Full frame stopped down vs MFT wide open

[More Keepers]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

Which begs the question-- Is a full frame camera worth it over a little MFT, considering the MFT lenses from Olympus and Panasonic seem to be manufactured more precisely and are therefore sharper than all but the most expensive DSLR lenses? Whereas on a FF body you can shoot portraits with a 60mm lens at f5.6, on the MFT you might get the same quality image at 30mm and f2.8 (equivalent to 60mm f5.6).

Obviously with FF you still have the flexibility of far superior light gathering with full frame lens+sensor if you shoot wide open. But for many people, the vast majority of photography is done at smaller apertures.

What do you think?

If I had a full frame and a MFT camera I'd do comparisons myself.

If you are using the same DOF with FF and mFT at base ISO, then FF will have the advantage as it has more pixels and gathers more light.

If you are using the same DOF and exposure time with FF and mFT, then both systems will collect the same amount of light, and the noise advantage of FF will vanish, and, in fact, be at a slight disadvantage due to the greater electronic noise of more pixels.

However, FF will still record more detail (unless using good lenses on mFT and mediocre lenses on FF, you're stopped down way into diffraction softening territory, there's motion blur, or other resolution robbing issues), so the use of noise filtering may well still result in FF retaining more detail for a given level of noise in many situations.

Regardless of which comes out ahead, the differences will likely not be large enough to "justify" one system over the other. Thus, the advantage falls to mFT based on size, weight, and price.

I'm not convinced to sell my D810 and get more MFT gear. At this point I'll keep a foot in each camp, but stay with the better lenses for the FF. Weight just isn't an issue for me at this point. Everyone has different needs and priorities so a blanket statement on which is better is ridiculous.

 

[Great Bustard]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

Which begs the question-- Is a full frame camera worth it over a little MFT, considering the MFT lenses from Olympus and Panasonic seem to be manufactured more precisely and are therefore sharper than all but the most expensive DSLR lenses? Whereas on a FF body you can shoot portraits with a 60mm lens at f5.6, on the MFT you might get the same quality image at 30mm and f2.8 (equivalent to 60mm f5.6).

Obviously with FF you still have the flexibility of far superior light gathering with full frame lens+sensor if you shoot wide open. But for many people, the vast majority of photography is done at smaller apertures.

What do you think?

If I had a full frame and a MFT camera I'd do comparisons myself.

If you are using the same DOF with FF and mFT at base ISO, then FF will have the advantage as it has more pixels and gathers more light.

If you are using the same DOF and exposure time with FF and mFT, then both systems will collect the same amount of light, and the noise advantage of FF will vanish, and, in fact, be at a slight disadvantage due to the greater electronic noise of more pixels.

However, FF will still record more detail (unless using good lenses on mFT and mediocre lenses on FF, you're stopped down way into diffraction softening territory, there's motion blur, or other resolution robbing issues), so the use of noise filtering may well still result in FF retaining more detail for a given level of noise in many situations.

Regardless of which comes out ahead, the differences will likely not be large enough to "justify" one system over the other. Thus, the advantage falls to mFT based on size, weight, and price.

I'm not convinced to sell my D810 and get more MFT gear.

No one says you should.

At this point I'll keep a foot in each camp, but stay with the better lenses for the FF.

Going dual system has its advantages -- and costs.

Weight just isn't an issue for me at this point.

If size, weight, and price were non-issues, everyone would be shooting FF.

Everyone has different needs and priorities so a blanket statement on which is better is ridiculous.

No one would argue otherwise.

 

[neil holmes]

Done very quickly .....just set the cameras to aperture priority using auto ISO and let the camera decide. Just quick snaps.

There are different aspect ratios and so everything is not equivalent.....I don't shoot for equivalent photos really ....otherwise why have different sensor sizes.

JUST the difference between DOF f4 for M4/3 and f8 for FF .......camera chose ISO 51200 for the A7s and 6400 for the GX7 (that is the highest I have each set for with auto ISO.

Also another shot with the A7s at 3.5. NONE of these are therefore "equivalent"



Both just using a "kit lens" 14mm for M4/3 28mm for FF.

6400 is too high for the GX7, the A7s is still fine at 51200 to my liking.

