@buratino you can infer whichever way you want to. I know what I want and I have it. I know what I miss or rather know maybe missing in my setup yet I don't miss it as it is not high enough up in my requirements priority list. And don't forget I have a big brother ff system with 1.8's also with fairly investment amount of lenses and cameras.

As I said in my last sentence all my systems have some strengths. I pick and choose depending on my objective. And I will say it again Micro 4/3rd is my favorite go-to. Honestly I never felt compromised when using micro 4/3rd in real life shooting. Any subject be it indoors, portraits, wildlife, landscape. So go on inferring whatever one wants to.

Of course it depends on what you value. I've used both Olympus and Panasonic bodies. Often when traveling, I try to go really light and have been using a GX9. Love my GX9 but I think if were buying an m43 body for travel right now I'd probably go for the Olympus E-M5iii. Better IBIS, better EVF, weather sealed... I've travelled with only 14-140 and PL15 f/1.7, so how much weight will you tolerate? In many situations IBIS with fast primes is a huge asset, especially for old guys like me.

@“It is just a tool” On APS-C you only need the lens to be f4 to get similar results. On FF you only need f/5.6 to get similar results.

I don't need similar results. If I wanted similar result I would have bought that system. And have to deal with the corresponding pros and cons. A real con is that they don't have such an great lens at this low price.

Good for you. I don't care that much for razor thin DoF. I know perfectly what my equipment is capable of.
The M.Zuiko is the superior lens to any sub 1000 euro ff kitlens. Just take it out in real life.

I don't see any better images in your galary. As usael with the equivalent Gestapo.

Dear ecka84, If the M43 system satisfies my shooting and publishing needs, equivalence means nothing to me. Optically, this is a true 12-40mm f/2.8 lens. Not only it requires the technological perfection of any other similar f2.8 pro lens, it also has to do it in a smaller body (higher miniaturization) with the sharpness necessary to satisfy a sensor with a higher photosite density. Its use on a sensor smaller than 35mm modifies its angle of view, nothing else. Who cares if its image circle is smaller than FF? It does cover the sensor for which it was designed perfectly. BTW, if I (rarely) need more than what my M43 system can give me, I use my Nikon D750 with f/2.8 zooms.

@It is just a tool
And I don't see your galleries :).
The point is that I've already saved a ton of money by not buying the overpriced crop.

@wondrouslightdotcom
I have no problem with people using MFT and being satisfied with it. I don't like people preaching ignorance and lies.

"Who cares if its image circle is smaller than FF?" - Everyone should. The image circle is made of light. Smaller circle = less light. Less light = worse image quality.

When stupidity rules the world, people get killed.

So what are you doing here (in this MFT item) Herr Otto Flick from the equivalent Gestapo?
I don't care about your opinion or choices.

@ecka84 You do not know what you're talking about. For a given EV, a FF camera and an M43 will expose similarly: for the purposes of a correctly exposed image, they will use similar settings.

If you were correct, for a shot that a FF camera exposes correctly at f4, an M43 camera would expose it at f2. It will not. It will expose it at f4. Why? Because while the lens gathers less light, it is covering a smaller area with it. Total light is less, but the image circle is smaller. The amount of light per unit area on the sensor is the same.

This is not theoretical on my part. Flickr just went tango uniform right after I made an album on there for you, so we'll have to use this "GoToSchool" folder on my Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/76m4x0dper08ly1/AADaUS_znS3Lo25BowGcD7gaa?dl=0

Straight OOC JPEGs. One: Olympus OM-D E-M1.2, M. Zuiko 25mm f1.2 lens. The Other: Leica SL, 50mm Summilux-SL. Settings were manual, f1.4, ISO 200, 1/30th. Handheld, because I'm already doing you a favor here, not getting out a tripod.

For light gathering purposes, they are identical. If M43 were so light poor as you claim, it would be two stops underexposed compared to the full-frame Leica. But it isn't.

