Is FF really better than m43? and why?

[Kim Letkeman]

A2T2 wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

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 ...

--

That's right, you are a beginner.

No surprise in that response ... puerile and fauous ... a fetching combination.

 

[RoelHendrickx]

Trapper John pointed out the main differences as I see them.

My personal experience is this : I shoot FT and µFT and am fully aware of the things that I could do differently (or "better") with FF. But I have yet to encounter a situation in which I found my gear totally lacking, and was thinking to myself "God I wish I was carrying a FF camera now."

The thought just never occurs to me, because I have made my choices and am happy with them, and in situations where I could have approached subjects differently, I just made the gear I have, work for me, instead of agonizing over other options.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

A2T2 wrote:

Seriously no crusade

Your comments might be laughable, but they are still a crusade.

but its nice to know that FF has zero advantage of m43!

If you know that, then you know nothing John Snow lol ....

 

[MrScorpio]

Does the omd IS also freeze motions of people, cars, animals, or other moving subjects?

If it does not, and you want ultimate IQ, a tripod will always be superior for stills, and short shutter speeds for moving subjects.

The omd is, and will always be, a compromise. Albeit a very good one...

A2T2 wrote:

MAubrey wrote:

A2T2 wrote:
FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

Bump the ISO up by two stops and close your aperture by two stops and then its taken care of. A D600 has two stops better ISO than the E-M5...and if you downsize the images to the 16MP of the E-M5, then its even better. The one eye in focus issue is only a problem if you're shooting the eight year old 5Dc.

OMD has 2-4 stops better stabilisation, iso 1600 OMD vs iso 6400 FF, plus 2 stops dof better, I think you'll need iso12800 in low light mostly? to match this hand-held you'd be at iso25600 lol.

--
--Mike

--
Best Regards
Marcus

Marcus Axlund

Explore Marcus Axlund’s 1,170 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Ollie 2]

A2T2 wrote:

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

Oh dear...he's drunk the Kool Aid.

You've gone from being mildly silly to utterly absurd...but please don't let that stop you from continuing.

Popcorn, please.

 

[MrScorpio]

Personally I think it is a horrible shot with poor bokeh and very distracting colors in the background.

I thing a FF with 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 would do a much better job, but also some better PP is needed IMO!

BR

Marcus

A2T2 wrote:

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

--
Best Regards
Marcus

Marcus Axlund

Explore Marcus Axlund’s 1,170 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Donald Chin]

The Photo Ninja wrote:

My main camera is a 5D Mark III. Its focus is amazing, the fps blistering, the lenses astounding, the noise performance is amazing. However, it's a monster to carry around. This weekend, my wife was off visiting her sister and I decided to take our 5.5 and 1.5 year old girls to the zoo. No stroller - they are a pain. So, I grabbed my Thinktank backpack which usually stores a 5DIII with a 24-70 or a 70-200mm, a flash, smaller lens, batteries, etc. and made it into a diaper bag. Today I was able to pack an epl5 with 17mm 1.8 with flash attached, diapers, wipes, ointment, 2 peaches, an apple, granolla bars, seed and nuts, raisons, and goldfish crackers. I haven't seen the pics yet, but they will not be nearly as good as a well done shot composed with a 5D III which has more field of view and better optics. The new Sigma 35mm 1.4 beats the Olympus 17mm 1.8 as does the Canon 50mm 1.2. However, there is NO WAY I would have been able to manage today with a DSLR! Today it was all point and shoot style with facial autofocus. Today is the day that the Micro 4/3 format was designed for!

My main system camera is FF, and my P&S is also FF, I don't see MFT has real size & weight advantage these day.

A day in the park with FF DC

--

The Power of Photography - Main Page 首頁

Copyrights © 2000~2025 Donald Chin. All Rights Reserved. 版權所有，未經授權，任何人仕不得下載或轉載部份或全部照片。

www.fotop.net

 

[hindesite]

A2T2 wrote:

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?

If you are not aware of what capabilities FF brings, you need to widen your experience before making such comments.

As I said, Sean is right on the money. The same comments would equally apply to medium and large format cameras.

 

[Donald Chin]

A2T2 wrote:

MAubrey wrote:

A2T2 wrote:
FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

Bump the ISO up by two stops and close your aperture by two stops and then its taken care of. A D600 has two stops better ISO than the E-M5...and if you downsize the images to the 16MP of the E-M5, then its even better. The one eye in focus issue is only a problem if you're shooting the eight year old 5Dc.

OMD has 2-4 stops better stabilisation, iso 1600 OMD vs iso 6400 FF, plus 2 stops dof better, I think you'll need iso12800 in low light mostly? to match this hand-held you'd be at iso25600 lol.

--
--Mike

Nothing special about Olympus IS, any modern DC can do the job, here's an example of a superzoom @ 1200mm (EQV) handheld, 1/20s ISO 1250.



and here is another example of an FF DC shot @ ISO 2000 which show the difference of IQ.



--

The Power of Photography - Main Page 首頁

Copyrights © 2000~2025 Donald Chin. All Rights Reserved. 版權所有，未經授權，任何人仕不得下載或轉載部份或全部照片。

www.fotop.net

 

[The Photo Ninja]

Which point and shoot do you use?

 

[Donald Chin]

The Photo Ninja wrote:

Which point and shoot do you use?

Sony RX1.

