Thoughts from those using both m43 and Full Frame DSLRs - that certain something?

[Dylthedog]

robonrome wrote:

Dylthedog wrote:

Firstly thanks for the interesting thread, both to the OP and contributors.

On my FF/MFT journey I found that when I got my E-P1 I used it so much I almost considered dumping my 5D but ended up getting a 5D2 and suddenly my PEN use dropped dramatically and I would put up with the weight/size because I knew the output would be so much better from the Canon, mostly due to the noise of the original PEN with anything over ISO400.

What made me use the PEN more again was getting a couple of fast primes (20 & 45mm) and dumping the kit And that's when I resolved myself to redeveloping both systems; my wife getting a G2 also helped.

The funny thing is that on a recent trip to Venice my wife took her G2 and I my 5D3 and my two favourite shots I took with the G2

It really was down to the opportunity in my case.

Interestingly it's the first time I've posted shots to my Smugmug gallery from our camera phones too.

I just got my E-PL5 yesterday and I have big hopes for that; I've been waiting for the PEN sensor upgrade for quite a while!

A good example of the best camera being the one you have with you.

The higher ISO noise advantage you mention is certainly part of full frame's appeal. I'll be interested to hear how it goes with the E-PL5 featuring the OMD sensor which I understand closes the gap quite a bit (to FF) on mid to higher ISO performance

Check out the post I just made - especially the cat pic.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50262667


There's still quite a gap I think at higher ISO; lower ISO is certainly very close though. Not looked at any RAW shots yet though, I need to download the Lightroom RC for E-PL5 support and I haven't got round to that yet.

Having said that the new PEN lite is way better than my original PEN.

 

[Rens]

robonrome wrote:

The higher ISO noise advantage you mention is certainly part of full frame's appeal. I'll be interested to hear how it goes with the E-PL5 featuring the OMD sensor which I understand closes the gap quite a bit (to FF) on mid to higher ISO performance

Actually, it reduces, but doesn't eliminate, the gap between M 4/3 and the better APS-C sensors.

 

[Vittorio Fracassi]

hi robonrome,

so much has been said in this very popular thread on an argument that involves a high percentage of M4/3 users, that I may be repeating something that has been said already.

There are two important factors for shooting stills (for me) of a camera + lens combination, beyond technical virtues:

- the disposition in which the equipment puts me, a mix of ergonomics, of confidence, of versatility, of positive experiences in similar situations.

- the useful active time span that the eqiment offers me in a particular situation for a potentially good capture

1Ds3 + L glass (EF35/1.4, 135/2, 200/2, Zeiss 2.8/21) gave me that disposition, the solid weight with all the knobs and wheels in the right places as if part of my hands, the clearness of the optical viewfinder, the perception of space-light-DOF that previous photos built up in my experience, told me intuitively what to capture, how to use my feet and knees, when to shoot.

AIServo with an intelligent dynamic AF system, continuous multiple exposures at a sufficient rate (>5fr/sec), pretty good on 1Ds3 already but better on 7D and now great on 1D4 and 5D3, extend the useful active time span and allow to choose the best one from a sequence. Good continuous view of a scene during a sequential capture allows to monitor the dynamic situation, and by dynamic I don't mean only the erratic movement of an animal, but also that of an eyebrow in a portrait.

The latter is not completely overlooked but in dire need of improvement , in M4/3 equipment. And an EVF is an EVF no matter how quickly it refreshes, there's always a bit of guessing going on in the photographer's mind.

The former is what it is, the unnatural size relation of camera to hands can only be partly overcome by practice and discipline even if customisation of M4/3 bodies has reached a level of sufficiency.

So I know why I took less but better pics with my heavy bag, it was what the heavy bag allowed and suggested (invited) me to do. Not just the specs.

Up to a few months ago IQ and potential resistance of RAWs to heavy PP was not up to my minimum std with any M4/3 body + lens combo, but since the entrance of the E-M5 and more recent glass these two points have been fullfilled and most of the rest will come (excluding extreme low DOF of course).

