Shoot with both M4/3 and Full Frame, or even APS-C

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

After waking up and reading the comments left, I've decided against adding a FF, at least for the moment. My reasons are, I don't print. I haven't for years. I don't work professionally. I don't want to put so much money into something I would use occasionally.

Maybe I may change my mind down the road. But, for the moment, I think I'm good with what I have now.

Thanks for talking me off the ledge

Hi Lepewhi

I pickedup 5Dmk2 full frame this year (had a few ff before). 5Dmk2 £170-£200 paired with say a Canon 50/1.4 around £150 if you wanna scratch that itch. 5Dmk2 has liveview, rich 20MP files, sensor clean automatically, smallish size for ff dslr.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii

Admittedly I hardly photographed with it as my m4/3s suit me more. Still were I to do any portrait requests I'd grab a cheap ff dslr.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[Lepewhi]

But, that's a rather old body. I could get a used Canon RP with a more modern sensor. But, as you said, my setup would be what I would use normally. And I don't do portraits. So, do I really want to invest in something that I would use occasionally? That's why I came to my decision. Now, subject to change.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

But, that's a rather old body. I could get a used Canon RP with a more modern sensor. But, as you said, my setup would be what I would use normally. And I don't do portraits. So, do I really want to invest in something that I would use occasionally? That's why I came to my decision. Now, subject to change.

Same. My m4/3s my most utilised invested most on them this year purchased 7 x m43 + lenses. My ff (5d mk2, A7r mk2) hardly ever currently, invested approx £300 on each, although I hope to utilise A7r mk2 more autumn winter, 5D mk2 going to another home.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[Lepewhi]

Interesting perspective. Buying new lenses too. Expensive

 

[Lepewhi]

I might invest in another fast lens for winter and the upcoming dark days.

 

[James Stirling]

I'm interested to know how many of you shoot with both M4/3 and FF or APSC.

I have and use all three. Used least = FF. My FF cameras are too big and heavy -- the lenses are bigger and heavier and when I use a camera I'm most often walking and carrying it.

Could you point to one FF lens that is larger than a m43 lens doing the same job ( diagonal AOV, DOF /subject isolation and total light gathering ).

First lens I bought for my E-PL5 after the pancake kit zoom was the 12mm f/2 -- 130 grams and 43mm length. Nikon makes a 24mm f/2.8 -- 270 grams and 46mm length and a 24mm f/1.8 450 grams and 97mm length. FF lens tend to be bigger and heavier.

Not doing the same job ( diagonal AOV, DOF /subject isolation and total light gathering ). A FF lens equivalent to the 12mm F/2 would be a 24mm F/4 . The m43 equivalent to a FF 24mm F/2.8 would be a 12mm F/1.4

I don't buy that at all -- pure nonsense.

Quite right never let facts in the way of a good m43 vs FF post







OM-1 200 base ISO , Z6 II 800 ISO 100%

Not sure what you're trying to show me. Looks like a total light comparison between MFT and FF. Seems like you're trying to suggest that total light and exposure are the same thing -- seriously faulty thinking then.

I will repeat it again if you want the same end result same diagonal AOV, same DOF /subject isolation same total light gathering . That is exactly what you get if you need to bump the ISO and aperture on the FF shot to get the same shutter speed .

Except your examples are not equivalent. The DoF was most certainly not the same. The MFT was shot at F5.6 which means the FF should be at F11 to achieve the same DoF. Even if those two setups were shot wide open, the FF would only achieve less than one stop more light in total. You need a 85mm F1.2 lens to get a 2 stop advantage with FF.

That was to demonstrate that shot two stops of ISO apart would give near identical noise levels. The exposure calculator shows the equivalent settings . The object is to get equivalent results not gain 2 stops. A legion of ID's posting here for years yet equivalence a fact so simple a young child could understand it still escapes you.

"I will repeat it again if you want the same end result same diagonal AOV, same DOF /subject isolation same total light gathering . That is exactly what you get if you need to bump the ISO and aperture on the FF shot to get the same shutter speed ."