 

[eilivk]

cosmonaut wrote:

Yes it is certainly. I have shot with the OMD EM-5. The biggest difference is in dynamic range. I no longer struggle to keep the highlights under control. Then there is color depth. The a99 has a wider range of colors. Not to forget lower noise at high ISO. I am not convinced that the full frames have less noise due to the sensor being bigger or that full frame sensors just have much more R&D in them or something. The Xpro1 pretty much proved to me a cropped sensor can have low noise.

Then there is the DOF. Say what you will I just like DOF on full frames. I don't have to think about equivalent focal lengths and full frame just looks right to me.

 

[The Photo Ninja]

I'm sure it's cool, but too much money for me. I already spend that on my 5d3. Heck, if I were to spend that much, I'd just go 1dx and carry it everywhere size being large or not.

 

[Husaberg Grok]

Nothing like a pointless discussion to complete the weekend.

Quite simply put, if one format or system or brand was better in every conceivable aspect, that system/format would be the only one on the market. That goes for all consumer goods. The hardest part of a purchasing decision these days is defining your needs. I have enough retail experience to know that consumers generally fall into three distinct groups.

The know-it-all, usually simply looking at price.

The person with some experience and a bit of research under their belts, looking for the last bits of info to make their decision.

The person has made an impulse decision to buy because their friend just showed off his new shiny toy.

The latter group are the majority of the buyers.

 

[Conskiz]

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.

Yes and no. It really depends on how much work you are going to put in and the experience you have. A simple lens blur, field blur, radial blur, Gaussian blur will not do it. You have to mask, how much to blur, where to blur, and if needed paint in your own bokeh balls.

Btw I am not knocking PP, I do it all the time for clients. It is just a lot of more work to do.

I came up from P/S and cell phone cameras to an OMD. Never have shot FF, but I am glad with my current kit with the OMD. I don't have to paint my own bokeh balls anymore.

 

[Klaus dk]

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

[...] But to imply that what's good enough for you and me must therefore be good enough for everyone is simply wrong.

Sean, that's an aps-c image, its a breeze with OOC m43 to do that, the point with m43 and really I am talking the OMD is the IBIS and primes. FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

A2T2: Why is it unacceptable to you that others have different preferences than you?

I have a hard time understanding why so many MFT photographers are insisting that "their" system is the only right system and that everybody should use the same. I use an APS-C DSLR and a 1/1.7" compact, and is perfectly happy with both, but that does not mean I think all other formats should be removed from the surface of the earth.

The main fault with MFT seems to be, that it installs an inferiority complex in it's users.

In politics, there's a word for your attitude, and I don't like that at all!

 

[A2T2]

Klaus dk wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

[...] But to imply that what's good enough for you and me must therefore be good enough for everyone is simply wrong.

Sean, that's an aps-c image, its a breeze with OOC m43 to do that, the point with m43 and really I am talking the OMD is the IBIS and primes. FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

A2T2: Why is it unacceptable to you that others have different preferences than you?

I have a hard time understanding why so many MFT photographers are insisting that "their" system is the only right system and that everybody should use the same. I use an APS-C DSLR and a 1/1.7" compact, and is perfectly happy with both, but that does not mean I think all other formats should be removed from the surface of the earth.

The main fault with MFT seems to be, that it installs an inferiority complex in it's users.

In politics, there's a word for your attitude, and I don't like that at all!

Klaus, FF is a sledgehammer to a nut, in the main its not required.

 

[MatsP]

I'm sorry to say this is no good example to illustrating that a m4/3 camera is able to perform as an FF. An OM-D E-M5 can do better than that. I have an E-M5, it's an excellent camera, and in most situations I can take the pictures I want. But I would be lying to myself if I thought it always, in all situations, is as good as an FF. Because it simply isn't. Generally an FF camera is better. Of course it is. It's ridiculous to say anything else. But, that said, I can take fantastic pictures with my E-M5 (if I only was a good photographer). The m4/3 format limits me, I realize that and have to adapt to it, but with that in my mind I can live with it because the E-M5 is good enough in most situations and it has the very important advantage to be much more portable.

I think it's totally meaningless for m43 owners to try to fool themselves that their gear is similar to FF. Be happy with your camera, use it as the very fine photographic tool it is, but don't envy FF owners or try to convince them that their gear is worse.

 

[DragosJianu]

A2T2 wrote:

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

Now you are just being remarkably childish.

As for the pic that started this thread, it looks fake. I would have less of a problem believing it was taken with an ultrazoom P&S rathern then a M43. Certainly not FF. It's not even making M43 justice. M43 can achieve far better subject separation, and without cheap Gaussian Blur tricks.

 

[Donald Chin]

cosmonaut wrote:

Yes it is certainly. I have shot with the OMD EM-5. The biggest difference is in dynamic range. I no longer struggle to keep the highlights under control. Then there is color depth. The a99 has a wider range of colors. Not to forget lower noise at high ISO. I am not convinced that the full frames have less noise due to the sensor being bigger or that full frame sensors just have much more R&D in them or something. The Xpro1 pretty much proved to me a cropped sensor can have low noise.

Then there is the DOF. Say what you will I just like DOF on full frames. I don't have to think about equivalent focal lengths and full frame just looks right to me.

--
www.gregmccary.com

There is no miracle for cropped sensor, Fujifilm Xpro 1 ISO is overrated by almost one stop.

--
http://www.fotop.net/DonaldChin