My lifestyle and physical condition and my use of spare time (I am a retired guy who has been forced by events to go back to work!) conjured against the use of the heavy bag, so as soon as I read enough of the E-M5 I got one and started putting the contents of the heavy bag on eBay.

For you it may be different, hang on to the 5D3 and L glass for as long as you can, they will provide you with the right disposition and useful active time spans necessary to take the best captures you are capable of.

If you have 1800Eu of body and 4000Eu of glass at residual commercial value, the body will lose about 800Eu in 2 years but the glass may not even loose 600Eu, so it may be worth loosing 1400Eu to keep the option open. And if you convert your heavy bag in cash be sure that sooner or later some of the proceeds will become another M4/3 body and another (expensive) lens anyway...

Regards, Vittorio

 

[Anders W]

Vittorio Fracassi wrote:

And an EVF is an EVF no matter how quickly it refreshes, there's always a bit of guessing going on in the photographer's mind.

With the E-M5 EVF set to high refresh, the EVF lag is now down to 30 ms. I am sure this value will continue to shrink in future bodies, especially in decent light. A DSLR must by definition always have a mirror lag when its OVF is used. It would be interesting to know how long that lag is relative to the EVF lag figures we are by now talking about.

 

[Vittorio Fracassi]

hi Anders, I agree with your comment on refresh rate, (mine is already set at max.)

I can't explain well what differences my eye/brain system perceived looking through the viewfinder of the 1Ds3 and what it perceives looking through the EVF of the E-M5.

With the former I could at the same time evaluate the whole scene, pick a detail, jump to another detail, focus, recompose, very quickly and precisely. With the latter things are such that my mind works slowly, the perception of details, colours, depth are not so immediate, I feel short of time and have to guess. Perhaps it's the size of the eyepiece cup or the fact that my leading eye is the left and not the right and my nose gets in the way, or that on top of that I wear glasses...

I understand your analytic scientific approach, I have a degree in physics from the jurassic era, but at the end it's the instinctive result that counts. With the large and heavy DSLR I felt strong and had no hesitation, with the E-M5 I feel less agile and a little uncertain of what the result of a capture will be. Perhaps I am not at the peak of the learning curve, a matter of practice.

Thanks for helping me to understand, Regards, Vittorio

 

[sansbury]

It's funny, now that I've experienced a good EVF, I don't really want to go back to a plain OVF. One reason: EV blinkies. Being able to evaluate the edges of the histogram in real time in the EVF has become so central to my shooting that giving it up would hurt.

 

[Najinsky]

robonrome wrote:

BTW have you looked at the 5d3 ? some have commented that it is closer in its rendering to the original 5d than the 5d2?

No more than checking the samples and studio tests. It's a lot more camera than I need at the moment and it I can put the money to better use. I prefer the idea of the smaller lighter 6D and some lighter glass. It's really my glass that bogs me down. I managed to pare it down to an acceptable:

• 5D2
• EF 16-35 F/2.8L II USM
• EF 50 F/1.4 USM
• EF 70-200 F/4L USM

and left the heavier glass behind (24-70 F/2.8L, 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS, MP-E65, TS-E90). I will probably sell these the next time I'm back in the UK.

If I go for the 6D, I'll probably also sell the ageing 70-200 and replace it with a new IS version, and also get the new 24-70 F4L (subject to anticipated good reviews, it may even be offered as a Kit lens with the 6D), giving me:

• 6D
• EF 16-35 F/2.8L II USM
• EF 24-70 F/4L IS USM
• EF 70-200 F/4L IS USM

Which should be around the same approximate weight and volume. I could probably dispose of the 5D2 as well so if the 24-70/4 does come with the 6D as a kit, I might even have some change left over for a beer!

http://camerasize.com/compare/#380,312

and

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.367,312.289,328,ha,t

530g lighter! And like they did with the xxD series, they just keep making the new one a little bit bigger and a little bit heavier, subliminally guiding you towards that 1D!

Obviously if the 5D3 does turn out to be the return of the classic, and the 6D sucks, I'll have to rethink (again).

