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

[atomgr]

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

I'm sorry for the slang

 

[HicHic]

Again that depends. A 600/f4 lens on FF is far superior to an 300/f4 on M43 in multiple ways. At the same time it loses spectacularly as far as portability and affordability are concerned. Because of that I'm personally quite content with the M43 variant and will never get the mentioned FF one. ;-)

-acknowledges 600/4 on FF is far superior

-acknowledges M43 is an IQ compromised option, but chooses it for affordability and portability

The honesty displayed here is quite frightening.

Am I in the wrong forum?

 

[kenw]

Shot m43 for a decade and it was wonderful! Dipped my toe into FF with the Nikon Z system starting around 2020 and it is wonderful too!

The reason I originally went to m43 from APS-C DSLRs was the size advantage. My primary shooting is landscape on air travel. So keeping the whole system small (body, lenses and tripod) was a big win for m43.

The "downside" for m43 in landscape is comparatively poor mid-tone noise at base ISO. When you push contrast, clarity, and/or saturation this starts to show up much earlier in m43 compared with FF. This is a much bigger issue than just resolution. However, for the landscapes I typically shoot (deserts) the "fix" is comparatively easy as well. Just shoot multiple base ISO shots and then average them in post. Provides the "FF look" without needing a FF sensor. A bit more work in the field and in post, but not the end of the world at all.

Then we had a kid and the other big m43 win was having a tiny GM1 with small primes for family outings. Really something other systems just can't do nearly as well if you want a really small camera like a GM1. Lots of great shots from this setup, and it doubled as a pretty nice setup for longer hikes as well.

As the rest of the camera world slowly caught up with the "mirrorless" thing that m43 had started, the size advantage of m43 became less dramatic than when the competition were DSLRs. Definitely still a size advantage in many shooting cases, but for my typical landscape kit it actually wasn't that huge a difference anymore. As the kid got older we were doing far fewer family outings with a camera and so that use case, which I think m43 still has a significant advantage for, it became much less important to me in particular.

So eventually I tried out a Nikon Z kit for landscape travel. It is delightful! Not much bigger than the m43 setup I was shooting with before (though there are certainly very functional m43 landscape setups smaller than what I was using at that point). It is just easier in the field and in post than the m43 multi-shot stacking trick I was usually using. The place I notice it the most is in IR shooting where typically a lot of contrast boost is necessary.

So at this point I've sold off nearly all my m43 gear. In my rather narrow shooting needs these days the m43 size advantage isn't as great as it once was and I enjoy the easier field and post work with the FF gear. Are my photos any better? No, of course not. Does anyone even care about my photos besides me? No, of course not. I'm shooting as a hobby for me. Right now I get slightly more enjoyment out of my Nikon Z FF setup. If that equipment didn't exist I'd get nearly just as much joy out of my previous m43 setup. If I was shooting something different than landscapes I might have a substantial preference for m43 as many here do (or perhaps a substantial preference for FF for some other use).

I kept both a FF and m43 kit for a handful of years as well. But honestly I just don't do enough different kinds of photography to justify two different kits in the long term. I know others here get a lot of benefit out of having two different setups.

--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 

[MJ_Photo38]

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

Hi, I currently shoot with MFT (E-M1ii, E-M5ii), APS-C (Fuji X-Pro2, X-T1) and Full Frame (Nikon Z6, D700)

Those that do, why?

Because they are different tools made for different things. While I enjoy the ability of the E-M1 mark II to take care of pretty much everything that I would want to do, I do appreciate the Fujifilm files, and the user experience of the X-Pro2, which it totally different from the other cameras that I have.

And while te sensor in the E-M1ii is pretty decent in low light, it's a far cry from what I can get from my Z6, which is pretty much my go-to camera when dealing with very low light situations.

I realize that FF is better at low light and lower noise. But, in the real world, can you see a real difference unless viewed very close. And is the dynamic range really wildly different?

Actually, yes. The noise levels between full frame and MFT are drastically different. You won't see much of a difference in good light because the signal to noise ratio is good enough then to hide the noise with MFT, though you will still be able to see it when pixel peeping.

On my Z6, images in good light are tryly noiseless for the most part, but the real difference is in lower light, where I can get away with drastically higher sensitivities and still have better image quality than my MFT cameras.

To put a practical number on things, I recently shot a small concert with my E-M1ii. Light was getting low, and I pushed up the ISO a bit. I had to use an ISO of about 5000 to 6400 to get where I wanted. Back home, images were mostly full of noise, and while it was manageable, a little bit of noise reduction was necessary.

