Thinking about moving from APS-C to MFT

[James Stirling]

You will often read about or hear people tell you that the smaller MFT sensors are going to be more noisy and you take an image quality hit. I say this is not true!

Of course It is true , assuming similar sensor tech and the gap increases as sensor size increases. If you want to see just how big a difference you can see between different sensors take a look at DPreviews DR comparisons { you have to dig through the m43 reviews to find them }

Noise



Base ISO DR { apart from the unavoidable sensor size disadvantage we are screwed due to having too high a base ISO}

Use the DPR studio scene comparison tool. Since you are using a Canon APS-C camera, let's compare using Canon's current 24mp APSC sensor. Now we can compare to a MFT camera with a 20 mp sensor. Looking at iso 1600 raw, the noise is pretty much the same. In fact the warmer tones are a bit cleaner in the MFT camera. Looking around the details of the test scene, there is no significant resolution advantage either.

The detail thing is due largely to the way the test scene is framed a 20mp m43 fills the frame with the same size as a 24mp APS sensor

If you select a MFT camera with a 16mp sensor, you give up a bit resolution but the image is a bit cleaner still.

So you are suggesting that the old 16mp m43 sensors have less noise than the 20mp sensors That will upset a few 20mp users who claim much better high ISO

Canon's current 24mp APS-C sensor Vs. MFT 20mp sensor

To be fair, Canon's AF is great for action and video. They have a very fine set of lenses at reasonable cost.

OTOH, MFT gives you good image quality using small cameras and lenses.

m43 is a superb system with a vast choice of native mount lenses { compared to other mirrorless formats }. And in some area such as video it really does an outstanding job . But every system has its advantages and disadvantages alas there is no free lunch

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 

[Pete Berry]

The primary M4/3 advantage is in size and weight. And the longer the lens, the greater that advantage becomes.



But there are disadvantages too. The APSC sensor is around 48% larger. This means an f/2.8 lens used on an APSC sensor is somewhat faster than an F/2.8 lens used on a Four Thirds sensor. Something like half a stop.

This needs to be qualified to a newcomer, as f/2.8 in any system, any FL, w/ same SS and ISO will give theoretically the same image exposure density of a uniformly lit object.

What differs is DOF: deeper in smaller formats with same EFL and aperture (which I consider a plus); shallower in larger formats if that's your bag - 1-stop "crop" bodies or 2-stops FF, either way for same DOF.

Pete

 

[Simon97]

I understand the disadvantages of the smaller MFT sensor. I was pointing out, since he is coming from an APS-C Canon SLR, he should not see much in the way of IQ loss going to MFT. Canon's sensors are not as good as Nikon (and others) noise wise. Of course, MFT can't hold a candle to the noise performance of FF sensors.

As far as noise and resolution go, I don't see that much advantage between 16mp and 20mp MFT sensors. Looking at some current cameras with these sensors, the 16mp ones appear to have slightly less noise (perhaps a 1/3rd of a stop) than the 20mp ones. Some people here shame the 16mp sensor. The difference in resolution is splitting hairs, really.

One thing I'm not clear on is why some sensors must start at a higher ISO. Something to do with saturation of the sensor elements, I guess. What is in the design of the MFT sensors that make it necessary to start at ISO 200?

 

[James Stirling]

I understand the disadvantages of the smaller MFT sensor. I was pointing out, since he is coming from an APS-C Canon SLR, he should not see much in the way of IQ loss going to MFT. Canon's sensors are not as good as Nikon (and others) noise wise. Of course, MFT can't hold a candle to the noise performance of FF sensors.

Canon's weakness is more about low ISO DR they are competitive with the Sony sensors at high ISO

As far as noise and resolution go, I don't see that much advantage between 16mp and 20mp MFT sensors. Looking at some current cameras with these sensors, the 16mp ones appear to have slightly less noise (perhaps a 1/3rd of a stop) than the 20mp ones. Some people here shame the 16mp sensor. The difference in resolution is splitting hairs, really.

One thing I'm not clear on is why some sensors must start at a higher ISO. Something to do with saturation of the sensor elements, I guess. What is in the design of the MFT sensors that make it necessary to start at ISO 200?

The 200ISO base boils my blood for my use that and a shortage of MP is the only thing stopping m43 being perfect for me . It is annoying because it would be easily achieved with current technology no need for revolutionary tech . We now have the low MP higher ISO model in the GH5S the mainstream 16/20mp models maybe Olympus or Panasonic will throw us low ISO shooters a bone with a higher MP lower base ISO sensor , though I wouldn't bet on it

 

[Sergey_Green]

The primary M4/3 advantage is in size and weight. And the longer the lens, the greater that advantage becomes.