-Najinsky

 

[robonrome]

Vittorio Fracassi wrote:

hi robonrome,

so much has been said in this very popular thread on an argument that involves a high percentage of M4/3 users, that I may be repeating something that has been said already.

There are two important factors for shooting stills (for me) of a camera + lens combination, beyond technical virtues:

- the disposition in which the equipment puts me, a mix of ergonomics, of confidence, of versatility, of positive experiences in similar situations.

- the useful active time span that the eqiment offers me in a particular situation for a potentially good capture

My lifestyle and physical condition and my use of spare time (I am a retired guy who has been forced by events to go back to work!) conjured against the use of the heavy bag, so as soon as I read enough of the E-M5 I got one and started putting the contents of the heavy bag on eBay.

For you it may be different, hang on to the 5D3 and L glass for as long as you can, they will provide you with the right disposition and useful active time spans necessary to take the best captures you are capable of.

Regards, Vittorio

thank you very much vittorio for taking the time to lay this out so carefully and eloquently. i think your concept of "disposition" is key here, taking account of what i was calling deliberateness along with related factors.

to followup on a later point by sansbury, having experienced a good evf with the G5 and all the real time information (esp histogram) it can provide i'm actually feeling the lack of same more on the 5d3 ovf than missing the clarity on the g5 evf. perhaps this is more because most of my subjects are fairly static. ideally i'd like to see an adaptation of the hybrid viewfinder on the fuji x series for the best of both worlds.

 

[robonrome]

Najinsky wrote:

robonrome wrote:

BTW have you looked at the 5d3 ? some have commented that it is closer in its rendering to the original 5d than the 5d2?

No more than checking the samples and studio tests. It's a lot more camera than I need at the moment and it I can put the money to better use. I prefer the idea of the smaller lighter 6D and some lighter glass. It's really my glass that bogs me down. I managed to pare it down to an acceptable:

• 5D2
• EF 16-35 F/2.8L II USM
• EF 50 F/1.4 USM
• EF 70-200 F/4L USM

and left the heavier glass behind (24-70 F/2.8L, 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS, MP-E65, TS-E90). I will probably sell these the next time I'm back in the UK.

If I go for the 6D, I'll probably also sell the ageing 70-200 and replace it with a new IS version, and also get the new 24-70 F4L (subject to anticipated good reviews, it may even be offered as a Kit lens with the 6D), giving me:

• 6D
• EF 16-35 F/2.8L II USM
• EF 24-70 F/4L IS USM
• EF 70-200 F/4L IS USM

Which should be around the same approximate weight and volume. I could probably dispose of the 5D2 as well so if the 24-70/4 does come with the 6D as a kit, I might even have some change left over for a beer!

http://camerasize.com/compare/#380,312


and

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.367,312.289,328,ha,t


530g lighter! And like they did with the xxD series, they just keep making the new one a little bit bigger and a little bit heavier, subliminally guiding you towards that 1D!

Obviously if the 5D3 does turn out to be the return of the classic, and the 6D sucks, I'll have to rethink (again).

-Najinsky

hi najinksy, sounds like a good plan. if you think you might miss some of the reach of the 100-400, you might consider the 70-300L instead of the 70-200L f4 IS. It's a little heavier, but shorter stowed and just as sharp with the same 4 stop IS.

 

[shuutrr]

I just finished reading this entire thread....what a pleasure it has been....my hat is off to all....special thanks to "robonrome" in particular, and, everyone else who contributed so earnestly.....this question is obviously a "question of the day" for those of us who have been fortunate enough, to even ponder such thoughts.....

 

[Jonas B]

Anders W wrote:

Vittorio Fracassi wrote:

And an EVF is an EVF no matter how quickly it refreshes, there's always a bit of guessing going on in the photographer's mind.

With the E-M5 EVF set to high refresh, the EVF lag is now down to 30 ms. I am sure this value will continue to shrink in future bodies, especially in decent light. A DSLR must by definition always have a mirror lag when its OVF is used. It would be interesting to know how long that lag is relative to the EVF lag figures we are by now talking about.

Hmm. Now "we" don't use high refresh because of the known problems with the "blinkies" - so this reminds me about your lag test. Did you perform the same test with the camera set to normal refresh rate?