I shot a similar event the following week with my Nikon Z6. I could push ISOs north of 25600 and images were looking about the same as I had on the Olympus. If I stayed within the same sensitivity range (5000-6400) I wouldn't have needed noise reduction at all.

Dynamic range wise, I can see the benefit when shooting landscapes with the Z6 compared to the E-M1ii. Smaller sensor + 12 bit files compared to full frame + 14bit files, it had no chance of matching. That being said, the image quality I got out of the E-M1ii was more than satisfactory, and it endged out the Z6 in detail and DR when using pixel shift.

I used to use dmy Z6 for everything, but got tired of lugging around the heavier kit. Nowadays, I use the Z6 in instances where it makes sense, otherwise I'm more drawn to MFT cameras for the convinienence and the features.

Talk me out of getting a FF, please.

I won't, they are great. The point is not to overspend. In my opinion, something like a Nikon Z6 or Lumiz S5 is pretty much the best you can get for your money if you step into full frame, as you get good cameras with IBIS, and the newer BSI sensors (rather than the onlder FSI designs you'd find in the Z5 for example) which don't have dual gain, and are a bit of a struggle in higher ISOs.

More modern dual gain sensors really are key in exacerbating the difference between MFT and full frame, and if you are thinking about getting a full frame as a side camera for some occations, those are the sensors to aim for imho.

My shooting style is street, travel and general outings with local photo clubs that I'm involved. I know that for birding and wildlife, I'm better off with the M4/3 for the 2X crop. But, Belgium is a dark country in the winter, so ? .

Full frame cameras generally have weaker stabilization, and if you get a fast MFT lens, it would basically be neck and neck with FF cameras. Maybe look at what MFT cameras can provide for you, if a lens wouldn't be a more cost effective purchase.

Do bear in mind that APS-C cameras also provide a pretty decent compromise : you keep a smaller form factor, but you get better image quality than your MFT body. Difference is smaller then if you were going for a full frame camera, but it might be a middle ground if you're torn between full frame and APS-C. A camera like a higher end APS-C body like a Fuji X-H2, Canon R7 or Sony A6700 would provide a decent boost over current MFT offerings while keeping the good reach of a crop sensor (even if it's not really matching MFT there).

We can't really make the decision for you, all you need is really to do proper reseach in relation to your needs and budget.

Good luck

Thanks for your thoughts,

 

[ChuckB]

Again that depends. A 600/f4 lens on FF is far superior to an 300/f4 on M43 in multiple ways. At the same time it loses spectacularly as far as portability and affordability are concerned. Because of that I'm personally quite content with the M43 variant and will never get the mentioned FF one. ;-)

-acknowledges 600/4 on FF is far superior

I will concede that those old 600mm f4 FF lenses are superior, optically. Actually I don't know, but for the purposes here, conceded. But they ain't superior in all respects. For instance:

(1) If you have to carry it, and with wildlife there is going to be considerable marching about the countryside, you'll have to hire a Sherpa. Big and heavy oh yeah, and the tripod won't be lightweight either. I remember birding in New Guinea and being exhausted very quickly, without having to carry such a beast. Taking crappy digiscope photos instead. Damn BOP's have a 100 foot fright circle. I would be almost willing to go back if I could take MFT equipment.

(2) Cost.

(3) Can you do rapid fire with it? Not like you can with an OM-1 and the 300mm PRO. In other words, the lens is part of a system and you might find you bought a Ferrari and there's no premium gas available.

-acknowledges M43 is an IQ compromised option, but chooses it for affordability and portability

If you can't get the photo the IQ doesn't matter.

 

[sherman_levine]

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

--

Sherm

Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

 

[HicHic]

Again that depends. A 600/f4 lens on FF is far superior to an 300/f4 on M43 in multiple ways. At the same time it loses spectacularly as far as portability and affordability are concerned. Because of that I'm personally quite content with the M43 variant and will never get the mentioned FF one. ;-)

-acknowledges 600/4 on FF is far superior

I will concede that those old 600mm f4 FF lenses are superior, optically. Actually I don't know, but for the purposes here, conceded. But they ain't superior in all respects. For instance:

(1) If you have to carry it, and with wildlife there is going to be considerable marching about the countryside, you'll have to hire a Sherpa. Big and heavy oh yeah, and the tripod won't be lightweight either. I remember birding in New Guinea and being exhausted very quickly, without having to carry such a beast. Taking crappy digiscope photos instead. Damn BOP's have a 100 foot fright circle. I would be almost willing to go back if I could take MFT equipment.