FF fanboys generally have some deep misunderstandings about the systems they heap scorn upon.

Guys, there are two legit ways you can approach science: you can either do the math yourself or trust the people who can do the math for you. So far this thread is full of people who don't want to do the math but also don't want to believe the people who can. I'm going to spell it out for you one more time because I'm trying to be nice:
1. EV is measured in Lux, eg. 1 EV = 5 Lux
2. Lux = lumen / square meter
3. Lumen is basically photons / second
4. Photons = information
From 1,2,3,4: INFORMATION = EV * AREA * TIME.
I'm going to repeat, just in case you somehow missed this:
INFORMATION = EV * AREA * TIME.
INFORMATION = EV * AREA * TIME.
INFORMATION = EV * AREA * TIME.
So FOR GIVEN EV YOU NEED TO MAXIMIZE AREA AND TIME TO GET MOST INFORMATION!!!
Please, this is probably grade 9 level math at most!
If you don't want to do math, please just trust the real scientists, please stop doing pseudoscience! You are killing me!

@ecka84 No, you're wrong. The Olympus image is not significantly darker than the Leica: just now, doing a bit of area sampling of the images in Photoshop, the biggest difference was about 5-6% darker, with most areas being less than that, like 1-2%. That's just minor variation in cameras and lenses. You, who are claiming 2 stops difference in light gathering ability, are simply wrong.

No one is arguing that DoF for a given FoV is different, because the m43 lens is wider. That's uninterestingly true. You've been saying that, because the M43 lens gathers less light, it is functionally equivalent to a FF lens two stops slower. You are very, very wrong.

When I adapt a FF lens to the M43 camera, according to you, since it's passing 4x as much light, it should expose quite differently. It does not. An f4 Nikon FX lens behaves identically to an M43 lens at f4, as far as exposure of images is concerned.

In the GoToSchool folder, I have added two more images, comparing a Nikon lens (Nikkor 20mm f4) on M43 and a native lens on M43 (12-40mm f2.8 Pro set to 20mm and f4). With aperture set to f4, and ISO set to 500, the camera chose the same shutter for each image.

The exposure properties of each lens were the same. Color cast is different, because they're different lenses with different glass. But, according to you, because the FF lens is delivering so much more total light, it is equivalent to a much faster M43 lens.

There is no difference in aperture between FF and M43 lenses that relates to exposing an image. There is a difference in DoF at given FoV equivalencies, but there is no difference in speed as it relates to capturing an image.

To sum: M43 lenses pass less total light than FF lenses. This is because they have smaller image circles to encompass a smaller sensor. FF lenses pass more total light, because they have larger image circles to encompass larger sensors.

But this total light does not get reflected as a difference in lens speed for the purposes of actually creating a photograph. This is because, at a given f-stop, lenses are passing the same amount of light per unit area. If you only need to cover a smaller area, you design lenses with a smaller image circle to pass less total light. But this does not result in a slower lens for the purposes of exposure.

I am right, you are wrong. QED.

@hteasley, sorry but you are wrong. The speed is affected because you need to make the exposure time 4x longer to gather the same amount of information and achieve the same signal-to-noise ratio (i.e, noise level).
INFORMATION = EV * AREA * TIME.
If you reduce area by 4x then you need to increase time by 4x to get the same image. Therefore speed is affected.
I'm sure you are 10x better photographer than I am. I do science for a living, not photography.
What you need to understand is that when you shoot same F-number, same ISO and same shutter speed, the image you get from the MFT only contains 1/4 of the information compared to FF image even though you can't always see it with naked eye.
It doesn't mean that you can't create great images with MFT cameras. I LOVE mft cameras!

@TheWintermute Ugh, you're so wrong. You have miscontrued the issue as one simply of "quantity of information". But that is completely irrelevant. Completely and utterly. This is not an ethernet cable sending packets, where more packets means more data which means more or larger files.

