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 29,913
Re: To summarize my experience...

dmanthree wrote:

D Cox wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

M4/3: smaller and lighter

Are you sure ?

Yes. 100% certain. I'm talking about a system weight including lenses, etc, not just bodies.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#633,858

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

Don Cox

Focus stacking and other methods for greater DoF? But that's a pretty specific case, don't you think? Overall, FF has better IQ. Do you agree or disagree?

I don't own an M4/3 camera, so I can only go by what I see posted on various sites. On that basis, I agree.

Don Cox

 D Cox's gear list:D Cox's gear list
Sigma fp
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 19,573
Re: To summarize my experience...
1

gardenersassistant wrote:

J A C S wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

J A C S wrote:

D Cox wrote:

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

You can't stop down on FF?

Yes, but (sort of) "not as far" as you can with micro four thirds.

Suppose you have a lens that goes to f/22. If you use it at f/22 on full frame then the effective f-number at 1:1 will be around f/45. That will give you a certain amount of depth of field, and that will be the most you can get with that setup.

See above. Then the DOF would be almost zero due to diffraction softening.

Almost zero DOF due to diffraction softening at f/45 works well enough for my purposes. Your mileage obviously varies. We all manage the many macro trade-offs according to our own preferences.

So FF did not restrict you here? Those are all FF images...

Besides, you can always crop on FF to make it m43.

Indeed so. And sometimes that will work very well. And sometimes it won't.

When?

gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 9,074
Re: To summarize my experience...
1

J A C S wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

J A C S wrote:

gardenersassistant wrote:

J A C S wrote:

D Cox wrote:

FF: better IQ

Unless you want greater DoF, for instance for macro shots of insects.

You can't stop down on FF?

Yes, but (sort of) "not as far" as you can with micro four thirds.

Suppose you have a lens that goes to f/22. If you use it at f/22 on full frame then the effective f-number at 1:1 will be around f/45. That will give you a certain amount of depth of field, and that will be the most you can get with that setup.

See above. Then the DOF would be almost zero due to diffraction softening.

Almost zero DOF due to diffraction softening at f/45 works well enough for my purposes. Your mileage obviously varies. We all manage the many macro trade-offs according to our own preferences.

So FF did not restrict you here? Those are all FF images...

Indeed they are, and no, FF did not restrict me.

Besides, you can always crop on FF to make it m43.

Indeed so. And sometimes that will work very well. And sometimes it won't.

When?

It can work very well when using a high megapixel camera with a sharp lens used at a sharp aperture.

Conversely, it works less well with a low megapixel camera or when used with an aperture which causes extensive loss of detail from diffraction softening , or worse, both. Depending on how large an output you want, and therefore how closely on screen viewers will be able to examine the image, you may be unable to achieve sufficient image quality after a large crop . For example, I use a low resolution camera and extremely small apertures which cause considerable diffraction softening and my images are (IMO) unusable if cropped a lot or looked at closely. That is (one of the reasons) why I limit my outputs to 1300 pixels high.

The extreme diffraction softening is also why I have to use rather strong post processing to get images that I consider usable for my purposes. For example, here are comparisons for two images. On the right we see how the image looks "out of the camera" (I shoot raw - these are resized from the embedded JPEGs in the raw files. We are looking at 100% at a 1300 pixel high image).

On the left is how that same part of the image looks after post processing. (The subjects are around 2mm long btw, and getting decent depth of field for small subjects is particularly difficult with single shots - and focus stacking is often impossible because the subject, like the bottom one of these, is moving around when the image is captured.)

Incidentally (and bearing in mind the main theme of this thread), these images happen to have been captured with a full frame camera, but the issues are just the same for cameras with different sized sensors.

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 217
Just beware of the apples to oranges arguments
4

You see it from both sides.   Take fingerpainter's apples to oranges size comparisons where he picked larger M43 cameras and compared them to smaller FF cameras.   Its easy to cherry pick.

The fact is these are different tools.   Its like comparing nail hammers to sledge hammers, or sports cars to pickup trucks.

So you won't see the FF fans mention the great tiny M43 pancake lenses that fit in your pocket, and you'll see M43 fans talking about about f-stops like they are the same on all systems or ignoring that FF  can shoot wide DOF too.

Each system has its advantages, such as M43 has by far the best IBIS around.  You might find this important.  But fans of each side don't like of admit the benefits of each system.  And they ALL get upset when smartphone and small sensor drone images win major competitions and people call them the best pictures they've ever seen.