The majority of my images don't demand high refresh rates and the normal refresh rate doesn't exactly make me suffer. I do however feel a difference between the Nex-5N (and I would guess the Nex-7 and the Sony A99) when it comes to feel connected in time with the target. That may be the shutter lag or the EVF, I don't know for sure. The E-M5 is however the best µ4/3 camera I've owned in this regard.


I'm sure EVF will continue to improve and at some point not even complainers like me will have anything to object. For certain reasons I prefer an EVF over optical ones and I have advocated Live View technology since the Olympus E-330 and then the E-510 (if I recall the numbers correctly).

regards,

Jonas

 

[Jonas B]

robonrome wrote:

(...) I'm thinking why... what is it about the much fewer images from the 5D2 that appealed more than the far more numerous ones from the G3 months after the event, especially when the images are mostly deeper DoF where the IQ differences are not that great? Is it because the effort of dragging out the 5D meant I was being more purposeful or deliberate in my photography, is it because the G3 lacks the potential m43 IQ magic suggested for the EM5. Something other?

Anyway, wondered if anyone else had similar or contra thoughts on their FF vs m43 at the point the rubber hits the road (prints for display).

I have a similar experience but I'm afraid I can't easily pinpoint the reason for the differences I perceive.

A couple of years ago I travelled through parts of Scotland UK. I brought the 5DMkII, a Zuiko 24/2.8 and the EF50/1.4. That was a short trip with a FF camera. Before and after Scotland I've had µ4/3 gear in my bag (now I use the 12/2.0, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 lenses) and for two shorter trips the Nex-5N /with Sony 16/2.8, Leica 35/1.4 and different 50-60mm lenses).

When looking through my keepers from these travels the ones from Scotland stands out as a collection of images I simply like better. All sets contain a mix of landscapes, architecture people, cityscapes and random details.

I don't think I was a better photographer 2009 than now or earlier, I have used about the same equivalent focal lengths and so on. Here I'm talking about tourist snapshots and the occasional more planned shot.


Without a scientific comparison and statistically significance and measurements showing the DR and so on you'll have to take this for what it's worth and I'm aware this means different things depending on who you are reading this.

In the end I'm now having a long hard look at the Sony A99 and if Zeiss doesn't screw anything up with their coming A-mount 50/1.4 I'll be tempted... I'll have to go down from three lenses to two when travelling but I see no real problem with that.

That's me. Friends, or my friends to my better half, or people at work seem to like all the images equally, or perhaps they dislike them equally..., and that's interesting to me. It opens up for all sorts of interesting psychological interpretations.

I wish you luck with your decisions!

Jonas

 

[robonrome]

Jonas B wrote:

robonrome wrote:

(...) I'm thinking why... what is it about the much fewer images from the 5D2 that appealed more than the far more numerous ones from the G3 months after the event, especially when the images are mostly deeper DoF where the IQ differences are not that great? Is it because the effort of dragging out the 5D meant I was being more purposeful or deliberate in my photography, is it because the G3 lacks the potential m43 IQ magic suggested for the EM5. Something other?

Anyway, wondered if anyone else had similar or contra thoughts on their FF vs m43 at the point the rubber hits the road (prints for display).

I have a similar experience but I'm afraid I can't easily pinpoint the reason for the differences I perceive.

A couple of years ago I travelled through parts of Scotland UK. I brought the 5DMkII, a Zuiko 24/2.8 and the EF50/1.4. That was a short trip with a FF camera. Before and after Scotland I've had µ4/3 gear in my bag (now I use the 12/2.0, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 lenses) and for two shorter trips the Nex-5N /with Sony 16/2.8, Leica 35/1.4 and different 50-60mm lenses).

When looking through my keepers from these travels the ones from Scotland stands out as a collection of images I simply like better. All sets contain a mix of landscapes, architecture people, cityscapes and random details.

I don't think I was a better photographer 2009 than now or earlier, I have used about the same equivalent focal lengths and so on. Here I'm talking about tourist snapshots and the occasional more planned shot.