This is about necessary light transmission to correctly expose a photo. When you have 1/4 the area to cover, you only need 1/4 of the light. Giving 1/4 of the area 4x the light it needs results in a *vastly* overexposed photo. The amount of light per unit area is the same with FF lenses as it is with M43 lenses.

The reason why M43 sensors provide, in general, 1 stop more noise than FF sensors does not have to do with how much total light is transmitted to the sensor. It has to do with how large each photosite on the sensor is.

When I say the image contains 1/4 of the information it doesn't mean that it's darker. In this this example it's just noisier.
Why don't you read the excellent DPreview article on shot noise by Richard Butler?
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise

Larger sensors with same F-number lenses are "faster" than smaller sensors because you can get same image quality (noise level) at shorter shutter speed.

If you want to say "M43 sensors have inherently more noise at low light than full frame sensors" then say that. It will be true.

You cannot say "Full frame lenses are faster" because they aren't. You cannot say "Full frame cameras are faster" because they aren't. You cannot say "Full frame cameras always provide lower noise" because they don't.

You don't appear to be basing any of what you say on actually taking photos.

@hteasely A7r picture and A7s picture have about the same amount of noise unless you engage in completely pointless activity of comparing 100% crops of images with different resolution.
Go to DXomark, compare A7RII and A7SII, look at the plot of SNR 18% (signal-to-noise ratio). They are virtually the same.
When you print an image you don't print just 1000x1000 pixels from one camera and then 1000x1000 pixels from another camera, right?
You print the whole image from each camera, I hope?

@hteasely
"M43 sensors have inherently more noise at low light than full frame sensors"
This statement is completely and utterly false.
Noise level of the image is proportional to illuminance on the sensor times area of the sensor times exposure time.
M43 don't inherently have higher noise at low light level. They have higher noise unless you expose them for a LONGER TIME, this is why they are SLOWER.

I am going to stop reading this thread now. I think we all agree on all points except what is a good definition of "speed" for a camera-lens combination. My definition is "how short of a shutter speed I can use while still getting good image quality", your definition of speed is something else. That's fine. Happy shooting, enjoy your weekend, I hope you get some good photos!

@ecka84 Your argument is incoherent. You claim FF lenses convey 4x the light, and are therefor faster, but then you admit that, for the purposes of making a photo, they're the same speed as M43 lenses, because what really matters is the amount of light that hits the sensor, which is what I've said all along. For the purposes of exposing a photograph, their aperture is the same: there is no equivalence in light gathering, they are the same. f2.8 for M43 is f2.8 for FF.

If equivalence worked as you describe, f5.6 on FF and f2.8 on M43 would expose similarly. They do not. You have taken the concept of equivalence and applied it uniformly to all aspects of these lenses, which is wrong. It applies to one aspect, DoF relative to equivalent FoV. That's it.

And you're conflating sensor properties with lens properties, because you're confused.

It is slow when compared to FF, but if you are a FF fan then yours is slow when compared to MF.... but f/2.8 in m43 land isn't slow. Not fast, but not slow either.

F2.8 is F2.8 …. the amount of light hitting the sensor is the same...the only difference is the the DOF and look.

@firemothsa, No offence but you clearly don’t know physics. Also, you don’t understand what “fast” lens means. I would be happy to explain, PM me if you want, but also all information is online you just have to be willing to work through it.

@firemothsa As you said it gives you same about of light per square inch but small sensor has less square inches of area, so in the end you have less light. Does that make sense? For example, let's say given F-number gives you 100 lumen/sq_meter on the sensor. Then with m43 sensor you get 100 lumen/sq_meter * 225 sq_mm = 0.0225 lumen. With FF sensor you get 100 lumen/sq_meter * 864 sq_mm = 0.0864 lumen. Makes sense?

