Performance of a much more expensive lens

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

No, you're the one claiming that it's absurd to compare the 300mm Pro to a 600mm. You brought up the 600mm. I have seen thousands of photos taken with the 600mm, and the onus is on you to prove that they are substantially better than the 300mm sample I've shared above

Is this one good enough for you?

Great. That photo demonstrates the disadvantage of a bigger sensor perfectly. The DOF is so shallow that there is no feather detail on the wings whatsoever. Only the eyes have detail on them. It starts getting blurry near the neck and on the wings it looks like a watercolor painting.

To get more DOF you'd have to stop it down by 2 or 3 stops, which makes matters worse in poor light, like when that photo was taken.

Meanwhile, my photo was shot wide open with feather sharpness and still blurs out the background.

Looks like the photo you shared was from a 45+ MP sensor, so effectively you've spent $2500 - $6000 on the camera body and another $8000 - $12000 on the lens, all to get a fuzzy photo.

I use bigger sensor cameras too (and also 1" sensors) but some FF users like to believe that having a bigger sensor is ALWAYS an advantage. This isn't tethered in reality.

you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. I see no problem here.

You know ... lots of people post here, asking questions ... and sometimes they make incorrect statements. Confusing DOF with light gathering is a common one. And many also lack the real-life experience to know that DOF isn't a significant factor at extreme magnifications (see example above).

Show me where I said anything about DOF?

Right here: "you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. "

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

This right here. ☝️

Thank you, Wise Gerbil. Show the lost humans the Way.

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

But yes, an f2.8 lens on a m43 camera will focus in poor light easily, whereas the FF camera with the f5.6 lens won't be able to "see" the subject at all (or see it but not focus).

With m43, you get 2x reach and more DOF without cutting down on light. More DOF is an advantage for subjects like macros and some wildlife shots.

James Stirling wrote:

RSTP14 wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

And to add further, it is an f2.8 lens regardless, but also benefits from a DoF equivalent to f5.6 on a 300mm FF lens. At 300mm efov, more DoF is not a negative, it's an advantage.

There is no DOF advantage the two lenses on their respective systems shooting wide open { F/2.8 and f/5.6 will gather the same total light as well as having the same DOF

The FF lens will have roughly the same front element size, but ultimately, the sensor will NOT receive the same light per square mm. This is assuming the same pixel density and ISO sensitivity.

A 20 MP full frame sensor will do better in poor light than a 20 MP m43 sensor (although not 4x better), but this is a benefit of a SENSOR with better high ISO performance and not the lens's light gathering.

Bottom line: If the 20 MP m43 sensor is turned into an equivalent 80 MP full frame sensor, the f2.8 lens will have a 2 stop better ISO performance than the f5.6 lens. Because they DO NOT gather equal light.

Being F/2.8 on m43 gives no additional DOF to the FF lens at F/5.6. The longer the focal length the more likely { not always of course} you are to be shooting subjects at a distance where DOF is not much of an issue . For example at 30m the 300mm lens on FF at f/5.6 will have roughly 3.4m DOF , pretty much the same as the 40-150mm at 150mm at F/2.8 and again shooting at 30m

Yes except that the 40-150 remains an f2.8 lens and performs like one too. Try shooting a subject after sunset with the 40-150 vs a 300mm lens stopped down to f5.6 on full frame. Only one will be able to take the photo and it won't be the full frame. You won't even be able to see the subject in the viewfinder.

It is an embarrassment to this forum that so often simple factual data is contested for nonsense

The real embarrassment is people who clearly do not shoot wildlife much, think that their what works for their indoor / portrait photography is applicable to all genres and spout nonsense.

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

No, you're the one claiming that it's absurd to compare the 300mm Pro to a 600mm. You brought up the 600mm. I have seen thousands of photos taken with the 600mm, and the onus is on you to prove that they are substantially better than the 300mm sample I've shared above

Is this one good enough for you?

Great. That photo demonstrates the disadvantage of a bigger sensor perfectly. The DOF is so shallow that there is no feather detail on the wings whatsoever. Only the eyes have detail on them. It starts getting blurry near the neck and on the wings it looks like a watercolor painting.

Close aperture down, if you need more DOF. Simple as that.

To get more DOF you'd have to stop it down by 2 or 3 stops, which makes matters worse in poor light, like when that photo was taken.

It will not be worse than m43

Meanwhile, my photo was shot wide open with feather sharpness and still blurs out the background.

Your photo is 4k resolution, his photo is 26mp.

Looks like the photo you shared was from a 45+ MP sensor, so effectively you've spent $2500 - $6000 on the camera body and another $8000 - $12000 on the lens, all to get a fuzzy photo.

A7r4 +200-600 + tc1.4 = 2600euro +1600euro + 500euro

I use bigger sensor cameras too (and also 1" sensors) but some FF users like to believe that having a bigger sensor is ALWAYS an advantage. This isn't tethered in reality.

you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. I see no problem here.

You know ... lots of people post here, asking questions ... and sometimes they make incorrect statements. Confusing DOF with light gathering is a common one. And many also lack the real-life experience to know that DOF isn't a significant factor at extreme magnifications (see example above).

Show me where I said anything about DOF?

Right here: "you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. "

There is no word DOF right here. Pls read again.

If you think that light gathering of pixels with a pitch of 3.32 µm (m43 20mp) is the same as of 6.56 µm (FF 20mp) - I have a sad news for you...

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

RSTP14 wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

And to add further, it is an f2.8 lens regardless, but also benefits from a DoF equivalent to f5.6 on a 300mm FF lens. At 300mm efov, more DoF is not a negative, it's an advantage.

There is no DOF advantage the two lenses on their respective systems shooting wide open { F/2.8 and f/5.6 will gather the same total light as well as having the same DOF

The FF lens will have roughly the same front element size, but ultimately, the sensor will NOT receive the same light per square mm. This is assuming the same pixel density and ISO sensitivity.

A 20 MP full frame sensor will do better in poor light than a 20 MP m43 sensor (although not 4x better), but this is a benefit of a SENSOR with better high ISO performance and not the lens's light gathering.

Becouse sensor has bigger pixels and FF lens can deliver light for it.

This is how your m43 lens looks like on FF

Bottom line: If the 20 MP m43 sensor is turned into an equivalent 80 MP full frame sensor, the f2.8 lens will have a 2 stop better ISO performance than the f5.6 lens. Because they DO NOT gather equal light.

If... Than 40-150/2.8 will not be enough for you, for the reason above. You will need FF 80-300/2.8 for the 10x price.

Being F/2.8 on m43 gives no additional DOF to the FF lens at F/5.6. The longer the focal length the more likely { not always of course} you are to be shooting subjects at a distance where DOF is not much of an issue . For example at 30m the 300mm lens on FF at f/5.6 will have roughly 3.4m DOF , pretty much the same as the 40-150mm at 150mm at F/2.8 and again shooting at 30m

Yes except that the 40-150 remains an f2.8 lens and performs like one too. Try shooting a subject after sunset with the 40-150 vs a 300mm lens stopped down to f5.6 on full frame. Only one will be able to take the photo and it won't be the full frame. You won't even be able to see the subject in the viewfinder.

It depends on the camera manufacturer , how the camera/lens will focus. DSLR focuses at WO aperture, the same for Canon R system with dual pixels

It is an embarrassment to this forum that so often simple factual data is contested for nonsense

The real embarrassment is people who clearly do not shoot wildlife much, think that their what works for their indoor / portrait photography is applicable to all genres and spout nonsense.

This is basic things, equaly applicable to any subject

This lens replaces my trusty Canon EF 70-200/2.8 AND Sigma 120-300/2.8, at roughly a fifth of the size, weight and price.

ursamajorRO wrote:

If I was a PRO, one who live from photography, I would have definitely bought PRO lenses.

Here's the thing:

I am not a pro, but all my lenses are pro lenses: 12-40, 40-150, 17 and 8.

Why buy these lenses?

1. Because I can afford them.
2. Because I enjoy shooting in all weathers. Wandering around in the rain or snow is something I actually enjoy. My equipment needs to be able to cope.
3. I do chase that little bit of additional sharpness they generally give me over cheaper lenses.

Maybe it is a function of my personality but I don't think 'pro' lenses are only for pros. I think they are for anyone who appreciates their build quality and performance and can afford them.

And second. The 40-150 mm PRO lens IS NOT CHEAP.

As someone who used to shoot Nikon 300mm f2.8 IFED lens, I appreciate the quality of the 40-150 pro for the price. I certainly dont consider it expensive for what you are getting. I also reckon I can do everything I used to do with the Nikon lens with this Olympus one in a smaller, lighter package.

Period. Plastic fantastic 40-150mm R has better performance/price ratio.

And this will be attractive to photographers on a budget who want the best bang for their bucks.

I suppose my attitude to buying lenses mirrors my attitude to buying hifi.

I can buy a turntable for a few hundred pounds that will play records and sound okay.

However, if I can hear, even subtle, improvements between that and a player that costs £4000, then, if I can afford it, I will buy that player. The records are the same so I want the deck that retrieves more detail from them.

It all comes down to what individuals are willing to pay to chase that little bit extra sound or image quality.

For that reason, I have never listened to  a £30,000 turntable because I am not willing to spend that much on one.

My cameras and lenses, I feel, give ME the best bang for my buck, from performance, ergonomics and build quality compared to what I am prepared to spend.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Foundational lens in the m4/3 system and one I can't imagine being without. So useful, so very good. Love that it is sharper as it is zoomed longer, which seems very unusual for zoom lenses in general. Dual focus motors, constant aperture, internal zoom--ideal.

I agree totally.

It was just Oly's second Pro series lens and has been out nearly eight years now. Should they ever refresh, OIS and a focus limit switch would be welcome additions. I'm weird in liking the complicated lens hood.

I like it too. I remember when we had all the kerfuffle about the lens hood falling apart, I ordered the Canon hood from China and stuck that on. After a few weeks, the Canon hood was relegated to the loft in its box and I enjoyed using the Oly hood again. I buy lenses for me to use and enjoy, not to keep pristine for a better resale value (although I do try to look after my gear)

Been using it since 2016 and it still works (probably jinxed it now!). Don't need to take it off in my bag or reverse it to store. I love it. Heck, if it does fall apart, I will try to source another one. There should be lots of pristine ones given that no-one seems to use theirs!

Cheers,

Rick

Rob

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

smith-jones wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

But how can it be a $9500 lens for $1500? It is a great lens that does not need comparing but if you are going to, since it can NOT do what a FF 300 2.8 can do how is it a $9500lens? Nah, it seems a wonderful $1500 lens and does it need be anymore?

It is long going "tradition" on MFT forum to compare incompatible things, like O 300/4 with FF 600/4

I had 40-150/2.8, it is a good lens for a price, nothing to be overexcited about it.

The converse is also true - it is a long-standing tradition from full frame users to talk down on smaller sensor systems, no matter how good (or better) they are. One that immediately jumps to mind is Sony Northrup's claim that you'd get more detailed photos with a Nikon 200-500 and a D850 than with a 300mm Pro on a 20MP sensor.

750mm ~20mp equivalent has more details than 600mm, what you are disagree with?

Spoken like someone who either has zero experience with telephoto lenses (comparing a prosumer zoom with an exotic prime LOL ) or just trolling.

Fine, I'll bite. Here's one with the 300mm Pro and 2x TC. Please show me one with comparable detail from a 200-500 + TC. I'll make it easier: show me one with a 600mm + 2x TC that has proportionately more detail in it.

EDIT: I just viewed your gear list. Not a single wildlife lens there. No wonder you're confused.

I gave you explanation of TN's finding on resolution difference. For 600+tc samples please use google search.

No, you're the one claiming that it's absurd to compare the 300mm Pro to a 600mm. You brought up the 600mm. I have seen thousands of photos taken with the 600mm, and the onus is on you to prove that they are substantially better than the 300mm sample I've shared above

Is this one good enough for you?

That photo is a mess. Mostly out of focus, poor lighting, nothing in the eye. Just blah.  If that's the case for the 200-500/5.6-6.3, well, don't need it.

The 300/4 is a fine lens in a terrific package. When you're shooting from the back of a small boat, nephew on tiller, 1-2 foot waves, you really start to appreciate just how nice it is to have decent reach in tight package ...

Would one use the 40-150 for the same use case as a 120-300, or not

No, if you gonna use both of them on 2x crop camera

You know exactly what I meant. Feigned ignorance doesn't demonstrate intelligence - quite the opposite.

Comparing 40-150mm to 120-300mm does demonstrates intelegents.

Intelegents?

What's the opposite of that? Inteleladies?

Typo

How about the 300mm Pro and the 600mm? Both would be used for wildlife, esp. birds. It isn't like one is used for wildlife and the other for portraits.

I know many full frame shooters who own the 600mm but carry the 80-400 on safari, so effectively take - what could have been their best photos - with a much inferior lens. 300mm Pro shooters would not have this problem.

Lack of choice is not solution to the problem.

Are you claiming that people who can choose between the 75-300, 100-300, PL 100-400, Olympus 100-400, PL 200mm + TC, 300mm Pro, 150-400 Pro and others are lacking options?

you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. I see no problem here.

You know ... lots of people post here, asking questions ... and sometimes they make incorrect statements. Confusing DOF with light gathering is a common one. And many also lack the real-life experience to know that DOF isn't a significant factor at extreme magnifications (see example above).

Show me where I said anything about DOF?

And other forum members here share their knowledge and we all benefit from that. That's how I started here, asking basic questions and learning everyday.

But you clearly think you know it all, and aren't arguing in good faith. Anyone can see that you have no understanding of long lenses and no self-awareness of this fact.

So instead of taking you seriously, I'm going to laugh instead.

Telling that 300mm prime shooters has no problems of 80-400 zoom shootersafari - doesn't demonstrate .... choice of FL.

😂

Clearly reading isn't your strong suite, but I was speaking of the impracticality of taking a 600mm on safari, and the IQ compromise of using a weaker lens like the 80-400.

I know that the two are not equivalent in image rendering, usability etc. and there are pros and cons. But these spec-sheet arguments are getting tiresome.

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

No, you're the one claiming that it's absurd to compare the 300mm Pro to a 600mm. You brought up the 600mm. I have seen thousands of photos taken with the 600mm, and the onus is on you to prove that they are substantially better than the 300mm sample I've shared above

Is this one good enough for you?

Great. That photo demonstrates the disadvantage of a bigger sensor perfectly. The DOF is so shallow that there is no feather detail on the wings whatsoever. Only the eyes have detail on them. It starts getting blurry near the neck and on the wings it looks like a watercolor painting.

Close aperture down, if you need more DOF. Simple as that.

To get more DOF you'd have to stop it down by 2 or 3 stops, which makes matters worse in poor light, like when that photo was taken.

It will not be worse than m43

You could not be more incorrect.

ISO disadvantage of m43 is between 1/2 stop to 1+ stop, depending on the full frame body.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-III-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DC-G9-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5___1236_1203_1149#tabs-2

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D850-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II___1177_1136#tabs-2

So aside from having 50% reach and needing to crop, you will also have to use 2 stops lower aperture to get same DOF and thus end up with between 1 - 1.5 stops more noise on full frame.

Looks like the photo you shared was from a 45+ MP sensor, so effectively you've spent $2500 - $6000 on the camera body and another $8000 - $12000 on the lens, all to get a fuzzy photo.

A7r4 +200-600 + tc1.4 = 2600euro +1600euro + 500euro

Great. Mine was E-M1ii + 300mm Pro + MC-20 = $650+ $2000 + $320 = under $3000.

I use bigger sensor cameras too (and also 1" sensors) but some FF users like to believe that having a bigger sensor is ALWAYS an advantage. This isn't tethered in reality.

you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. I see no problem here.

You know ... lots of people post here, asking questions ... and sometimes they make incorrect statements. Confusing DOF with light gathering is a common one. And many also lack the real-life experience to know that DOF isn't a significant factor at extreme magnifications (see example above).