Without a scientific comparison and statistically significance and measurements showing the DR and so on you'll have to take this for what it's worth and I'm aware this means different things depending on who you are reading this.

In the end I'm now having a long hard look at the Sony A99 and if Zeiss doesn't screw anything up with their coming A-mount 50/1.4 I'll be tempted... I'll have to go down from three lenses to two when travelling but I see no real problem with that.

That's me. Friends, or my friends to my better half, or people at work seem to like all the images equally, or perhaps they dislike them equally..., and that's interesting to me. It opens up for all sorts of interesting psychological interpretations.

I wish you luck with your decisions!

Jonas

thanks for sharing your experience Jonas. I'm beginning to wonder however if perhaps I was a better photographer back in 2009 ;-)

 

[Amin Sabet]

robonrome wrote:

I trekked in Nepal last year and bought the G3 and a 14-45 + 20 + 45 as a lightweight kit. At the last moment I weakened and tossed in the 5D2 with a 70-300L and the 24 TSE (I knew I would have a porter to share the load)...

A few months later I ended up going through the many thousands of images and culling them down to those few I though were best and printing A3 sized prints from six of them to adorn the walls of my hallway. Well as I look at them now, without thinking it seems that these six best were all taken with the 5D2 (five with the 70-300 and one with the 24 TSE)...

Probably of two things (or a combination):

1) You do best with a telephoto zoom.

2) When there was a truly great opportunity for a photo, you may have been moved to get out the heavy, expensive gear you had been lugging around for that purpose. Ie, if you treat the MFT stuff as your snapshot kit, it will produce snapshots.

I left behind my 35mm format DSLRs (Canon 5D followed by Nikon D700) for a MFT kit, and I've never looked back. I think the number of bad/mediocre/okay/good/very good photos I've taken per year has had everything to do with the amount of time and energy I put into it and almost nothing to do with the gear.

 

[faith_ps]

Amin Sabet wrote:

robonrome wrote:

I trekked in Nepal last year and bought the G3 and a 14-45 + 20 + 45 as a lightweight kit. At the last moment I weakened and tossed in the 5D2 with a 70-300L and the 24 TSE (I knew I would have a porter to share the load)...

A few months later I ended up going through the many thousands of images and culling them down to those few I though were best and printing A3 sized prints from six of them to adorn the walls of my hallway. Well as I look at them now, without thinking it seems that these six best were all taken with the 5D2 (five with the 70-300 and one with the 24 TSE)...

Probably of two things (or a combination):

2) ...... Ie, if you treat the MFT stuff as your snapshot kit, it will produce snapshots.

--

http://aminsabet.com

I agree completely with no. 2.

A lot who hold a m4/3 fall into that pocket camera trap and go into happy, carefree, snapshooting mode. If we treat the small cam the same way we treat DSLR, the result is equally stunning. In time when I need to, I'll bring my manfrotto 055 tripod along my OMD. Too massive a size but that was my tripod back during big DSLR time with Canon and heavy glasses. Still a faithfull tripod.

 

[Anders W]

Jonas B wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Vittorio Fracassi wrote:

And an EVF is an EVF no matter how quickly it refreshes, there's always a bit of guessing going on in the photographer's mind.

With the E-M5 EVF set to high refresh, the EVF lag is now down to 30 ms. I am sure this value will continue to shrink in future bodies, especially in decent light. A DSLR must by definition always have a mirror lag when its OVF is used. It would be interesting to know how long that lag is relative to the EVF lag figures we are by now talking about.

Hmm. Now "we" don't use high refresh because of the known problems with the "blinkies" - so this reminds me about your lag test. Did you perform the same test with the camera set to normal refresh rate?

You mean you don't use the high refresh because of the problems with the LV "blinkies"?

Well, I also have my refresh set to normal for the most part, but I wouldn't hesitate to switch to fast if circumstances called for it. After all, there are solutions to the problem you mention.

Yes, I did test the lag time with the E-M5 set to normal refresh as well as the lag time on my old G1. In both cases, I found the lag to be roughly twice that of the E-M5 at high refresh, i.e., on the order of 60 rather than 30 ms. I should emphasize here that these are ballpark estimates. For more precise ones, I would have needed to take a much larger sample than I did or have better equipment at my disposal. If you have access to a 240 fps video camera, for example, you can get more precise estimates with much less work.

The majority of my images don't demand high refresh rates and the normal refresh rate doesn't exactly make me suffer. I do however feel a difference between the Nex-5N (and I would guess the Nex-7 and the Sony A99) when it comes to feel connected in time with the target. That may be the shutter lag or the EVF, I don't know for sure. The E-M5 is however the best µ4/3 camera I've owned in this regard.

Not sure what you mean here? Are you saying the NEX 5N had more or less EVF lag than the E-M5?

I'm sure EVF will continue to improve and at some point not even complainers like me will have anything to object. For certain reasons I prefer an EVF over optical ones and I have advocated Live View technology since the Olympus E-330 and then the E-510 (if I recall the numbers correctly).

For my kind of shooting, I too prefer a good EVF (like the one on the E-M5) to an OVF. Obviously, both have pros and cons whose importance will depend on the situation. So this purports to be nothing more than a summary of how I weigh those based on my own personal requirements.

 

[Anders W]

Vittorio Fracassi wrote:

hi Anders, I agree with your comment on refresh rate, (mine is already set at max.)

I can't explain well what differences my eye/brain system perceived looking through the viewfinder of the 1Ds3 and what it perceives looking through the EVF of the E-M5.

With the former I could at the same time evaluate the whole scene, pick a detail, jump to another detail, focus, recompose, very quickly and precisely. With the latter things are such that my mind works slowly, the perception of details, colours, depth are not so immediate, I feel short of time and have to guess. Perhaps it's the size of the eyepiece cup or the fact that my leading eye is the left and not the right and my nose gets in the way, or that on top of that I wear glasses...

I understand your analytic scientific approach, I have a degree in physics from the jurassic era, but at the end it's the instinctive result that counts. With the large and heavy DSLR I felt strong and had no hesitation, with the E-M5 I feel less agile and a little uncertain of what the result of a capture will be. Perhaps I am not at the peak of the learning curve, a matter of practice.

Thanks for helping me to understand, Regards, Vittorio

Hi Vittorio,

Well these things need not be easy to explain and I respect your perceptions. Personally, I can't say that I found it difficult to go from an OVF to an EVF (as I did already when I switched from a Pentax DSLR to the G1 about one and a half years ago), although, like you, I have a very long habit-forming experience with SLRs behind me.

One difficulty I did have with the G1 was that it was sometimes difficult to get the right light level in the EVF, especially since I prefer to use spot-metering and the EVF would react very strongly to where I happened to aim the spot, when I was framing rather than metering, sometimes making the highlights blow out and therefore hard to see, sometimes making the shadows impenetrable. I find the E-M5 less troublesome in this regard, at least in M mode which is what I am normally using.

FWIW, my vision isn't the best and I wear glasses like you. However, I am, from a photographic point of view, lucky enough that it is my right rather than lef eye which is dominant, and I can certainly imagine that a small camera like the E-M5 might give rise to special complications for those who are "left-eyed" rather than "right-eyed".

 

[Franka T.L.]

It's an old saying but its a fact. I have found it so many time here that people trying to rationalize this system as being over that system and that why you do not that " that system " instead and just needing that " this system " . In the end of course this can never bore true ALWAYS.

I shall be frank with this, I am sure I would get burn for saying this. But M4/3 just isn't FF, and image quality ( sensor level ) do suffer accordingly. Then there's the lens. The Canon 24/3.5 TS-E might be one hell of a chunk, but its one hell of a lens. It all go against what one is wishing and what one is shooting, under what kind of environment and with what kind of capture spec and limitation.

The M4/3 , yes its a more compact and thus more portable system, but its like old saying in the film days regarding using a 645 ( Pentax or Mamiya ) vs that of a 6X6 ( Hasselblad or Rolleiflex ) vs that of a 35mm SLR ( Nikon or Canon ). NO one then would deny the image quality superiority of the medium format vs that from that of the 35mm but equally all recognize the difficulty in the portability but also aware of the limitation ( both side ). And some time we like to thrown in technical camera like a decent field 4X5 or even go full blown Large Format with 8X10 or larger.