I own a m43 camera and I love it but when I’m using it I know that I’m trading ultimate image quality for size, weight and speed of operation and I don’t lie to myself that image quality is just as good. Every time you shoot below ISO800 on full-frame you get image quality that cannot be matched by a m43 camera no matter what lens you put on it. A lot of time though I know I don’t need that image quality and then I grab my m43 camera. At other times I do want the image quality and then I grab my FF camera. It’s as simple as that.

@ ecka 84 you said"let's say given F-number gives you 100 lumen/sq_meter on the sensor. Then with m43 sensor you get 100 lumen/sq_meter * 225 sq_mm = 0.0225 lumen. With FF sensor you get 100 lumen/sq_meter * 864 sq_mm = 0.0864 lumen." The calculation doesn't work that way… the ratio is determined by the diameter of the lens compared to how much it is focused on the sensor. The FF sensor may be 4 times bigger but at F2.0 it is getting 4 times less light per square mm than an MFT sensor at F2.0. But as the FF sensor is 4 times bigger it ends up with the same total light hitting the sensor. just like a magnifying glass at different distances to an object. The difference between the two formats is DOF an noise from the sensor. MFT has more noise as the pixels are smaller. In good light you really can't tell the difference (even pros can't) in low light its a different story, as the ISO increases MFT gets a lot more noise.

@firemothsa, yes f/2 on MFT magically produces higher illuminance, small pixels generate noise, the earth is flat, god created it 5000 years ago, dinosaur bones were planted by conspiracists, people never landed on the moon, coronavirus is a hoax.

For anyone following this chain of replies, look to my comments in another chain: TheWintermute and ecka84 do not know what they're talking about. For the purposes of exposing an image, aperture speed is identical between M43 and FF lenses.

To prove my point, I actually took some photos, instead of simply relying on incorrect received wisdom.

It much more demanding actually, and it's been hashed out in countless discussions on the boards. The logic is perhaps a bit counter intuitive at first, but if you take your own advice you can easily figure it out... The frame is shifted by 1 pixel or half pixel increments, and if the lens isn't resolving enough to eke out a clear difference between any one pixel and the next one over then you have a garbage in garbage out situation - where high res mode isn't really improving much. So HR mode is in effect much more reliant on sharp lenses to produce significantly better results.

@CaPi -- I know the process very well because I use it for most of my work with EM5-II and EM1-II cameras. With careful technique and the right subject, it definitely can reveal the performance of a good lens (such as the older SHG models) better than normal capture mode.

The Olympus high res is much more demanding. If you have an m43 lens that's less than spectacular, it will look defective on the edges and in the corners when used with high res. In fact, it's a good way to test a lens if you're prepared to be unhappy.

Olympus and Panasonic have different IS approaches. Oly uses in-body IS (IBIS) and Pana uses optical IS (OIS) that is to say, in the lens. The 12-40mm has no stabilisation. It relies on the IBIS of Oly cameras. It works perfectly well on Pana cameras but of course there is IS.
A couple of Oly's most recent lenses have OIS as well. As I understand it, the IS works well on Pana bodies but it is intended to work cooperatively with the IBIS on Oly bodies for enhanced IS.

The lenses, for the most part, are perfectly compatible between manufacturers in the m4/3 system. Both Panasonic and Olympus have 5 axis (6 to 7.5 stops CIPA rated) IBIS in their modern bodies (G9, GX9, G90, E-M5 III, E-M1 II, E-M1 III, etc.). The differences are that Dual IS (OIS + IBIS) does not work if you mix lenses and bodies between the manufacturers.

That is, the Olympus 12-100 f/4 Pro will not enable Dual IS on a Panasonic body and the Panasonic plethora of OIS lenses (50-200 f/2.8-4, 100-400 f/4-6.3, etc.) will not enable Dual IS on an Olympus body.

One other issue is that Panasonic's super fast AF-S DFD system will not work with Olympus lenses. The flip side is that Olympus uses PDAF for all their bodies except the Pens and E-M10 series. The net result is that they autofocus Panasonic lenses (nearly) the same as their own native lenses, albeit more slowly and the Olympus bodies have a higher miss rate in low light.

Lenses with IS will work (with IS) on either brand of body.

A body with IS will work (with IS) on lenses of either brand.

Dual IS is only available on matched-brand body and lens.

Without Dual IS, stabilization is generally excellent -- outstanding on the higher-end bodies. The extra step up with Dual IS is modest.

Many Olympus lenses -- including the 1240PRO highlighted in the above article -- don't have IS, because Olympus µ4/3 bodies had IS right from the start.

Bob, all recent mid and high range Panasonic cameras have IBIS too.

s1oth1ovechunk:
Thanks, I didn't know that. Apologies to those that read my post above.

I own an Olympus OM-D E-M10 II and a Panasonic GX80 plus various Oly and Pana kits zooms and primes.
I encounter AF issues when using some Pana lenses on the E-M10 II, at short focal lengths where the DOF is already big wideopen. The AF hunts a lot in (not so) low light. Unlike "unhappymeal" says, the AF seems to move as fast as on the GX80, but fails too often. The failure rate also depends on the AF mode (single, multi, magnifier).

I've not had any S-AF issues whatsoever with my bevy of Pana lenses on my two E-M5 (II/III), and dual/sync IS isn't that big a deal < 100mm IMO... It's always been unclear how much the so called profiles for DFD help when you match Pana lenses with Pana bodies and how much of DFD is simply better algorithms and more processing power.

There's a handful of lens specific quirks, like Pana bodies outright disabling C-AF with the 20/1.7 (Oly bodies will let you try it, but you really shouldn't), or the Pana 7-14 f4 flaring/interacting badly with the weaker UV filter of the on sensor stack on Oly bodies... But these are obscure outliers. I'd say you don't really have to worry about cross compatibility issues unless you're shooting very fast action or very long focal lengths (or are looking to buy that 7-14).

Addendum: Years ago (like 5+) there were some differences in the way CA corrections were applied (or not applied) and ever so often someone brings it up, but that's been the same across the board since the G5 or G6 for Pana and since the original E-M1 for Oly, so not a concern unless you buy a really old body.

Olympus lenses don't do dual stabilization on Panasonic bodies, and vice versa. IBIS works with all lenses regardless of brand. A few early Panasonic lenses had bad CA on Olympus bodies. The 7-14 f/4 was noted for this. Theoretically, Panasonic lenses will focus faster on Panasonic bodies than Olympus lenses because of DFD. I don't notice any real world difference with relatively modern lenses. I have the Olympus 12-40 and don't find any issues using it on Panasonic bodies. I certainly don't notice any difference. I'm pretty agnostic about mixing and matching between Panasonic and Olympus gear. Again, there are a few limitations and a few of the early lenses had some less than desirable habits with bodies from the other manufacturer.

Oh, and software for improving noise and IQ overall has greatly improved in the past year alone. It is amazing what can be done. I get it if you don't want to take the time, but most pictures don't need it.
30 inch prints was always my "good enough" limit, and almost all ILCs hit that awhile ago.

Because the world need another "ME TOO!!" FF camera option...

@ CaNikonianite - So please, do tell... how does a struggling camera division introduce a completely new mount/bodies/lenses in an already overcrowded (and shrinking daily) market and make money? Then we'll add in a world that's in utter chaos on top. Seriously, I'm all ears...

There are more than enough excellent FF options out their. There is nothing Oly could bring to the party that it hasn't already done.

Oly's appeal is in their clarity of vision for their ILC division. "Outstanding images combined with unrivaled mobility and freedom."

I hope they keep it that way.

No one needs more FF options on the market. Seriously not.

@ CaNikonianite - "That's not my concern."
Thanks for one of the most idiotic replies I've ever seen!

Eh, there are very few 24-70 f/4 FF lenses on par with the size and quality of the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 Pro. For modern mirrorless, there's the Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 S and....maybe the Canon RF 24-104? Otherwise you're stuck shelling out for the massively more expensive (and larger) f/2.8 FF zooms.