(2) Cost.

(3) Can you do rapid fire with it? Not like you can with an OM-1 and the 300mm PRO. In other words, the lens is part of a system and you might find you bought a Ferrari and there's no premium gas available.

-acknowledges M43 is an IQ compromised option, but chooses it for affordability and portability

If you can't get the photo the IQ doesn't matter.

Ah, there it is.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

....

Modern mirrorless systems are much better and lenses are completely different in terms of design and performance, even over the last 5 years.

I had an A7R, it had awful shutter shock and was a dog of a camera with an excellent sensor.

Andrew

Admittedly my experience is a bit dated. Mea culpa.

But m43 has also improved over the years, so I'll stand by my advice: If you go FF and want to make the most of the difference go for a high MP body and premium lenses.

Gato

 

[GodSpeaks]

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.

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).

 

[Mizar11]

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

I think you kids need to get a room. Whether is it 17.3 x 13 or 24 x 36 is the relevant question.

 

[sherman_levine]

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

I think you kids need to get a room. Whether is it 17.3 x 13 or 24 x 36 is the relevant question.

If you know, you know ;-)

--

Sherm

Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

 

[jjbinx]

I was using a FF DSLR for 8 years and an APS-C DSLR for 6 years before getting my m4/3 camera . . . FF for landscapes and APS for wildlife.

Right now my FF cameras and lenses are put away in the gear cabinet and my APS-C (R7) has a big lens attached but is in its pack in the bottom of the cabinet

My E-M1III however is in a holster bag hanging on a hook ready to go with charged batteries and the 12-100 attached.

The E-M1III has quickly become my general|travel|video camera, mainly because of the versatility of the Olympus 12-100mm f/4.

Yes, the E-M1III images need a bit more work at ISO settings above 1600
Yes, I need to take a little more care with it in high DR situations such as with snow, but the live Histogram display helps with that.

I just now had a look at some of our FF images - New Zealand travel landscapes - and with the Highlight Clipping display enabled in Lightroom I was able to find lots of images where small parts of bright clouds and mountain snow were clipped and unrecoverable. So there’s no FF DR magic and ETTL is still needed.

In dim light the FF cameras definitely have the advantage and the latest mirrorless bodies are relatively small and have excellent IBIS but I feel that good lenses are needed to get the most from them, so if you’re thinking of getting a FF camera you should be budgeting for good lenses as well.

FWIW, I have not used my APS-C cameras for anything other than wildlife - mainly birds.

jj

 

[mfuhlendorf]

I have a dozen m43 cameras and a single full frame, Lumix S5, which I bought and use exclusively for professional video jobs. For everything else I use m43, and some Nikon 1.

For stills, I tested the s5 and, while the quality is higher in higher isos, it's not a huge gap. Also, Olympus stabilization negates the use of high Isos for a majority of street shots.

In your place, I'd only get full frame if you have a specific professional need for it.

 

[vcxz]

The areas where M43 can't compete is 2.8 zooms and 1.8 primes. The M43 lenses that are most comparable are pretty big. If you just use variable aperture lenses in full frame, the differential with M43 won't be as big.

Also for focusing, saying "F2.8 is F2.8" is correct. When I was comparing equivalent lenses, the M43 2.8 had a much easier time focusing than FF 5.6. This can extend to wildlife lenses if you look at the 300 F4 versus a 600 F6.3 or variable zoom.

That being said, there are two areas I've had issues with M43. First is extreme dynamic range. Harsh sun with dark shadows is really tough for landscape. I had issues recently in Times Square with very bright signs and dark people and cars.

Second, full frame ultra-wide zooms have shrunk a lot and were out-resolving M43. I think it's harder to make sharp lenses at extreme focal lengths like 7-10mm. Then it gets worse with high megapixel full frame cameras.

Where I've struggled with full frame is if you need a telephoto lens, the package is often pretty big. It is true that lenses like the OM 100-400 are the same as the full frame equivalent. But some of the reviews of the Sigma/Leica 100-400 say the lens isn't good enough for a high megapixel camera, so that lens is really more of a M43 lens. I've been loving the lightweight PL 100-400 lately, though it seems to attract a ton of dust.

Then it's more of an Olympus thing that a sensor format issue, but OM is really good at weather sealing and HHRS. I use HHRS for dimly lit restaurant photos, where shallow depth of field looks a bit odd, but HHRS removes a lot of noise. OM has great weather sealing, but it's not a format issue, it's more of an OM-specific issue and OM happens to just make M43. I would guess Panasonic weather sealing is similar for their M43 and full frame cameras.