That which is the same story today, and thrown in the sensor and system issue. Between mirrorless, there is M4/3 and APS-C ( and I would wager FF also another year or 2 down the road ), and then there is DSLR ( especially FF ).

The 5D-III with top lens like the 24/3.5 TS-E is unquestionably at the same scene, and thus same capturing environment, outdo the M4/3 in many aspect of the imaging part and thus you are getting to find that the best usually coming from the FF, and equally the only 10% of capture you get with the Canon also signal how you operate and the restriction thus placed if choosing a FF vs that of the M4/3 ... You can have the quality, but you must sacrifice the portability and compactness , or you can enjoy that lightweight and liberty of movement the M4/3 offers but knowing that you are not as well served as imaging parts goes with a full blown full fledged FF setup. As status quo that is the case.

And finally that little something. Yes there is difference should we use the 2 in the same scene, but is there that certain something. I am sure there are but that can go this way or that way favoring this or that depending on your imaging need. They image , different , that's for sure.

 

[IrishhAndy]

robonrome wrote:

I find myself vacilating between two systems, my m43 kit around a G3 now replaced with G5 with a suite of quality lenses and a full frame Canon 5D (recently upgraded from 5D2 to 5D3) again with a suite of high quality glass.

I love the convenience of m43. My back seriously suffers when I cart around the canon kit. I've done pixel peeping comparisons between the two that frankly show very minimal differences ...and truth be told not always in the canon kit favour (obviously depends partly on the desired DoF).

I trekked in Nepal last year and bought the G3 and a 14-45 + 20 + 45 as a lightweight kit. At the last moment I weakened and tossed in the 5D2 with a 70-300L and the 24 TSE (I knew I would have a porter to share the load).

While I was on the trail the G3 was a godsend. I just couldn't have made it with the big canon around my neck...each step at those altitudes was a challenge. Similalrly even in the cities and towns sightseeing I generally opted for the convenience and unobtrusiveness of the G3 with 20/1.7.

When I returned home to Australia, I found I'd taken nearly 90% of my shots with the G3 and only 10% with the Canon, and remember thinking that was pretty stupid lumping along the 5D.

A few months later I ended up going through the many thousands of images and culling them down to those few I though were best and printing A3 sized prints from six of them to adorn the walls of my hallway. Well as I look at them now, without thinking it seems that these six best were all taken with the 5D2 (five with the 70-300 and one with the 24 TSE) and I'm kind of wondering how and why that came to be when I had almost 10x as many images from the G3.

I'm thinking why... what is it about the much fewer images from the 5D2 that appealed more than the far more numerous ones from the G3 months after the event, especially when the images are mostly deeper DoF where the IQ differences are not that great? Is it because the effort of dragging out the 5D meant I was being more purposeful or deliberate in my photography, is it because the G3 lacks the potential m43 IQ magic suggested for the EM5. Something other?

Anyway, wondered if anyone else had similar or contra thoughts on their FF vs m43 at the point the rubber hits the road (prints for display).

I call it loveliness. It just jumps out at you with a D700 or E1. Micro is a bit flat.

 

[paratom]

I also use m4/3 and larger sensors (Leica M and S2, D700 not so much any more) and just yesterday I thought the following:

-with m4/3 and the OMD with its fast AF I take more "good" images, but when using the S2/M9 I get more "very good" images.

Some of the possible reasons:

1) I seem to frame better and see the subject better when using an OVF

2) I like shallow DOF which is easier to produce with a larger sensor and fast primes

3) Images from a larger sensor seem to look more 3d and more brilliant with more depth often. I can explain it but thats what I believe to see

I have to say that the OMD image are a step forward compared to earlier m4/3 I have checked out.

But if I use my S2 I took less images but they allmost allways turn out better than I hoped/thought. With the OMD I "get" all the shots but it doesnt happen often that I am "blown" away when looking at the result.