FingerPainter Forum Pro • Posts: 10,388
Blatant misrepresentation.
8

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

You see it from both sides. Take fingerpainter's apples to oranges size comparisons where he picked larger M43 cameras and compared them to smaller FF cameras. Its easy to cherry pick.

I did not cherry pick. Is there a larger Nikon MILC than the one I showed? I think I picked the largest one. The whole point was to show that the size difference between the cameras in the three year-old video was primarily due to the difference between dSLRs and MILCs, not mostly due to differences in sensor size. The MFT body I used was the direct successor to the one in the video.

The fact is these are different tools. Its like comparing nail hammers to sledge hammers, or sports cars to pickup trucks.

I think you overstate the difference between FF and MFT MILCS.

So you won't see the FF fans mention the great tiny M43 pancake lenses that fit in your pocket,

Yes you will. You'll see them mentioning the rreduced shooting envelope and lackluster IQ.

and you'll see M43 fans talking about about f-stops like they are the same on all systems or ignoring that FF can shoot wide DOF too.

Each system has its advantages, such as M43 has by far the best IBIS around. You might find this important. But fans of each side don't like of admit the benefits of each system. And they ALL get upset when smartphone and small sensor drone images win major competitions and people call them the best pictures they've ever seen.

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 21,360
Re: Full Frame vs Micro 4:3
4

Michael Piziak wrote:

... just perhaps, all the talk about image quality advantage of a FF camera, perhaps, just perhaps, may be a bit of "hype."

If you don't want to wade through hype on either side, don't watch videos like that or create forum threads to discuss them. Just know this:

It's possible to produce photos with two different formats that show a distinct difference, and it's possible to produce photos with two different formats that show no important difference. Someone who wants to prove either of those things - or both - shouldn't have much trouble doing so.

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 217
Re: Blatant misrepresentation.
1

FingerPainter wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

You see it from both sides. Take fingerpainter's apples to oranges size comparisons where he picked larger M43 cameras and compared them to smaller FF cameras. Its easy to cherry pick.

I did not cherry pick. Is there a larger Nikon MILC than the one I showed?

https://camerasize.com/compact/#856,861,699,570,ha,f

OK here is an Olympus with the latest sensor vs the Nikon and a couple other M43 cameras for fun.

There is a big difference.

And when you add a lens the difference can be HUGE.

Go ahead and add an F3.4 lens to the NIkon and see how it compares.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#861,699.30,ha,t

Let's compare apples to apples, put ANY 150MM lens on the Nikon that is F4 instead of F3.6 like the M43 camera, and lets see the HUGE difference in size.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#861,699.346,ha,t

aKansasKid Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: To summarize my experience...

gardenersassistant wrote:

The extreme diffraction softening is also why I have to use rather strong post processing to get images that I consider usable for my purposes. For example, here are comparisons for two images. On the right we see how the image looks "out of the camera" (I shoot raw - these are resized from the embedded JPEGs in the raw files. We are looking at 100% at a 1300 pixel high image).

On the left is how that same part of the image looks after post processing. (The subjects are around 2mm long btw, and getting decent depth of field for small subjects is particularly difficult with single shots - and focus stacking is often impossible because the subject, like the bottom one of these, is moving around when the image is captured.)

Not trying to derail the thread here, but I'd love to know what you did in post to increase sharpness by so much. Gotta be more than just sharpness sliders in Lightroom/darktable. Wow!

J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 19,573
Re: Blatant misrepresentation.
6

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

Let's compare apples to apples, put ANY 150MM lens on the Nikon that is F4 instead of F3.6 like the M43 camera, and lets see the HUGE difference in size.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#861,699.346,ha,t

Why don't you put any 25/0.6 or 17/0.7 lens on your m43 and see how it compares to my 50/1. 2 or 35/1.4. Or put any 67.5/1.0 lens on your m43 to see how it compares to 135/2 on FF. How about that 12-50/2 zoom on m43? Or the 12-35/1.4 one?

FingerPainter Forum Pro • Posts: 10,388
Re: Blatant misrepresentation.
3

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

FingerPainter wrote:

... Is there a larger Nikon MILC than the one I showed?

https://camerasize.com/compact/#856,861,699,570,ha,f

I guess you couldn't find one.

And you've cut out the reason for the Olympus body choice.

OK here is an Olympus with the latest sensor vs the Nikon and a couple other M43 cameras for fun.

There is a big difference.

And when you add a lens the difference can be HUGE.

Go ahead and add an F3.4 lens to the NIkon and see how it compares.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#861,699.30,ha,t

Let's compare apples to apples, put ANY 150MM lens on the Nikon that is F4 instead of F3.6 like the M43 camera, and lets see the HUGE difference in size.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#861,699.346,ha,t

Now who's cherry picking?