 

[Rick Knepper]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

I stopped short on this statement. So, I am going to address this and let others discuss equivalence which I have no interest in.

If you are shooting f8 and above on modern APS-C sensors (assuming 20-24 MPs), you are getting visible diffraction in certain circumstances.


Good news, some companies are making both. Bad news, not every company is doing this (because their markets are not demanding this kind of performance primarily because it is expensive).

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. I use tools, not brands. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Based on 2014 keepers, I shot the following percentages: 5D3=42%, D800=31%, 6D=25% & D3x=2%. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

This is off topic but.... I have experimented with my lenses to figure out the sharpest aperture.

Cool. A lot of folks don't do this.

On my 12-24 f4 Nikon it's f11. On my 60mm f2.8 Nikon it's about f8. I'm using a 24MP D7100

With regard to f11, are you referring to across the frame, corner performance, center frame? This is a lot of DoF.

I notice Great Bustard is posting in this topic. With regard to equivalence, I can't think of anyone more knowledgeable.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. I use tools, not brands. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Based on 2014 keepers, I shot the following percentages: 5D3=42%, D800=31%, 6D=25% & D3x=2%. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

 

[Rick Knepper]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

I stopped short on this statement. So, I am going to address this and let others discuss equivalence which I have no interest in.

A pity. Equivalence would have saved you a lot of effort:

Equivalent photos have the same diffraction in the final photo.

So a photo taken with a 100 mm lens at f/4.0 on FF will have the same diffraction as a photo taken with a 50 mm lens at f/2.0 on a 2x crop sensor.

Yes such a pity.

I suggest that you read the post more carefully and get acquainted with this diffraction calculator. The only reference to APS-C I made was that I was guessing how many MPs he had since the OP did not mention what he was shooting. You have got to read/comprehend better than this if you plan to correct me or anyone else for that matter.

No need to read what you wrote. Diffraction is not different in equivalent photos. This is a thread about equivalent photos. So your diffraction calculations are either irrelevant because you compare non-equivalent photos, or they are a waste of time because you could have known the answer in advance.

You need to read something, for example, the subject line. Do you know what OT means?

 

[bobn2]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

I stopped short on this statement. So, I am going to address this and let others discuss equivalence which I have no interest in.

A pity. Equivalence would have saved you a lot of effort:

Equivalent photos have the same diffraction in the final photo.

So a photo taken with a 100 mm lens at f/4.0 on FF will have the same diffraction as a photo taken with a 50 mm lens at f/2.0 on a 2x crop sensor.

Yes such a pity.

I suggest that you read the post more carefully and get acquainted with this diffraction calculator.

This diffraction calculator is not so useful, as Allan points out. I used to criticise it because it provided a bogus 'diffraction limit' based on the pixel size, now McHugh has changed it so that it calculates (the still misleadingly termed) 'diffraction limit' on the Airy disk size as enlarged to a 10x8 print. The result is, as he says, it's just doing the same calculation as you'd do with the simple equivalence calculation. Beyond that, knowing the Airy disc size isn't particularly illuminating without some further calculations which the calculator doesn't do

 

[jackalopemaui]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field.

Not because you are right, but because you did not think it through.

I'd do the same on a full frame body.

Not because you are right, but because you did not think it through.

Which begs the question-- Is a full frame camera worth it over a little MFT,

Not if you do not think it through.

considering the MFT lenses from Olympus and Panasonic seem to be manufactured more precisely

you did not think it through

and are therefore sharper than all but the most expensive DSLR lenses?

you did not think it through

Whereas on a FF body you can shoot portraits with a 60mm lens at f5.6, on the MFT you might get the same quality image at 30mm and f2.8 (equivalent to 60mm f5.6).

you did think it through

But for many people, the vast majority of photography is done at smaller apertures.

you did not think it through

What do you think?

If I had a full frame and a MFT camera I'd do comparisons myself.

Do you see DOF issues?

I don't think you understood one bit of my post, but that's impossible to know because you posted a bunch of nothing. Why even post if you have nothing to contribute?

You seem to be using your pictures to try to demonstrate something about depth of field... Well try this. Take those same pictures with a MFT camera with equivalent focal length and equivalent aperture (divide by 2). The DOF will be the same.

If the images are equally sharp at the same resolution, you're not gaining anything from FF vs MFT

At this time we aren't getting the same resolution on MFT as FF. Let's get some higher resolution on the sensors if MFT is to take on FF cameras. BSI sensors might also be the trick to make low light more competitive. That said, MFT resolution is plenty good for many uses just as it is.

The more resolution the better IMO, but we still have 16MP and 12MP FF cameras (Nikon FX and Sony A7S). MFT cameras are currently limited to 16MP but there's no reason they can't squeeze more pixels onto those sensors

 

[jackalopemaui]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

I stopped short on this statement. So, I am going to address this and let others discuss equivalence which I have no interest in.

If you are shooting f8 and above on modern APS-C sensors (assuming 20-24 MPs), you are getting visible diffraction in certain circumstances.


Good news, some companies are making both. Bad news, not every company is doing this (because their markets are not demanding this kind of performance primarily because it is expensive).

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. I use tools, not brands. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Based on 2014 keepers, I shot the following percentages: 5D3=42%, D800=31%, 6D=25% & D3x=2%. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

This is off topic but.... I have experimented with my lenses to figure out the sharpest aperture.

Cool. A lot of folks don't do this.

On my 12-24 f4 Nikon it's f11. On my 60mm f2.8 Nikon it's about f8. I'm using a 24MP D7100

With regard to f11, are you referring to across the frame, corner performance, center frame? This is a lot of DoF.

I notice Great Bustard is posting in this topic. With regard to equivalence, I can't think of anyone more knowledgeable.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. I use tools, not brands. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Based on 2014 keepers, I shot the following percentages: 5D3=42%, D800=31%, 6D=25% & D3x=2%. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

Across the frame and at the center, f11 is sharpest for the 12-24 lens



As I understand, diffraction is correlated to the physical size of the aperture opening, rather than apparent aperture. So lens design can play a role, right?

 

[ttran88]

But what if I want creamy bokeh? Could the M4/3 provide the same bokeh? That's a serious question BTW. From my reading It looks like you have more control with DOF on the full frame camera. I understand Not every shot needs extreme bokeh but having it at your disposal is still better than not.

 

[jackalopemaui]

But what if I want creamy bokeh? Could the M4/3 provide the same bokeh? That's a serious question BTW. From my reading It looks like you have more control with DOF on the full frame camera. I understand Not every shot needs extreme bokeh but having it at your disposal is still better than not.

 

[neil holmes]

But what if I want creamy bokeh? Could the M4/3 provide the same bokeh? That's a serious question BTW. From my reading It looks like you have more control with DOF on the full frame camera. I understand Not every shot needs extreme bokeh but having it at your disposal is still better than not.

 

[ttran88]

But what if I want creamy bokeh? Could the M4/3 provide the same bokeh? That's a serious question BTW. From my reading It looks like you have more control with DOF on the full frame camera. I understand Not every shot needs extreme bokeh but having it at your disposal is still better than not.

 

[sportyaccordy]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

Which begs the question-- Is a full frame camera worth it over a little MFT, considering the MFT lenses from Olympus and Panasonic seem to be manufactured more precisely and are therefore sharper than all but the most expensive DSLR lenses? Whereas on a FF body you can shoot portraits with a 60mm lens at f5.6, on the MFT you might get the same quality image at 30mm and f2.8 (equivalent to 60mm f5.6).

Obviously with FF you still have the flexibility of far superior light gathering with full frame lens+sensor if you shoot wide open. But for many people, the vast majority of photography is done at smaller apertures.

What do you think?

If I had a full frame and a MFT camera I'd do comparisons myself.

DPReview did an article on this:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/4

When all cameras are stopped down to the same focal length divided by F/stop the IQ differences between formats nearly disappear and become a function of quantum efficiency, read noise and lens quality. In addition larger formats require longer shutter speeds (or higher ISOs- which is why the "high ISO advantage" of large sensors is a bit of a myth). Large sensors' advantages come from having a wider operating range.

 

[neil holmes]

But what if I want creamy bokeh? Could the M4/3 provide the same bokeh? That's a serious question BTW. From my reading It looks like you have more control with DOF on the full frame camera. I understand Not every shot needs extreme bokeh but having it at your disposal is still better than not.

 

[J A C S]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

Which begs the question-- Is a full frame camera worth it over a little MFT, considering the MFT lenses from Olympus and Panasonic seem to be manufactured more precisely and are therefore sharper than all but the most expensive DSLR lenses?

Your question contains an incorrect statement. M43 lenses are not cheap. You want a sharp and cheap smaller format lens? Try the Canon EF-M 22/2, $100, equivalent to 35/3.2 on FF. M43 lenses are pricey and very good, indeed but sharper than all but the most expensive FF lenses (each one on its sensor), they are not.

Whereas on a FF body you can shoot portraits with a 60mm lens at f5.6, on the MFT you might get the same quality image at 30mm and f2.8 (equivalent to 60mm f5.6).

You can get an equivalent image but same quality is questionable. BTW, about 20% of my 50L images are taken at f/5.6 or slower.

Obviously with FF you still have the flexibility of far superior light gathering with full frame lens+sensor if you shoot wide open. But for many people, the vast majority of photography is done at smaller apertures.

You get more light when you can afford a slower shutter speed as well because the sensor saturates at approx. 4x the photon count.

What do you think?

If I had a full frame and a MFT camera I'd do comparisons myself.

BTW, f/1.4 on m43 is not the same as f/2.8 on FF with a fast lens. An f/1.4 lens would vignette a lot and it would lose a considerable amount of light. Also, the sensor may not be able to register 0.2-0.3 additional stops. The same is true for the FF lens at f/1.4, BTW.

 

[ultimitsu]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field.

Not because you are right, but because you did not think it through.

I'd do the same on a full frame body.

Not because you are right, but because you did not think it through.

Which begs the question-- Is a full frame camera worth it over a little MFT,

Not if you do not think it through.

considering the MFT lenses from Olympus and Panasonic seem to be manufactured more precisely

you did not think it through

and are therefore sharper than all but the most expensive DSLR lenses?

you did not think it through

Whereas on a FF body you can shoot portraits with a 60mm lens at f5.6, on the MFT you might get the same quality image at 30mm and f2.8 (equivalent to 60mm f5.6).

you did think it through

But for many people, the vast majority of photography is done at smaller apertures.

you did not think it through

What do you think?

If I had a full frame and a MFT camera I'd do comparisons myself.

Do you see DOF issues?

I don't think you understood one bit of my post,

you are wrong, of course. Your post is nothing a thousand people havee not made the same mistake saying in the past.

but that's impossible to know because you posted a bunch of nothing. Why even post if you have nothing to contribute?

You are wrong again. My post clearly identified your mistakes and why you wete mistaken.

You seem to be using your pictures to try to demonstrate something about depth of field... Well try this. Take those same pictures with a MFT camera with equivalent focal length and equivalent aperture (divide by 2). The DOF will be the same.

that is not the purpose of course. The images were used to respond that particular issue you raised. But it seems you cannot read your own post to recognise the direct relevance.

If the images are equally sharp at the same resolution, you're not gaining anything from FF vs MFT

You did not think this through.

 

[tbcass]

Obviously with FF you still have the flexibility of far superior light gathering with full frame lens+sensor if you shoot wide open. But for many people, the vast majority of photography is done at smaller apertures.

What do you think?

If I had a full frame and a MFT camera I'd do comparisons myself.

While I'm with you in wanting more DOF most of the times there are times when less is desirable. So, what is your point?

 

[Rick Knepper]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

I stopped short on this statement. So, I am going to address this and let others discuss equivalence which I have no interest in.

A pity. Equivalence would have saved you a lot of effort:

Equivalent photos have the same diffraction in the final photo.

So a photo taken with a 100 mm lens at f/4.0 on FF will have the same diffraction as a photo taken with a 50 mm lens at f/2.0 on a 2x crop sensor.

Yes such a pity.

I suggest that you read the post more carefully and get acquainted with this diffraction calculator.