Bye Lamb chops now get those likes going nothing like a bit of self love

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

I thought about going back to Nikon since that’s what I was using in my FF dSLR days, and I’ve always liked their ergonomics, colors, etc but after I used their f/1.8 primes it was a non-starter. They feel cheap to me, slow to focus and noisy.

I assume you are talking about DSLR lenses as the Nikon Z F/1.8 lenses are excellent performers both optically and regarding AF . Though some DSLR lenses were not to shabby.

No, I’m referring to the new mirrorless Z primes. Again, I’m not commenting on them optically - just my impression of actually using them. That’s a bit more subjective, but that was my take away. Lumix’ primes are utterly silent which makes sense since they’re optimized for filmmaking, not stills.

I double checked after your post and they do have a little AF noise, more than most of my m43 lenses. AF wasn't slow but it wasn't as fast as some m43 primes either. Though I had the 50 F1.8S on a Z5, it might be a different story on a Z8 or other newer body.

You got an old Body.

That is a bit personal

but your eyes are awesome

Very true , the rest of me will however slowly fall apart around them I sometimes wonder what an 80yr old woman with perky silicone boobs would look like, not enough to search Google to find out god forbid

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

MFT (Panasonic, in my case) I use as my fun, travel camera. Specifically the GX85 and GX9. They are compact and smaller than my GH bodies. I also use my MFT cameras for video... a lot.

Although FF video is now very capable, for handheld out and about stuff m43 is hard to beat at least on the Panasonic side

I use my DSLR (Nikon D800E) for stills only, supplemented by MFT for video. However a few years ago, I stopped using my FF, as I had bought a Fuji GFX100s, which is now my main stills only camera (also supplemented by MFT for video).

 

[philzucker]

I realize that FF is better at low light and lower noise.

That depends. For static subjects M43's excellent IBIS reduces FF's advantages in low light. For subjects in motion FF is much more versatile in dim or low light.

Mainly because we do not need to shoot at equivalent aperture and can accept reduced DOF to give the larger sensor more light.

I do agree; and would like to add that in many (not in all) circumstances reduced DOF is not an issue.

And is the dynamic range really wildly different?

It actually is, but IMHO the more interesting question is: in what cases does it matter? It does in some, but in others you won't notice it. I'll repeat myself a last time: different tools...

Apart from that: dynamic range suffers for every sensor when high ISOs are used. Best Ai noise reduction software can almost miraculously restore detail seemingly lost in noise, but it can't restore lost dynamic range AFAIK.

Dynamic range is defined by noise. If you reduce noise, you increase DR.

Here an example, same scene with lots of dynamic range exposed to the right (highlight oriented) with exactly the same shadow raising procedure in post.

ISO 200 (no noise reduction):



ISO 6400 (no noise reduction):



ISO 6400 (LR AI based NR):



The 6400 NR version offers more contrast than the non NR one, but looking closely at the book cover on the right you will notice that not only detail is lost but also colors have changed or are lost. NR helps up to a point, but there are limits.

Phil

--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com

 

[Nilotna]

Durante años he usado FF y APS C, siempre fui reacio a la MFT porque he pasado la vida leyendo páginas y páginas sobre las maldades de este tamaño de sensor. Ahora tengo 78 años y hace dos comprobé que en la práctica había dejado la fotografía, mi Sony FF con su gran y magnífica óptica amenazaban con romperme el cuello cuando la sacaba, así que no la sacaba y sin cámara es muy difícil hacer fotos. Entregué mi precioso equipo Sony FF a cambio de una OM1 Mark II y descubrí un nuevo mundo. Tengo un Zuiko 8-25, un 12-40 y un 40-150 pues bien en la bolsa los tres con el cuerpo de la OM1 Mark II pesan menos que la FF con un 24-70 así que saco mi equipo sin pereza y además he descubierto el mundo de la Fotografía Computacional que unido a los nuevos software de IA han cambiado radicalmente mis fotografías. No lo dudes, lo que dicen los talibanes del FF es verdad pero ... es mentira.