Is FF really better than m43? and why?

[Ridethelight]

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

 

[A2T2]

hindesite wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

FF cameras give you a wider envelope of shooting conditions - for example a wider choice of DOF (depending on the lens, of course) and lighting conditions under which you can get the same shot.

M43 cameras have a smaller shooting envelope. If you can take an acceptable picture with an M43 camera, then of course an FF camera can also take a similar image. So a comparison of acceptable pictures taken with M43 and FF is bound to show more similarities than differences. It's when you get outside the range of what's possible with M43 where the differences show up.

You pay more for FF in terms of bulk and weight, and if you usually shoot pictures that fall within the capabilities of M43 then there's really no good reason to put up with that. You can take terrific pictures within that M43 shooting envelope that are essentially just as good as if you had a FF camera. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for FF cameras for the photographers who need their expanded capabilities.

No to all of the above, answer the question? dof blur is all acheivable now in post, the envelope you talk about is in your head.

I think you are completely wrong and Sean is right on the money and explained his viewpoint clearly.

Some people seem to have this hangup, that everything is about DOF. If you widen your experience you'll soon learn that this fascination with DOF is an artefact of this forum.

Sean did not mention DOF in his reply, yet that is the only thing you focussed on.

Well because it has no noise or dr advantage either, or expanded capability, whatever expanded capability is?

--
http://hindesite.co.nz

 

[A2T2]

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

 

[Rens]

A2T2 wrote:

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

Seriously? This isn't worth taking seriously.

 

[Ridethelight]

A2T2 wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

LOL

 

[Lights]

OK. I shoot mostly M43 and am very satisfied with it.

But this guy isn't running toward you on a football field. Or flying toward you at 30mph. Someday the tracking focus might be there (maybe soon) but it isn't there yet. My old Canon 6mp APS-C tracks better, and has slightly better dynamic range than my M43 12mp sensor (but not better than the 16mp sensors, but close). I'm not even comparing from my own experience to a full frame camera, just to an APS-C DSLR and an old one at that of less resolution. Like I say I find my M43 is good enough..and it certainly is light enough (and I carry it with me way more than ever my old DSLR beast), and I can use more manual focus lenses on it...but there's a reason that FF cameras, even full frame mirrorless (Lieca etc.) exist, and cost more. There is no way in the world I can match the resolution in B&W of a Leica Monochrom for example or a big Nikon or Canon in color (or in noiselessness). Yes I can limit DOF with a fast lens, yes software can blur some backgrounds, but no M43 isn't as good at the very extremes of exposure, and yes it 'is' most often 'good enough'. And oftentimes it is just as good if we shoot within it's limits which are somewhat more confining, since it's our interpretation of a photo as photographers, rather than the technicalities of a system that limit us mostly.

--
My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker

 

[Photo Pete]

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

 

[A2T2]

Lights wrote:

OK. I shoot mostly M43 and am very satisfied with it.

But this guy isn't running toward you on a football field. Or flying toward you at 30mph. Someday the tracking focus might be there (maybe soon) but it isn't there yet. My old Canon 6mp APS-C tracks better, and has slightly better dynamic range than my M43 12mp sensor (but not better than the 16mp sensors). Like I say I find my M43 is good enough..and it certainly is light enough (and I carry it with me way more than ever my old DSLR beast), and I can use more manual focus lenses on it...but there's a reason that FF cameras, even full frame mirrorless (Lieca etc.) exist, and cost more. There is no way in the world I can match the resolution in B&W of a Leica Monochrom for example or a big Nikon or Canon. Yes I can limit DOF with a fast lens, yes software can blur some backgrounds, but no M43 isn't as good at the very extremes of exposure, and yes it 'is' most often 'good enough'. And oftentimes it is just as good if we shoot within it's limits which are somewhat more confining.

 

[Lights]

A2T2 wrote:

Lights wrote:

OK. I shoot mostly M43 and am very satisfied with it.

But this guy isn't running toward you on a football field. Or flying toward you at 30mph. Someday the tracking focus might be there (maybe soon) but it isn't there yet. My old Canon 6mp APS-C tracks better, and has slightly better dynamic range than my M43 12mp sensor (but not better than the 16mp sensors). Like I say I find my M43 is good enough..and it certainly is light enough (and I carry it with me way more than ever my old DSLR beast), and I can use more manual focus lenses on it...but there's a reason that FF cameras, even full frame mirrorless (Lieca etc.) exist, and cost more. There is no way in the world I can match the resolution in B&W of a Leica Monochrom for example or a big Nikon or Canon. Yes I can limit DOF with a fast lens, yes software can blur some backgrounds, but no M43 isn't as good at the very extremes of exposure, and yes it 'is' most often 'good enough'. And oftentimes it is just as good if we shoot within it's limits which are somewhat more confining.

 

[Photo Pete]

Lights wrote:

OK. I shoot mostly M43 and am very satisfied with it.

But this guy isn't running toward you on a football field. Or flying toward you at 30mph. Someday the tracking focus might be there (maybe soon) but it isn't there yet. My old Canon 6mp APS-C tracks better, and has slightly better dynamic range than my M43 12mp sensor (but not better than the 16mp sensors). Like I say I find my M43 is good enough..and it certainly is light enough (and I carry it with me way more than ever my old DSLR beast), and I can use more manual focus lenses on it...but there's a reason that FF cameras, even full frame mirrorless (Lieca etc.) exist, and cost more. There is no way in the world I can match the resolution in B&W of a Leica Monochrom for example or a big Nikon or Canon. Yes I can limit DOF with a fast lens, yes software can blur some backgrounds, but no M43 isn't as good at the very extremes of exposure, and yes it 'is' most often 'good enough'. And oftentimes it is just as good if we shoot within it's limits which are somewhat more confining.