But there are disadvantages too. The APSC sensor is around 48% larger. This means an f/2.8 lens used on an APSC sensor is somewhat faster than an F/2.8 lens used on a Four Thirds sensor. Something like half a stop.

This needs to be qualified to a newcomer, as f/2.8 in any system, any FL, w/ same SS and ISO will give theoretically the same image exposure density of a uniformly lit object.

Image exposure density - what does it mean?

What differs is DOF:

The crop rather.

deeper in smaller formats with same EFL and aperture (which I consider a plus);

Depends on what you photograph, but generally it makes no difference for the larger formats, as you can always lift the ISO (to the same level as it is already hiked up in the smaller formats).

What matters is the size and the weight. The systems that capture less light (and need to be amplified) will generally be smaller and lighter. There is no point in buying a full frame camera only to fit it with f8 lenses - larger formats will usually mean larger lenses.

shallower in larger formats if that's your bag - 1-stop "crop" bodies or 2-stops FF, either way for same DOF.

Pete

--
- sergey

 

[Pete Berry]

The primary M4/3 advantage is in size and weight. And the longer the lens, the greater that advantage becomes.



But there are disadvantages too. The APSC sensor is around 48% larger. This means an f/2.8 lens used on an APSC sensor is somewhat faster than an F/2.8 lens used on a Four Thirds sensor. Something like half a stop.

This needs to be qualified to a newcomer, as f/2.8 in any system, any FL, w/ same SS and ISO will give theoretically the same image exposure density of a uniformly lit object.

Image exposure density - what does it mean?

Come on, Sergey, you know exactly what I mean! That if you read the same point on a RAW digital file, the RGB numbers will theoretically be the same. Or image density in transparencies, or by reflected light from identical prints, or by your good eye!

The poster seems to have conflated DOF "equivalency" with actual exposure, where f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of sensor size.

The crop rather.

deeper in smaller formats with same EFL and aperture (which I consider a plus);

Depends on what you photograph, but generally it makes no difference for the larger formats, as you can always lift the ISO (to the same level as it is already hiked up in the smaller formats).

What matters is the size and the weight. The systems that capture less light (and need to be amplified) will generally be smaller and lighter. There is no point in buying a full frame camera only to fit it with f8 lenses - larger formats will usually mean larger lenses.

shallower in larger formats if that's your bag - 1-stop "crop" bodies or 2-stops FF, either way for same DOF.

Pete

--
- sergey

 

[FalkirkEagle]

I'm an amateur photographer willing to learn and improve.

My journey began with a Casio EXP-600 when DSLRs where too expensive for me. It was a good starting point for me and sparkled my interest in photography.

Years later I bougth a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8

I was mostly interested in photographing motorsports, travels and landscapes. I had fun with this camera and lenses.

They suited my needs really well. The only thing I missing was taking it to mountain hikes, it was too heavy and unconfortable for me. I like to hike light, so I stayed with the Casio.

I took photography courses and became more interested in learn about photography and improve my "art". So I decided it was time to upgrade my kit and bought a 70D, Tokina 11-20 and Tamron 24-70. I kept de Sigma.

Somehow I never really liked the 70D not I enjoyed shooting with it as much as enjoyed with the 40D. I think it's a good camera, but I think it's not at the same level as de 40D. It's like if the 70D is les "pro" than the 40D

Another thing I think it makes photography less enjoyable for me is the weight of my kit. I usualy take the 11-20 and the 24-70 with me, and only take the 70-200 when I think I will really need. But I find sometimes I'm lazy to take the camera with me.

At first I thought about going FF with the A7iii that's getting so much attention lately, but then I realized that this route will be expensive if I want to get quality glass, and that it'll be as heavier as the Canon kit I own. The only benefit I see is improved image quality.

An then I meet a photographer that uses Olympus and he was really pleased with the system, so I investigated about this system and I think it could be what I'm searching for: light, enjoyable, at with good IQ for my needs.

My interests in photography now are really wide: sports, lightpainting, macro, portrait... I know no system fits it all, but I think Olympus will be a good compromise.

So I'd like to hear opinions of people who made this move. And I'd like to know wich camera you'll recomend for sports. For now I'm thinking the camera it suits me is the M1 mark ii.

Thanks and I apologize for my english.

I recently acquired a Panasonic G7, mainly to shoot 4K video. I did take it out a few times to see how it would perform as a stills camera.

What I found is this: in good light, the perceived dynamic range from the camera's smaller Micro Four Thirds sensor is about as good as it is with any camera equipped with an APS-C sensor. Detail approaches, but doesn't quite match what an APS-C sensor can provide and this is a function of not just the smaller sensor, but also the lower resolution of M43 sensors which is typically 16MP, while many current APS-C sensors top out at about 24MP.

