What are full-framers missing by not using M4/3

[HicHic]

There are the RF 100-400/5.6-8 and 800mm and 1200mm f8 primes.

I’m also not sure who buys them, but they seem like Canon worried about lighter and cheaper tele lenses for APSC and MFT bodies. Sample images from the 800/8 don’t exactly wow me.

As the owner of a 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM and a 40-150/2.8 Pro, I’d have doubts about the usability of the RF 100-400mm above. The Sigma 100-400 is f5.6-6.3, and not exactly heavy or expensive.

The Sony 400-800 is f6.3-8. Not really looked at it - too heavy for me! The 600/4 GM is on another level entirely.

A

Last night, I used the 400-800 on an A1ii alongside my 150-400 + OM-1. They feel very similar in hand in terms of size and weight. The 400-800 is very slightly heavier, but it's also slightly faster at 800mm (F9 at 800mm with 150-400).

 

[ahaslett]

There are the RF 100-400/5.6-8 and 800mm and 1200mm f8 primes.

I’m also not sure who buys them, but they seem like Canon worried about lighter and cheaper tele lenses for APSC and MFT bodies. Sample images from the 800/8 don’t exactly wow me.

As the owner of a 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM and a 40-150/2.8 Pro, I’d have doubts about the usability of the RF 100-400mm above. The Sigma 100-400 is f5.6-6.3, and not exactly heavy or expensive.

The Sony 400-800 is f6.3-8. Not really looked at it - too heavy for me! The 600/4 GM is on another level entirely.

A

Last night, I used the 400-800 on an A1ii alongside my 150-400 + OM-1. They feel very similar in hand in terms of size and weight. The 400-800 is very slightly heavier, but it's also slightly faster at 800mm (F9 at 800mm with 150-400).

I’ve tested low light AF on an OM1 at 150/2.8 vs an A7Riv at 300/5.6. No contest, although the A7Riv wasn’t too bad.

How did AF perform on the Sony?

I guess the Sony lens is only 600g heavier. The 300/4 is more like my limit, although I can just about handle a Sigma 50-500mm in FT mount.

A

 

[HicHic]

There are the RF 100-400/5.6-8 and 800mm and 1200mm f8 primes.

I’m also not sure who buys them, but they seem like Canon worried about lighter and cheaper tele lenses for APSC and MFT bodies. Sample images from the 800/8 don’t exactly wow me.

As the owner of a 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM and a 40-150/2.8 Pro, I’d have doubts about the usability of the RF 100-400mm above. The Sigma 100-400 is f5.6-6.3, and not exactly heavy or expensive.

The Sony 400-800 is f6.3-8. Not really looked at it - too heavy for me! The 600/4 GM is on another level entirely.

A

Last night, I used the 400-800 on an A1ii alongside my 150-400 + OM-1. They feel very similar in hand in terms of size and weight. The 400-800 is very slightly heavier, but it's also slightly faster at 800mm (F9 at 800mm with 150-400).

I’ve tested low light AF on an OM1 at 150/2.8 vs an A7Riv at 300/5.6. No contest, although the A7Riv wasn’t too bad.

How did AF perform on the Sony?

I guess the Sony lens is only 600g heavier. The 300/4 is more like my limit, although I can just about handle a Sigma 50-500mm in FT mount.

A

AF on the Sony was impressive. In the past few weeks I tried A7RV, A1, and then A1ii. The A1s were much better than the A7RV. If the A1s are 10/10, then the A7RV performed closer to a 6 or 7. OM-1 is extremely inconsistent. Sometimes it's 8/10, but sometimes the results are 2/10. For no apparent reason either. Same settings and environment, one precapture burst would have 75% in focus, and the next would have less than 20%.

Also, the A1 AF doesn't get critical eye focus all the time. It is just like the OM-1 where it will slightly miss the eye and front/back focus a little bit, but the amount that it misses is much much smaller. You really have to pixel peep at 400% to see that there is a very slight miss. On the OM-1, the slight back and forth misses are much more significant, to the point of making the shot unusable. To put it another way, if 0mm is nail on focus, then the A1s would miss the eye by about +/-2cm off the eye, but the OM-1 swings can be as significant as +/-30cm from critical eye focus. Both lenses have roughly the same DoF (800mm F8 vs 800mm F9 - the M43 setup has a slightly easier job at F9).

 

[WilyKit]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

 

[HicHic]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

My flagship 150-400 is a F4.5 lens (F9 equivalent DoF - by no means a razor thin DoF - M43 wishes they can produce that look).

It is much thinner if you are using a 600/4 on a Sony, which gets the shots in focus. They are not pulsing within the +/-30cm range.

 

[WilyKit]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

My flagship 150-400 is a F4.5 lens (F9 equivalent DoF - by no means a razor thin DoF - M43 wishes they can produce that look).

It is much thinner if you are using a 600/4 on a Sony, which gets the shots in focus. They are not pulsing within the +/-30cm range.