 

[A2T2]

Photo Pete wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

 

[Photo Pete]

Photo Pete wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

 

[A2T2]

Photo Pete wrote:

Lights wrote:

OK. I shoot mostly M43 and am very satisfied with it.

But this guy isn't running toward you on a football field. Or flying toward you at 30mph. Someday the tracking focus might be there (maybe soon) but it isn't there yet. My old Canon 6mp APS-C tracks better, and has slightly better dynamic range than my M43 12mp sensor (but not better than the 16mp sensors). Like I say I find my M43 is good enough..and it certainly is light enough (and I carry it with me way more than ever my old DSLR beast), and I can use more manual focus lenses on it...but there's a reason that FF cameras, even full frame mirrorless (Lieca etc.) exist, and cost more. There is no way in the world I can match the resolution in B&W of a Leica Monochrom for example or a big Nikon or Canon. Yes I can limit DOF with a fast lens, yes software can blur some backgrounds, but no M43 isn't as good at the very extremes of exposure, and yes it 'is' most often 'good enough'. And oftentimes it is just as good if we shoot within it's limits which are somewhat more confining.

--
My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker

Do you use an OMD, its actually very fast.

Do you use full frame DSLRs? They are actually much faster!

Nope, they are not, OMD has 9fps burst!

--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

 

[offtheback]

Grasshopper:It is never the camera.

 

[A2T2]

Photo Pete wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

Pete, OMD has better DR than a 5dmk3, much better and the 6d, did Canon stop selling FF cameras? d800 isnt the only game in town.

Not the only game in town... but it demonstrates quite clearly the ways in which full frame is better than M43.

Not really.

--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

 

[A2T2]

offtheback wrote:

Grasshopper:It is never the camera.

Correct answer ;-)

 

[Kim Letkeman]

A2T2 wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

If I said I used a FF camera to produce this would you dispute it, seriously, why?

I'm shooting m4/3 now after selling off first my FF D700 and then my APS-C D7000 .... but it is plain silly to pretend that m4/3 makes images that look like FF ... they do not. You shot this at f/6.3 ... my D700 should get an identical image at f/13 at double the focal length. But I would use f/2.8 or 4 and get a far less distracting background. Of course, you could have done that too with a wider aperture, but the 2 stop advantage never goes away ...

Are you for real, far less distracting background, its completely blurred. You need to shoot f2.8 FF to get a similar image.

Sigh ... completely blurred ... you shot at 56mm f/6.3 ... which is equivalent where DOF is concerned to 112mm f/13 on FF ...

Your assertion that FF requires 4.5 more stops of aperture for a similar image is so spectacularly incorrect that you must be simply having us on. Spend more time looking at images from FF cameras before misjudging them so badly ...

And by the way ... as I mentioned earlier, I shoot m4/3 despite this 2 stop disadvantage. For other reasons ... but I will one day get a FF camera again just for the wonderful bokeh ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

--

Nothing Special

This blog is my personal space. Do not confuse this with statements or opinions on behalf of any employer I have ever had, have now, or will ever have in the future.

kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[Photo Pete]

Photo Pete wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Ridethelight wrote:

I would feel very sad if this image was shot by me with my D700 and 85mm f1.8 combo .

Not sure what this pic is means,it is a old guy in red completly abstract from any story that the surroundings may imply to a viewer,therefore generating no interest or meaning .

Composition is irrelevent, it was just an example but you are searching into his expression which says actually there is something there, but hey.

The bokeh is harsh and ugly to the extreme,the foliage backgrond never helps with this.

bokeh is not harsh, its fairly smooth if anything

Personally the image would of been destined for delete before it left the SD card.

Of course it would.

Not sure what your crusade is to be honest,yes micro 4/3 is excellent for casual use esp with the superb primes,but if a wedding photographer turned up with m4/3 gear and assured me that i would not notice any difference,i would tell him to take a very long hike.

Seriously no crusade but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If only that were true. I've just been diagnosed with spinal problems and will probably have to sell my Nikon D800 and downgrade image quality and focus performance to go for a smaller and lighter micro 4/3s kit.

If you can truthfully say that micro 4/3s can match the resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and focus performance of a D800 then I would want to be the first to to believe you. Unfortunately you can't say that truthfully and I can't believe you.

Micro 4/3s is good and getting better, but in terms of image quality it will always remain the case that a good big one will beat a good small one!

 

[Kim Letkeman]

A2T2 wrote:

offtheback wrote:

Grasshopper:It is never the camera.

Correct answer ;-)

But for reasons much different from yours ... your understanding of what matters appears extremely rudimentary and your aggressive yet defensive attitude screams beginner ...

 

[Photo Pete]

Photo Pete wrote:

Lights wrote:

OK. I shoot mostly M43 and am very satisfied with it.

But this guy isn't running toward you on a football field. Or flying toward you at 30mph. Someday the tracking focus might be there (maybe soon) but it isn't there yet. My old Canon 6mp APS-C tracks better, and has slightly better dynamic range than my M43 12mp sensor (but not better than the 16mp sensors). Like I say I find my M43 is good enough..and it certainly is light enough (and I carry it with me way more than ever my old DSLR beast), and I can use more manual focus lenses on it...but there's a reason that FF cameras, even full frame mirrorless (Lieca etc.) exist, and cost more. There is no way in the world I can match the resolution in B&W of a Leica Monochrom for example or a big Nikon or Canon. Yes I can limit DOF with a fast lens, yes software can blur some backgrounds, but no M43 isn't as good at the very extremes of exposure, and yes it 'is' most often 'good enough'. And oftentimes it is just as good if we shoot within it's limits which are somewhat more confining.