If you want to compare apples to apples you need to pick an apple that grows on both brands trees. Right now, there aren't very many corresponding apples.  AFAIK, Nikon doesn't make a 150mm  Z lens.

In any event you are arguing against a position I wasn't taking. I never argued that there isn't smaller MFT kit. I was taking contention with OP's implied assertion that the size difference reflected by the 3 year old video comparing a pro dSLR  to a "pro" MFT MILC, was reflective of the difference between current FF cameras. The current FF cameras are now MILCs, and that has reduced (not eliminated) much of the body size difference. When there is a difference in lens sizes, it is usually because the MFT lens has a smaller shooting envelope (I expect there are occasional exceptions).

trungtran Senior Member • Posts: 1,548
Re: Don't die wondering
2

Michael Piziak wrote:

I have neither, as I've only owned APS-C DSLR's.

Try it out at least once in your lifetime.

There are somethings a YouTube video or comments in a forum can't tell you.

It will just eat you up not truly knowing.

 trungtran's gear list:trungtran's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Sony a7 II Canon EOS M6
New Day Rising
New Day Rising Senior Member • Posts: 6,284
Re: Blatant misrepresentation.
3

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

FingerPainter wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

You see it from both sides. Take fingerpainter's apples to oranges size comparisons where he picked larger M43 cameras and compared them to smaller FF cameras. Its easy to cherry pick.

I did not cherry pick. Is there a larger Nikon MILC than the one I showed?

https://camerasize.com/compact/#856,861,699,570,ha,f

OK here is an Olympus with the latest sensor vs the Nikon and a couple other M43 cameras for fun.

There is a big difference.

And when you add a lens the difference can be HUGE.

Go ahead and add an F3.4 lens to the NIkon and see how it compares.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#861,699.30,ha,t

Let's compare apples to apples, put ANY 150MM lens on the Nikon that is F4 instead of F3.6 like the M43 camera, and lets see the HUGE difference in size.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#861,699.346,ha,t

I can cherry pick too. Let's try it with a couple of m4/3 bodies sitting at similar points on each brand's hierarchy:

https://j.mp/3ih1l3O

-- hide signature --

All lies and jests; Still a man hears what he wants to hear; And disregards the rest

 New Day Rising's gear list:New Day Rising's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D50 Fujifilm X-M1 Nikon D7200 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II +12 more
Papa48
Papa48 Senior Member • Posts: 3,748
Re: Don't die wondering

trungtran wrote:

Michael Piziak wrote:

I have neither, as I've only owned APS-C DSLR's.

Try it out at least once in your lifetime.

There are somethings a YouTube video or comments in a forum can't tell you.

It will just eat you up not truly knowing.

A lot of things remain unknown, when the journey of consciousness ends. In my case, ignorance will probably be bliss until the end, with APS-C.

 Papa48's gear list:Papa48's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4 +3 more
chorleyjeff Forum Member • Posts: 87
Re: Full Frame vs Micro 4:3

Michael Piziak wrote:

I viewed this 2018 video, to get a perspective of how much smaller the Olympus cameras are than other cameras... The video actually compares the micro 4:3 to a full frame camera when it comes to image quality. I have neither, as I've only owned APS-C DSLR's.

While I am impressed by the size of the micro 4:3, I actually came away with a conclusion that, just perhaps, all the talk about image quality advantage of a FF camera, perhaps, just perhaps, may be a bit of "hype."

The video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM

To jump straight to the image comparison, you can click to about 8:50 in the video.

Regards,

Michael

In the UK it seems to me that to be taken seriously as a photographer in clubs or RPS      ( Royal Photographic Society  )you must use 35mm ot MF digital cameras ( plus big lenses, carbon fibre tripods with geared heads and expensive graduated filters ). I am aware of this having been on photo outings and attended meetings of clubs and the RPS and been slightly patronised and not considered one of the big boys when using M4/3

The above holds true even of photographers  who only show images on screen 1600 x 1200.

I have been surprised at RPS members having the above views when distictions gurus recommend using fairly small prints not much bigger than A4 in panels of prints when trying for an RPS Distibnction. But advertisers and influencers appear to have convinced many photographers that so called cropped sensor cameras are just not good enough even for amateur use. I can understand that professional need to use highest image quality and rugged cameras but for amateurs ?

An example of upselling is a friend of mine who has spent nearly £4,000 on a camera body and lenses to take pictures for Flickr with no intention to have any prints made. Madness !!!

Anyhow I can produce excellent prints up to at least A3+ using high quality lenses on M4/3.

Rant over.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads