A Comparison of MFT and APS-C Systems

[James Stirling]

You could compare small FF bodies from Sony and make MFT look bad...

So reality is that it depends on your use case

• Long focal ranges - M4/3 has a clear advantage for weight & size
• Short focal ranges - FF now displays bodies & lenses sometimes even smaller than M4/3 and better IQ and low light..

So, difficult to declare what is best

In my experience, what is best is having 2 or 3 systems

I have:

• FF (Canon)
• APS-C (Canon)
• M4/3

Happy with that .. no time for sensor wars..

And yes, Sony is tempting me with the small FF 61 MP A7c R......

Gaul

Nikon FF for me no APS and m43 . I am a tempted with the A7cr it was I feel overpriced at launch here in the UK but there has been a good drop in price since then . I was a bit worried about the EVF quality but i manged a short hands on with the camera and while not the best EVF it is doable . Things have moved on in EVF's greatly over the years , my first EVF was the LVF1 with my GF1 , it makes even the worst current EVF look like an 8K TV



I have an FE-Z adapter that is tiny and makes all the smaller FE mount lenses an option my other temptation is the not so small ZF I am a bit bored with my high end cameras and going back to basics is on the cards

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

The difference in sensor performance between 1" and m43 is roughly the same as between m43 and APS . Which according to you is not worth it

1" = 116 mm^2

MFT = 225 mm^2

APS-C (non Canon) = 370 mm^2

225 / 116 = 1.94

370 / 225 = 1.64

The difference between 1" and MFT is a little bit more than the latter and APS-C.

But regardless, a 1" sensor is pretty good, I just prefer an ILC to be able to switch between a pancake lens for everyday carry, and a big telephoto. Perhaps Nikon 1 could be the common ground?

The lens in the RX10 IV covers a 25x focal range FF equiv AOV as mentioned above does the same job as a m43 12-300mm F/3.8-5.4. The 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 is one of the poorest zooms in the system and only goes to 200 not 300mm. The E-M10 IV is a low end body with much poorer specs.

I chose these literally just to compare the size. My entire post was about size, not about how sharp each individual lens in a system is. Yes, many MFT lenses could use a refresh.

If you want a higher-specced body:



Or, in case the 12-200 is not sharp enough:



Or, if you want longer reach:



Point being, an ILC lets you swap lenses to the one that makes sense at any given moment, but even if you seek a one-lens solution, a superzoom lens won't be that much bigger.

As I mentioned I have tested the RX10 IV lens against my 100-300mm and the Sony lens is clearly a better performer . The also start at 75 and 100mm not 12. Plus the F/4 of the Sony lens would close any sensor advantage assuming { same DOF same shutter speed etc }

You are back to comparing apples to oranges which is disingenuous though not surprising

Oh, did I hurt you? Sorry that not everybody has to like your bridge camera, even thogh it is a cool concept.

no I just find apples to oranges comparisons pointless they are endless in the forum . And I agree totally for me the ILC wins every time

The RX100 is on my short list of compacts I wanna try though, because it's so small.

I do have larger hands and for me { my wife loves it } I find the ergonomics and handling of here rx100 v truly awful It is amazing the feature set that they have squeezed into such a truly tiny camera. I would try and get hands on with it see how it goes . Obviously lots of folk are happy with them

The weakness of most of the smaller 1" sensor compacts is the compromises incurred in the lens to make them so small. This is not the case with the RX10 IV

Yes. That's why I want an ILC. To be able to swap between a pancake and a big telephoto.

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Sqrt2]

Both of us can cherry-pick lenses

Difference is I picked the current model you picked an older one also you used a low end m43 body that is nowhere near the A6700 in performance { not that I am a fan of the A6700 }

Better now?

Again, I'm literally just comparing lenses...

Btw, the a6700's 11fps burst rate kinda gets left in the dust here, doesn't it?

 

[James Stirling]

"amazing how you got it to fit on a m43 camera without an adapter"

Thank the website I used, it thinks 4/3 and m4/3 are the same system.

It is a fantastic lens and before jumping into m43 I used FT fro a short while and seriously considered it . until recently I only had Panasonic bodies so adapting FT lenses was a bit of no go.

 

[Sqrt2]

Better?

 

[James Stirling]

Both of us can cherry-pick lenses

Difference is I picked the current model you picked an older one also you used a low end m43 body that is nowhere near the A6700 in performance { not that I am a fan of the A6700 }

Better now?

Again, I'm literally just comparing lenses...

Btw, the a6700's 11fps burst rate kinda gets left in the dust here, doesn't it?

Changing the goal posts the first comparison I responded to you used the E-M10V not the OM-1 . According to DPreview the A6700 maybe 11fps is enough

"Best-in-class AF performance for stills and video, including face and eye detect"

A Comparison of MFT and APS-C Systems

A 70-200mm F/4 on an APS body will do the same job as the 40-150mm F/2.8 . Same diagonal AOV, same DOF control , same total light gathering GOD not this nonsense again! I literally STARTED my post explaining that an APS-C sensor is NOT twice the area of a MFT sensor, but rather just 50%...

www.dpreview.com

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Sqrt2]

Both of us can cherry-pick lenses

Difference is I picked the current model you picked an older one also you used a low end m43 body that is nowhere near the A6700 in performance { not that I am a fan of the A6700 }

I thought that's what you are telling me, so proceeded to add the OM-1 instead.

Better now?

Again, I'm literally just comparing lenses...

Btw, the a6700's 11fps burst rate kinda gets left in the dust here, doesn't it?

Changing the goal posts the first comparison I responded to you used the E-M10V not the OM-1 . According to DPreview the A6700 maybe 11fps is enough

Did you mean the lens is the older model?

"Best-in-class AF performance for stills and video, including face and eye detect"

If I had a penny every time a YouTuber told me Sony's AF is the best out there while their face gets out of focus...

My G9 also has face and eye detect though. The R10 I had did as well. And very sticky.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67601223

 

[Tuonov2]

You wish.

You can not compare in terms of sharpness and microcontrast that Panasonic 100-300mm with the Nikon zoom and prime (although sharpness is not that critical in video). Oly or PL 100-400 is a better choice.

Thanks for telling me what lenses I am allowed to compare in your presence, o great lord.

The comparison is pointless if the gear being compared is of a much lower grade. I have the Panasonic 100-300mm and it is nowhere near the level of the Nikon 100-400mm in any way . You can compare whatever you want in fact comparing apples to oranges is a bit of a forum staple

The Nikon 100-400mm on an APS cameras does the same job as a m43 75-300mm F/3.4 -4.2 . By same job I means same diagonal AOV, same DOF control and critically same total light gathering . It is also a much higher grade lens

The Sony 70-350mm F/4.5-6.3 on APS does the same job as m43 55- 262mm F/3.4-4.7 the 45-200mm is worse than the 100-300mm . The Sony lens is of a much higher build quality weather resistant etc than the Panasonic.

25x zoom lens doing the same job as a m43 12-300mm F/3.8-5.4, free camera included . That is an honest accurate compassion of what the lenses do equivalently Or we could do it your way and ask why is the OM set up so huge and so expensive when both lenses are F/4 at 600mm FF AOV. The answer to that is the same reason most of your comparison are not comparing apples to apples.

If you can live with a 600mm equiv FOV the RX10 IV is a solid choice , the lens is far better than the 100-300mm { I have both } . But the ILC with a huge range of lenses is a better choice for me

Looks like we have another inductee in to the m4/3 cult...

 

[James Stirling]

Better?

You would need a mythical AF 12mm F/1.0 if you wanted to be equivalent . The 12mm F/1.4 does the same job as a 24mm F/2.8 on FF . Only problem is that m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equiv to FF lenses is that the FF lenses that slow are often lower grade.



--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Sqrt2]

Better?

You would need a mythical AF 12mm F/1.0 if you wanted to be equivalent . The 12mm F/1.4 does the same job as a 24mm F/2.8 on FF . Only problem is that m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equiv to FF lenses is that the FF lenses that slow are often lower grade.

Meanwhile,





Is it just Sigma whose lenses are this big, even the Contemporary series?

 

[James Stirling]

Better?

You would need a mythical AF 12mm F/1.0 if you wanted to be equivalent . The 12mm F/1.4 does the same job as a 24mm F/2.8 on FF . Only problem is that m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equiv to FF lenses is that the FF lenses that slow are often lower grade.

Meanwhile,



Is it just Sigma whose lenses are this big, even the Contemporary series?

There are a couple of Samyang lenses that are small , I used Sony FE for a spell an the very cheap and cheerful plastic 35mm F/2.8 was a surprisingly good performer. The Sigma DG series have excellent build quality

The Samyang 24mm F/1.8 gets great reviews it is about the same length as the 12mm a good bit lighter lighter and a lot cheaper. If I decide to go with an A7CR the 24mm F/1.8 would be on my list

https://dustinabbott.net/2021/05/samyang-af-24mm-f1-8-review/

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-samyang-af-24mm-1-8-fe/

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

You wish.

You can not compare in terms of sharpness and microcontrast that Panasonic 100-300mm with the Nikon zoom and prime (although sharpness is not that critical in video). Oly or PL 100-400 is a better choice.

Thanks for telling me what lenses I am allowed to compare in your presence, o great lord.

The comparison is pointless if the gear being compared is of a much lower grade. I have the Panasonic 100-300mm and it is nowhere near the level of the Nikon 100-400mm in any way . You can compare whatever you want in fact comparing apples to oranges is a bit of a forum staple

The Nikon 100-400mm on an APS cameras does the same job as a m43 75-300mm F/3.4 -4.2 . By same job I means same diagonal AOV, same DOF control and critically same total light gathering . It is also a much higher grade lens

The Sony 70-350mm F/4.5-6.3 on APS does the same job as m43 55- 262mm F/3.4-4.7 the 45-200mm is worse than the 100-300mm . The Sony lens is of a much higher build quality weather resistant etc than the Panasonic.

25x zoom lens doing the same job as a m43 12-300mm F/3.8-5.4, free camera included . That is an honest accurate compassion of what the lenses do equivalently Or we could do it your way and ask why is the OM set up so huge and so expensive when both lenses are F/4 at 600mm FF AOV. The answer to that is the same reason most of your comparison are not comparing apples to apples.

If you can live with a 600mm equiv FOV the RX10 IV is a solid choice , the lens is far better than the 100-300mm { I have both } . But the ILC with a huge range of lenses is a better choice for me

Looks like we have another inductee in to the m4/3 cult...

It is the one true faith

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Sqrt2]

Is MFT a cult from your point of view? Or are you joking?

 

[James Stirling]

Both of us can cherry-pick lenses

Difference is I picked the current model you picked an older one also you used a low end m43 body that is nowhere near the A6700 in performance { not that I am a fan of the A6700 }

I thought that's what you are telling me, so proceeded to add the OM-1 instead.

Better now?

Again, I'm literally just comparing lenses...

Btw, the a6700's 11fps burst rate kinda gets left in the dust here, doesn't it?

Changing the goal posts the first comparison I responded to you used the E-M10V not the OM-1 . According to DPreview the A6700 maybe 11fps is enough

Did you mean the lens is the older model?

Yep

"Best-in-class AF performance for stills and video, including face and eye detect"

If I had a penny every time a YouTuber told me Sony's AF is the best out there while their face gets out of focus...

I do tend to add a pinch of salt to a lot of Sony reviews If Sony announces a new lens cap it will be in the hands of every YT clickbait channel within minutes

My G9 also has face and eye detect though. The R10 I had did as well. And very sticky.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67601223

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Sqrt2]

Both of us can cherry-pick lenses

Difference is I picked the current model you picked an older one also you used a low end m43 body that is nowhere near the A6700 in performance { not that I am a fan of the A6700 }

I thought that's what you are telling me, so proceeded to add the OM-1 instead.

Better now?

Again, I'm literally just comparing lenses...

Btw, the a6700's 11fps burst rate kinda gets left in the dust here, doesn't it?

Changing the goal posts the first comparison I responded to you used the E-M10V not the OM-1 . According to DPreview the A6700 maybe 11fps is enough

Did you mean the lens is the older model?

Yep

I thought lenses don't get obsolete like camera bodies...

"Best-in-class AF performance for stills and video, including face and eye detect"

If I had a penny every time a YouTuber told me Sony's AF is the best out there while their face gets out of focus...

I do tend to add a pinch of salt to a lot of Sony reviews

See? Sony's 11fps burst being enough because of their AF is like Apple claiming their phones and laptops are fine with just 8GB of RAM because of their supposedly "class-leading" CPUs...

My G9 also has face and eye detect though. The R10 I had did as well. And very sticky.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67601223

 

[Tuonov2]

Is MFT a cult from your point of view? Or are you joking?

I'm half joking, you will find that in this forum there is a constant 'measuring' going on in comparison to other systems that doesn't happen on the other forums. Then there are certain members that will defend their choice of system to the death often comparing apples to oranges to make their point, you fit in quite well regarding that... It seems to be similar to small man syndrome.

Some will not accept that when it comes to a camera system there are horses for courses and each has their strengths and weaknesses.

I think it's funny watching people turn themselves in to pretzels trying to justify their purchases, blaming FF users for the bickering that goes on even though they're the ones that constantly bring up the comparisons.

You can look at the top discussions on front page of the forum and 90% of the time pick the ones from this forum just from the title of the thread. This topic would have never come up on an apsc forum unless instigated by an m4/3 user because they tend to just not care about sensor size.

 

[jjbinx]

you seem to have ignored the fact that several APS-C cameras (Fujifilm and Canon) have sensors with >32 Megapixels - sensors with the same or greater pixel density as a 20Mp 4/3 sensor. Wildlife photographers in particular take advantage of that by cropping their images when they need more 'reach' as they do with the hi Megapixel FF cameras.

The practical impliation is that with those >32Mp APS-C bodies a direct comparison (size and weight) can be made with MFT cameras without applying a crop factor difference to the lens focal lengths, ie we can compare 100-300mm 100-400mm to 100-400mm

eg looking at the OM-1 with m.Zuiko 100-400mm compared to the R7 with RF100-400mm and the X-T4 with 100-400mm we see a very different size comparison to the one you depicted with a 100-300mm MFT lens

jj

 

[HicHic]

you seem to have ignored the fact that several APS-C cameras (Fujifilm and Canon) have sensors with >32 Megapixels - sensors with the same or greater pixel density as a 20Mp 4/3 sensor. Wildlife photographers in particular take advantage of that by cropping their images when they need more 'reach' as they do with the hi Megapixel FF cameras.

The practical impliation is that with those >32Mp APS-C bodies a direct comparison (size and weight) can be made with MFT cameras without applying a crop factor difference to the lens focal lengths, ie we can compare 100-300mm 100-400mm to 100-400mm

eg looking at the OM-1 with m.Zuiko 100-400mm compared to the R7 with RF100-400mm and the X-T4 with 100-400mm we see a very different size comparison to the one you depicted with a 100-300mm MFT lens

jj

That is correct. All the equivalency calculations have gotten him quite confused. He thinks a 400mm 2.8 is the same as a 200mm 2.8. And is shocked to find out that one is much larger in size.

 

[eques]

So this comparison is ill chosen.

Yes

But certainly I would prefer M43

yes

(and also serious professionals) do.

https://www.sulasula.com/en/home/

Really?

:-D

Petr makes absolutely wonderful pictures. He is a highly talented pro indeed.

But he is also an OM ambassador. He will get his gear for free to use, and his trips paid for. And even for a successful pro, there is only a limited number of ambassador positions available in the camera industry. So we cannot be sure if his gear and sponsor choices are entirely voluntary, or if they are a necessity to put food on the table.

Yes, but he shows, what can be done with M43. (That's perhaps why he got to be an ambassador?)

 

[eques]

i don't get it why "FF tele primes are catching up" as a negative for MFT. shouldn't it be - FF is now just catching up and they still have a long way to go?

i wonder why MFT is being downplayed a lot, but if FF does it, people say - "FF is beating MFT in its own game"

It's "own game" is excellent IQ in small form factor. Now if you look at equivalent tele lenses like James Stirling showed, the M43 lens (the outstanding 40-150 pro) is much bigger than the latest 70-200 lenses on APSc. If you used the 40-150 pro as I did, you would appreciate a smaller lens, that does the same.
Yes, FF has a long way to go, but FF has started (Sony, Sigma, Panasonic, even Canon), and this is a danger for our m43.

Are you sure abou that?

Yes.

1. I was referring to the 40-150 f/2.8, which is equivalent in the sense I wrote. Here you show slower M43 lenses.
2. The comparison was with the Sony FE 40-150 f/4 2nd generation, which smaller than the 1st generation lens.