For landscapes, the M43 sensor is acceptable, but not ideal, again due to the lower resolving power. However, if you don't print your pictures at sizes greater than 8" x 10", or you mainly post your pictures to the web, the lesser detail won't be all that perceptible to the average viewer. The M43 sensor seems to shine in street photography and some forms of architectural photography, provided the lens you have is decent, and most of the ones made by Olympus and Panasonic are just that.

On cloudy, overcast days and in low light situations, you may have some difficulty pulling out details and brightening the image sufficiently without turning the image to mush - at least this was my experience.

As I have never used the G7 to capture action or sports, I can't comment on its abilities in this area. I have seen reviews for the Olympus OM-D EM10 Mark II and Mark III series cameras and they seem to indicate that the AF in both cameras may not be reliable enough for action/sports photography.

I've since sold off my Panasonic G7 because I decided I didn't need to shoot 4K video after all.

I currently own a Sony a6000 with the 16-50mm kit lens and the 55-210mm zoom along with a Sigma 19mm prime lens.

I'm considering jumping ship from Sony because of the relative lack of good, affordable E-mount lenses, and getting a Canon M5 despite the reservations I have about it.

My reservations stem mainly from the lower dynamic range of the M5 versus my a6000.

Testing by DxO Labs shows the Sony offers 13.1EV of dynamic range versus the M5 range of 12.4EV, a difference of three-quarters of a stop. In real-world terms, this is not likely to make much of a perceptible difference in image quality. Most of the photography I do is done in good lighting conditions anyway, where dynamic range isn't so much of an issue.

 

[SkiHound]

Nonsense. While apse might be slightly better, folks have been making stunning prints, much larger than 8 by 10 with 6 mood cameras like the Nikon D40 from years ago. NATGEO requires 6mp.

 

[MShot]

When I wanted to move from compact cameras to something better, I never warmed up to DSLRs. When Panasonic came out with the G2, I loved the idea of an all electronic camera design. I really enjoyed the G2, my first interchangeable lens camera. I could make good images with it today.

I'm using an EM-1 MKI for motorsports. Website.....

Loading…

harveysherman.smugmug.com

Sometimes I use a PL/7. Rangefinder style, contrast detect AF, not a camera designed for sports, but I do well with it.

For soccer, basketball, baseball, I might need an EM-1 MKII or a Panasonic body and lens kit with Dual-IS, but race cars move predictably, not erratically, and not so fast that subject tracking is needed. I sell a lot of prints made with SAF or CAF on 16MP bodies, sometimes cropped quit a bit.

I'm not trying to convince you not to buy the EM-1 MKII. Do it if you are comfortable with the cost, go for it. I'll own one when I need one. Just know that for motorsports you don't need tracking so that gives you options. Buy the best lenses you can afford. Whatever the cost the best lenses are worth the money.

 

[timmer350]

About 4-5 years back I switched from a Canon 50D (with 300mm/f4) to GH4 and never looked back (sold everything and took a smallish hit). Recently I got the G9 (traded the GH4 in) to go with my 100-400 PL and love the combination. I do mostly long telephoto photography (birds) so my use is different from yours, but there is plenty to like generally - great ergonomics (Canon-like), terrific tech, less weight, silent shutter, great connectivity and incredible video. Some people have an issue with noise, but I find if the photo is correctly exposed, its fine (as good as a 7DmII - do the comparisons on DPR). I even push it to ISO 3200 and don't mind the noise. I even stopped shooting in RAW!

Once you use a M43 camera system you realize how conservative Canon is - which is frankly quite annoying.

Tim

--
Gone birding... https://timboucher.smugmug.com

 

[MShot]

I shoot mostly long TF too, not as long as you do. I can't beat what I have with ASP-C. I can with FF, but for much more money/size/weight. Not worth it for me.

I don't want to give up the ability to put a small standard zoom or prime, a pancake prime on the same body and carry a kit I can put in a jacket pocket, or shoot 28-300 with a 1.5lb kit. I want to do everything with one system. M43 is the only system that can do it for me.

I never warmed up to DSLRs, didn't see the need for a mirror in a digital camera and don't want to give up the tech that can only be done with an EVF.

Now that Nikon and Cannon released serious FF mirrorless bodies, maybe the M43 bashing, the outright lies will die down, and people who rejected mirrorless as quality gear will reconsider.

Nikon and Canon are going to pay a price for lagging. The market for FF has moved from a 2-way contest, to a 6-way contest as of 2019, and they are late with a lot of the tech, have a lot of lenses to build, and their cameras are a first effort, not up to the performance of their DSLRs yet. They will get there but its going to cost them.