Show me where I said anything about DOF?

Right here: "you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. "

There is no word DOF right here. Pls read again.

You're claiming that the equivalence of f13.6 did not refer to DOF. So please tell me in what other parameter you get a 2.5 stop difference between m43 and FF? (DOF is also 2 stops and not 2.5 stops, but okay).

If you think that light gathering of pixels with a pitch of 3.32 µm (m43 20mp) is the same as of 6.56 µm (FF 20mp) - I have a sad news for you...

I never claimed that, but okay. 😂

And conversely, if you think that the noise from an f5.6 lens on FF 20MP will be equal to that from an f2.8 lens on a 20MP m43 sensor, then I have sad news for you.

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

No, you're the one claiming that it's absurd to compare the 300mm Pro to a 600mm. You brought up the 600mm. I have seen thousands of photos taken with the 600mm, and the onus is on you to prove that they are substantially better than the 300mm sample I've shared above

Is this one good enough for you?

Great. That photo demonstrates the disadvantage of a bigger sensor perfectly. The DOF is so shallow that there is no feather detail on the wings whatsoever. Only the eyes have detail on them. It starts getting blurry near the neck and on the wings it looks like a watercolor painting.

Close aperture down, if you need more DOF. Simple as that.

To get more DOF you'd have to stop it down by 2 or 3 stops, which makes matters worse in poor light, like when that photo was taken.

It will not be worse than m43

Meanwhile, my photo was shot wide open with feather sharpness and still blurs out the background.

Your photo is 4k resolution, his photo is 26mp.

Looks like the photo you shared was from a 45+ MP sensor, so effectively you've spent $2500 - $6000 on the camera body and another $8000 - $12000 on the lens, all to get a fuzzy photo.

A7r4 +200-600 + tc1.4 = 2600euro +1600euro + 500euro

I use bigger sensor cameras too (and also 1" sensors) but some FF users like to believe that having a bigger sensor is ALWAYS an advantage. This isn't tethered in reality.

you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. I see no problem here.

You know ... lots of people post here, asking questions ... and sometimes they make incorrect statements. Confusing DOF with light gathering is a common one. And many also lack the real-life experience to know that DOF isn't a significant factor at extreme magnifications (see example above).

Show me where I said anything about DOF?

Right here: "you can use f/13.6 equvalent zoom lens instead of f/8 equivalent prime. "

There is no word DOF right here. Pls read again.

If you think that light gathering of pixels with a pitch of 3.32 µm (m43 20mp) is the same as of 6.56 µm (FF 20mp) - I have a sad news for you...

What matters, especially in this type of long lens shooting in the field, is the lens opening and angle of view. The [luminosity] x [lens opening] x [angle of view] x [1/shutter] determines what is captured by the sensor.

It's really simple. It comes down to how large of a lens you're willing to buy and carry, and your ability to focus and capture that shot.

rich_cx139 wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

<snip>

Great. That photo demonstrates the disadvantage of a bigger sensor perfectly. The DOF is so shallow that there is no feather detail on the wings whatsoever. Only the eyes have detail on them. It starts getting blurry near the neck and on the wings it looks like a watercolor painting.

To get more DOF you'd have to stop it down by 2 or 3 stops, which makes matters worse in poor light, like when that photo was taken.

... and by the time you have stopped down 2 on a FF from 2.8 to 5.6, say, then you are at roughly the same low noise ISO situation as you have with m43 at f2.8. Except, of course that an em1.2 or 1.3 is about 1 1/3 not 2 stops behind a general FF sensor.

Exactly. James Stirling, SonyX - are you reading?

Hadn't noticed that limitation on DoF for bird shots ( but I am usually limited to 5.6 lenses on FF anyway ) - in general you are trying to grab as much light as possible an sacrificing DoF but most situations in landscape or photos of groups inside, you are needing to control FoV ( ignoring 43 vs 32 aspect ratio differences ) and control the depth of field. This usually means, in my experience, one has to stop down a FF lens to 5,6 or 8 ( for landscapes ).

Precisely. Same for macros. You'd have to stop down FF to f22 or even lower, or at least to f8 and then stack in Helicon. With m43 you can shoot at f2.8 with the added incredible advantage of in-camera focus stacking.

For landscapes, street, architecture and macros, the greater DOF of m43 at wider apertures provides a tangible advantage.

Plenty of cases where the thin DoF is OK or desirable and then FF and bright glass in low light ( with moving subjects ) gets into its own.

Exactly. It makes perfect sense to shoot full frame if you need shallow DOF, like with portraits. Or more pixels, like in landscape or product photography (although m43 has high-res mode). Or consistently shoot in low light, like event / indoor photography.

faunagraphy wrote:

rich_cx139 wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

<snip>

Great. That photo demonstrates the disadvantage of a bigger sensor perfectly. The DOF is so shallow that there is no feather detail on the wings whatsoever. Only the eyes have detail on them. It starts getting blurry near the neck and on the wings it looks like a watercolor painting.

To get more DOF you'd have to stop it down by 2 or 3 stops, which makes matters worse in poor light, like when that photo was taken.

... and by the time you have stopped down 2 on a FF from 2.8 to 5.6, say, then you are at roughly the same low noise ISO situation as you have with m43 at f2.8. Except, of course that an em1.2 or 1.3 is about 1 1/3 not 2 stops behind a general FF sensor.

Exactly. James Stirling, SonyX - are you reading?

Yes, with the only difference, that I have g9 & A7III to compare.

Hadn't noticed that limitation on DoF for bird shots ( but I am usually limited to 5.6 lenses on FF anyway ) - in general you are trying to grab as much light as possible an sacrificing DoF but most situations in landscape or photos of groups inside, you are needing to control FoV ( ignoring 43 vs 32 aspect ratio differences ) and control the depth of field. This usually means, in my experience, one has to stop down a FF lens to 5,6 or 8 ( for landscapes ).

Precisely. Same for macros. You'd have to stop down FF to f22 or even lower, or at least to f8 and then stack in Helicon. With m43 you can shoot at f2.8 with the added incredible advantage of in-camera focus stacking.

For landscapes, street, architecture and macros, the greater DOF of m43 at wider apertures provides a tangible advantage.

Plenty of cases where the thin DoF is OK or desirable and then FF and bright glass in low light ( with moving subjects ) gets into its own.

Exactly. It makes perfect sense to shoot full frame if you need shallow DOF, like with portraits. Or more pixels, like in landscape or product photography (although m43 has high-res mode). Or consistently shoot in low light, like event / indoor photography.

-- hide signature --

Wildlife photography in central and western India, and the Pacific Northwest. Mostly Micro Four Thirds with some Nikon F.

James Stirling wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

It is not just effective diagonal AOV it is DOF control/ subject isolation and most critically total light gathered. In other words a FF 80-300mm F/5.6 on a FF camera will do the same job as a 40-150mm F/2.8 om m43. 70{-80}-300mm lenses are widely available and often very inexpensive. The reason being that such a slow lens is pedestrian low end in FF

Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens 1928 B&H Photo Video (bhphotovideo.com)

While amongst a few of the hard of thinking posters here , denial of equivalence and it's unavoidable consequences is a constant. Alas reality does not support their nonsense , equivalence applies equally to all sensor sizes from the smallest to the largest. Sadly you are not the first or no doubt last to make the same old BS fact dodging claims, it is an embarrassing tradition in the forum

Now to be clear the 40-150mm pros is a great lens for m43 but it is not the same as FF F/2.8 lens. Just as a lens on a smaller sensor format covering the same effective focal range is not the same as the 40-150mm .

is to simply ignore the sensor and concentrate on the lens.

What determines DOF is distance to the subject, angle of view, and physical lens opening.  It's a geometric effect determined by these factors.

What determines light gathering is lens opening, luminance, angle of view, and 1/shutter.

If you need to buy a wide lens opening for good light gathering.  A smaller format let's you do that with a shorter lens up to the point it can be made no shorter.

So why not buy the smallest format that meets your needs?  No value judgement required, just some understanding what you are getting when you spend your hard-earned money.