So I've favored full frame in wide to normal and/or shallow depth of field, up to ~100mm. I prefer M43 in dirty environments and/or where I need lighter telephoto.

 

[Regor250]

....

Modern mirrorless systems are much better and lenses are completely different in terms of design and performance, even over the last 5 years.

I had an A7R, it had awful shutter shock and was a dog of a camera with an excellent sensor.

Andrew

Admittedly my experience is a bit dated. Mea culpa.

But m43 has also improved over the years, so I'll stand by my advice: If you go FF and want to make the most of the difference go for a high MP body and premium lenses.

Gato

That is what I had concluded also, and that means some serious cash outlay.

 

[Ysarex]

I have an E-PL5 that I'd like to use fir the same purpose as you use yours but the dial & arrows around the OK button misbehave terribly. For example, when changing the focus point, it moves in the wrong direction, or navigating the menu, it will often go up when I press down. I have the 1.6 firmware that supposedly addressed this problem.

Is there any technique or remedy for this?

There's a used one available at MPB now: https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/olympus-pen-e-pl5

Are you saying that the behavior that I described is abnormal and mine is faulty?

Sounds like it. They're pretty inexpensive to replace.

 

[John McMillin]

I actually prefer M43 cameras in low light! I love to shoot street and travel during blue hour and the excellent stabilization allows me to shoot at very low ISO.

As an example, this gallery is the OM-5 in Nashville during some hot, humid summer days.

So far in 2025, I have used M43 for about 70% of my shooting. FF accounts for about 20% and MF accounts for the other 10%. I have not been shooting any APS lately. Just too close to M43 to bother with in my opinion.

Mostly it's been the OM-3 lately which I find is a very well rounded camera for photographing "life".

OM-3 Gallery

My advice, is to find whichever camera you will carry most and shoot it until the dials fall off!

That's an excellent set of photos from my native Nashville! Every one is strongly composed and well seen.

Two especially strike my fancy. First, the simple composition of a sloping grassy lawn with sunlit haze shrouding the office building in the background. As with those rich red setting suns, you can really see the atmosphere on a Tennessee summer day.

Also, the one of the "Batman" building. When I first saw it, I stared and wondered, "Did they really build a giant phonograph tone arm up there for the fun of it?" It took some research to learn that it's a support crane for window washers. It retracts into the roof when not in use. But the resemblance is so just so that I believe it was a giant architectural pun.

 

[John McMillin]

Edward Weston told Ansel Adams, apocryphally, that "If it is farther than a hundred yards from the car, it isn't photographic." That's how I remember it, anyway. I apply the same rule to my FF Pentax system. If it involves any sort of a hike, my MFT gear gets mighty tempting.

 

[Abbazz]

I'm interested to know how many of you shoot with both M4/3 and FF or APSC. Those that do, why? I realize that FF is better at low light and lower noise. But, in the real world, can you see a real difference unless viewed very close. And is the dynamic range really wildly different? Talk me out of getting a FF, please.

My shooting style is street, travel and general outings with local photo clubs that I'm involved. I know that for birding and wildlife, I'm better off with the M4/3 for the 2X crop. But, Belgium is a dark country in the winter, so ? .

Thanks for your thoughts,

I agree about the strong point of Micro 4/3 being the 2X crop factor, notably for birding, wildlife and macro photography. The relatively small size of the sensor is also very useful when large depth of field is required, for example for street photography. Its main weak points are image resolution, noise and dynamic range.

I would therefore look for a camera with high image resolution, low noise and wide dynamic range to complement a Micro 4/3 kit, especially for landscape photography.

If you like Micro 4/3 aspect ratio, it would be more logical to pair it with 33x44 format ("Baby medium format") rather than 24x36 ("Full frame"). A Fuji GFX seems to be the right tool for the job, since its sensor has the same 4/3 aspect ratio as a Micro 4/3 sensor.

The new GFX 100RF is a great camera for lanscape but quite expensive as it was realeased very recently. It is nevertheless possible to buy an used GFX 50s or 50r with a 35-70mm zoom for less money than a recent full frame camera. The 35-70mm lens is a great wide to normal landscape lens delivering superb image quality for a quite reasonable price. The 50MPix sensor is still up there with the best sensors regarding noise and dynamic range.

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[Lepewhi]

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