This diffraction calculator is not so useful, as Allan points out. I used to criticise it because it provided a bogus 'diffraction limit' based on the pixel size, now McHugh has changed it so that it calculates (the still misleadingly termed) 'diffraction limit' on the Airy disk size as enlarged to a 10x8 print. The result is, as he says, it's just doing the same calculation as you'd do with the simple equivalence calculation. Beyond that, knowing the Airy disc size isn't particularly illuminating without some further calculations which the calculator doesn't do

--
Bob
Eating people is wrong.
Michael Flanders.

Bob, you seem to be an intelligent guy. Tell me you understand that my post was not about FF vs. APS-C diffraction.

And since you wish to belabor the issue, what is going on with these two calculations?









--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. I use tools, not brands. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Based on 2014 keepers, I shot the following percentages: 5D3=42%, D800=31%, 6D=25% & D3x=2%. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

 

[Rick Knepper]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

I stopped short on this statement. So, I am going to address this and let others discuss equivalence which I have no interest in.

If you are shooting f8 and above on modern APS-C sensors (assuming 20-24 MPs), you are getting visible diffraction in certain circumstances.


Good news, some companies are making both. Bad news, not every company is doing this (because their markets are not demanding this kind of performance primarily because it is expensive).

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. I use tools, not brands. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Based on 2014 keepers, I shot the following percentages: 5D3=42%, D800=31%, 6D=25% & D3x=2%. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

This is off topic but.... I have experimented with my lenses to figure out the sharpest aperture.

Cool. A lot of folks don't do this.

On my 12-24 f4 Nikon it's f11. On my 60mm f2.8 Nikon it's about f8. I'm using a 24MP D7100

With regard to f11, are you referring to across the frame, corner performance, center frame? This is a lot of DoF.

I notice Great Bustard is posting in this topic. With regard to equivalence, I can't think of anyone more knowledgeable.

Across the frame and at the center, f11 is sharpest for the 12-24 lens

As I understand, diffraction is correlated to the physical size of the aperture opening, rather than apparent aperture. So lens design can play a role, right?

Lens design can play a significant role in the sense of avoiding the visible effects of diffraction in certain circumstances. You can't be rid of diffraction nor avoid diffraction in certain circumstances but you can avoid diffraction in certain other circumstances by buying lenses that do not require the user to stop down significantly to fix unwanted aberrations (and I consider f11 significant) and thus bringing on other problems just as bad i.e. stopping down to f11 can bring the corners into focus while softening the center via diffraction.

I rented a Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4 for my Thanksgiving weekend trip. Because of its reputation, I spent a good deal of that trip shooting wide open for scenes I would normally stop down to f5.6 - f8, essentially images at infinity across the frame. My preliminary observations were that the Zeiss was as sharp in the corners at f1.4 wide open as any of my other lenses were at f5.6 - f8. As you can imagine, diffraction - not a problem.

Yes, the Zeiss is crazy expensive but the Sigma ART series has some lenses that perform nearly as well for a 5th of the cost.



--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. I use tools, not brands. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Based on 2014 keepers, I shot the following percentages: 5D3=42%, D800=31%, 6D=25% & D3x=2%. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

I've always been in favor of larger sensors (though only owned APS-C cameras). What I've noticed is that with pretty much every lens I stop down. The wide angles get set to f8 or f11 for landscapes or environmental portraits. The f2.8 and f1.8 primes get stopped down to f4 or f5.6 for sharpness and for enough depth of field. I'd do the same on a full frame body.

Which begs the question-- Is a full frame camera worth it over a little MFT, considering the MFT lenses from Olympus and Panasonic seem to be manufactured more precisely and are therefore sharper than all but the most expensive DSLR lenses? Whereas on a FF body you can shoot portraits with a 60mm lens at f5.6, on the MFT you might get the same quality image at 30mm and f2.8 (equivalent to 60mm f5.6).

Obviously with FF you still have the flexibility of far superior light gathering with full frame lens+sensor if you shoot wide open. But for many people, the vast majority of photography is done at smaller apertures.

What do you think?

If I had a full frame and a MFT camera I'd do comparisons myself.

FWIW, 135 film format did not become the most popular film because it was better than 120 or 4x5, imagewise. I suppose, then, it was good enough and it was the other attributes of 35mm cameras that took off. As history tends to repeat itself, whatever the crop format that is good enough but provides "other attributes" that most people want will take off again. To my great dismay, it may the phonecam.