You have a 600mm f/4?.... who has such a lens?... You actually used that? They cost as much as a nice car. Anyway, with such SUPER MEGA ULTRA THIN DOF, it's hardly the lens or the camera that cause the problems, it's usually either YOU or the SUBJECT, because any slight tiny movement can shift the focus on the tiny little part you wanted to keep in focus within your picture that's made up of mostly a crazy amount of blur.

 

[James Stirling]

There’s been arguments by full frame fans that we are missing something by not shooting full frame. But what are full framers missing out on by not shooting micro 4/3? What are the things you can’t get except through micro 4/3?

first? A Pro macro lens with autofocus and ability to focus bracket while being over 2:1

The "pro" lens as tested on lenstip has a peak LW/PH score of 1904 the Laowa FFII 90 mm f/2.8 CA-Dreamer Macro 2X has a LW/PH score 3764. Laowa is about to release AF lenses including a 180mm macro 1.5x which will be available for 45mp Z mount cameras and up to 61mp FE cameras

magnification and ability to use with a teleconverter and get 4:1 magnification. The full framer will argue that they have the MPE-65 and Laowa lenses that can get 5:1 - however no auto focus and no ability to focus bracket while setting the camera down and tapping the screen to do a stack of 150+ images at 4:1 such as these shots, all over 4:1 and all over 150 images stacked…

look around. 90% of the amazing bug macro shots you’ll see online aren’t from full frame - they are using the Olympus/OM System macro gear which is unmatched for what it can do in the field without need of an automated rail

m43 is not taking 90% of any of amazing images in any genre of photography. That is the notions promoted here by a number of OM fans who seem to live in a bubble. There have been folk making superb extreme macro images for many years. You are conflating being more convenient with being impossible

You regularly post excellent images that prove m43 can do the job I am certainly not saying otherwise, The hyperbole of your statement that 90% of amazing insect shot are being taken by m43 is bordering on comedy

--
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

 

[HicHic]

Anyway, with such SUPER MEGA ULTRA THIN DOF

 

[number_5]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

My flagship 150-400 is a F4.5 lens (F9 equivalent DoF - by no means a razor thin DoF - M43 wishes they can produce that look).

It is much thinner if you are using a 600/4 on a Sony, which gets the shots in focus. They are not pulsing within the +/-30cm range.

You have a 600mm f/4?.... who has such a lens?... You actually used that? They cost as much as a nice car. Anyway, with such SUPER MEGA ULTRA THIN DOF, it's hardly the lens or the camera that cause the problems, it's usually either YOU or the SUBJECT, because any slight tiny movement can shift the focus on the tiny little part you wanted to keep in focus within your picture that's made up of mostly a crazy amount of blur.

I wish people making comment like this actually has experience with the setup. Unlike macro, they are not as thin as you think.

Both are @ f/4.

 

[WilyKit]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

My flagship 150-400 is a F4.5 lens (F9 equivalent DoF - by no means a razor thin DoF - M43 wishes they can produce that look).

It is much thinner if you are using a 600/4 on a Sony, which gets the shots in focus. They are not pulsing within the +/-30cm range.

You have a 600mm f/4?.... who has such a lens?... You actually used that? They cost as much as a nice car. Anyway, with such SUPER MEGA ULTRA THIN DOF, it's hardly the lens or the camera that cause the problems, it's usually either YOU or the SUBJECT, because any slight tiny movement can shift the focus on the tiny little part you wanted to keep in focus within your picture that's made up of mostly a crazy amount of blur.

I wish people making comment like this actually has experience with the setup. Unlike macro, they are not as thin as you think.

Both are @ f/4.

I thought this was about macro. Anyway, yeah the second picture shows how barely usable it is in most cases even WAYYY further than macro. The first picture came out well enough because the subject wasn't ruined, but with the typical extreme "subject separation" (I hate the backgrounds in both pictures).

 

[danieljcox]

The number one thing full framers are missing is the ability to use the finest wildlife lens ever manufactured, that being the 150-400mm.

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

There’s been arguments by full frame fans that we are missing something by not shooting full frame. But what are full framers missing out on by not shooting micro 4/3? What are the things you can’t get except through micro 4/3?

first? A Pro macro lens with autofocus and ability to focus bracket while being over 2:1

The "pro" lens as tested on lenstip has a peak LW/PH score of 1904 the Laowa FFII 90 mm f/2.8 CA-Dreamer Macro 2X has a LW/PH score 3764. Laowa is about to release AF lenses including a 180mm macro 1.5x which will be available for 45mp Z mount cameras and up to 61mp FE cameras

magnification and ability to use with a teleconverter and get 4:1 magnification. The full framer will argue that they have the MPE-65 and Laowa lenses that can get 5:1 - however no auto focus and no ability to focus bracket while setting the camera down and tapping the screen to do a stack of 150+ images at 4:1 such as these shots, all over 4:1 and all over 150 images stacked…

look around. 90% of the amazing bug macro shots you’ll see online aren’t from full frame - they are using the Olympus/OM System macro gear which is unmatched for what it can do in the field without need of an automated rail

m43 is not taking 90% of any of amazing images in any genre of photography. That is the notions promoted here by a number of OM fans who seem to live in a bubble. There have been folk making superb extreme macro images for many years. You are conflating being more convenient with being impossible

You regularly post excellent images that prove m43 can do the job I am certainly not saying otherwise, The hyperbole of your statement that 90% of amazing insect shot are being taken by m43 is bordering on comedy

Ya because FF cannot be used for macro



















Image below showing the above shot and its size

























Even started to do some stacking



First go stacking



Second go

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

 

[HicHic]

I thought this was about macro

150-400 and 400-800 for macro? You replied to my comment about 150-400 and 400-800. I was talking about those lenses because ahaslett asked me about my experience with the Sony setup in regards to AF performance - I wasn't even talking to you. We were talking about AF performance for birding.







No, no you don't have to - especially if you didn't even read.

 

[WilyKit]

I thought this was about macro

150-400 and 400-800 for macro? You replied to my comment about 150-400 and 400-800. I was talking about those lenses because ahaslett asked me about my experience with the Sony setup in regards to AF performance - I wasn't even talking to you. We were talking about AF performance for birding.



No, no you don't have to - especially if you didn't even read.

Hah, well my comment was accurate regardless of whether or not this was about macro. And the 150-400 has very close focusing ability (I guess not exactly technically "macro") so yeah I thought this was related to the original post of this forum thread. Stupid me for assuming people stay on topic. But DON'T WORRY, I will try NOT to get into your personal public discussions again!

 

[HicHic]

I will try NOT to get into your personal public discussions again!

Thanks!

 

[jjbinx]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

I've read reports here of OM cameras missing focus or focus slightly drifting when shooting birds in flight.

In view of your DoF comments I'm wondering what this says about the OM cameras given that m4/3 supposedly has the advantage of a wider DoF

jj

 

[HicHic]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

I've read reports here of OM cameras missing focus or focus slightly drifting when shooting birds in flight.
In view of your DoF comments I'm wondering what this says about the OM cameras given that m4/3 supposedly has the advantage of a wider DoF

jj

Someone with intelligence chimes in!

 

[James Stirling]

There’s been arguments by full frame fans that we are missing something by not shooting full frame. But what are full framers missing out on by not shooting micro 4/3? What are the things you can’t get except through micro 4/3?

first? A Pro macro lens with autofocus and ability to focus bracket while being over 2:1

The "pro" lens as tested on lenstip has a peak LW/PH score of 1904 the Laowa FFII 90 mm f/2.8 CA-Dreamer Macro 2X has a LW/PH score 3764. Laowa is about to release AF lenses including a 180mm macro 1.5x which will be available for 45mp Z mount cameras and up to 61mp FE cameras

magnification and ability to use with a teleconverter and get 4:1 magnification. The full framer will argue that they have the MPE-65 and Laowa lenses that can get 5:1 - however no auto focus and no ability to focus bracket while setting the camera down and tapping the screen to do a stack of 150+ images at 4:1 such as these shots, all over 4:1 and all over 150 images stacked…

look around. 90% of the amazing bug macro shots you’ll see online aren’t from full frame - they are using the Olympus/OM System macro gear which is unmatched for what it can do in the field without need of an automated rail

m43 is not taking 90% of any of amazing images in any genre of photography. That is the notions promoted here by a number of OM fans who seem to live in a bubble. There have been folk making superb extreme macro images for many years. You are conflating being more convenient with being impossible

You regularly post excellent images that prove m43 can do the job I am certainly not saying otherwise, The hyperbole of your statement that 90% of amazing insect shot are being taken by m43 is bordering on comedy

Ya because FF cannot be used for macro

Your images are all excellent but obviously you must have changed the exif as such lovely images could only be taken with the 90mm OM

Image below showing the above shot and its size



















Even started to do some stacking



First go stacking



Second go

--
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

 

[jjbinx]

I'm sorry but I have to comment on this and say that if your DOF is so razor thin that a miniscule front or back focus can mean the difference between success and failure, then the main issue is really the fact that your DOF is so razor thin.

I've read reports here of OM cameras missing focus or focus slightly drifting when shooting birds in flight.
In view of your DoF comments I'm wondering what this says about the OM cameras given that m4/3 supposedly has the advantage of a wider DoF

jj

Someone with intelligence chimes in!

To be clear, I’m not chiming in on any sides here just saying that the oft stated “razor thin DoF” line used against the larger sensors has another side to it . . . the wider DoF of the smaller sensor cameras should result in more forgiveness re AF errors or the AF point wandering off the subjects eye, but I don’t think we see that.

jj

 

[James Stirling]

The number one thing full framers are missing is the ability to use the finest wildlife lens ever manufactured, that being the 150-400mm.

Daniel you are an excellent wildlife photographer and prove every day what can be done with m43 . But declarative statements about x being the finest ever made are firmly in the camp of brand fanatics. Though it plays to the crowd here for sure .