If FF'rs had gone with a large sensor with a 4:3 format, they could have saved themselves cost and size on their f/2.8 lenses, achieved the same large sensor quality and the lenses wouldn't have to be stopped-down (thereby losing some of the ISO edge of large sensors) in order to match the Olympus edge quality. This may be changing, some of the new (and expensive of course) FF mirrorless lenses are very good.

@TheWintermute, yeah so I can crop it to 16:9 ratio and throw away 2/3 of the pixel every time. LOL.

I agree it's a great sharp and versatile lens, great for travelling and landscapes but just a tad too big for street.

5.6 equiv..

.....here we go again!

Who cares, bokeh is not DoF. And you can get bokeh balls or just plain blurry background with this lens the same way you can get it with any other lens on any other camera.

Look at image #2 of 54, hummm, i got a little headache, maybe i got that from the "Shelter in Place " not the Bokeh from this lens, LOL.

Bokeh is not a great feature of this lens. It can exhibit nasty 'onion-ring' structure and outlining in out-of-focus highlights. It sucks a little less stopped down a bit.

For the 'equivalence' commenter above - just stop. It's a 12-40mm f/2.8 lens. Designed with an appropriate image circle, it would exhibit the same DoF on any format.

Tobamory, I hope that's a typing error & it was the lens that snapped in half, not you.

I paid top dollar for the 24-70 gm. I kept it really pristine but one day I was caught in rain and got some drops on the camera which were unavoidable but I had a cloth and wiped any droplets off. Nothing to worry about since I had similar 24-70 with nikon and it was built tough. Next thing I know the plastic around the zoom ring comes off. This is a lens that was 3 months old. Meanwhile the 12-40 is years old and has been subjected to a LOT of dust, rain, even has a lot of buffing due to usage. WORKS LIKE DAY 1.

None of the ILC galleries look much better than a smartphone until you open them full screen or pixel peep. And those $3000+ cameras with bad jpeg colors can look even worse.
Canon, FujiFilm and Olympus do have a nice a advantage due to better default colors.

Must be one heck of a phone because no phone currently on the market produces image quality that high

In terms of DR, contrast and sometimes color this gallery looks much worse than most phone galleries.

But in terms of detail, noise etc... it looks better than phones. The good news is you can fix the first things in a RAW developer, the bad news is that you have to fix them in a RAW developer

Are you looking at them on your phone?

@panther fan

So you're saying that to reach the level of many smartphones, these pictures taken on an Olympus camera, a manufacturer known for the excellent look of its jpegs, with an excellent lens need to be tweaked in a RAW developer? Okay...

@Alex Hanin
Just take a look at picture 12, real-life might have been dull that day, but a smartphone would have never delivered a picture that needs so much work

Or image 35, smartphone HDR wouldn't have broken on those highlights

Or image 21 a smartphone wouldn't have allowed the front of the face to be so dark

Camera JPEG engines are pretty good at realism. But once the light isn't perfect smartphones just take over. I don't know a single camera manufacturer for example that selectively brightens faces. Sure you might argue you should fix that before capture. But for a snapshot device, the more intelligent smartphone engines are simply better

"Just take a look at picture 12"
No smartphone could come close without using a multi-exposure mode. Either the "white" ground would have been blown out or the detail in the rocks would be gone.
You really don't have a clue.

Ironically a FF camera mostly could not have done better because of the wide DoF. Part of the is the focus is on the background and F4.5 was too narrow too.

@C plus plus
? Multi Frame stacking is of course standard and has been for years. You cannot even turn that off on modern smartphones

Also what has the sensor size to do with it. The data is there. The JPEG engine is falling flat, not the capture. That's why I said you need a RAW developer

Never mind, I was right Panther fan is clueless and wasn't smart enough to read: "Converted from Raw using ACR 12.2 with lens corrections turned off and sharpening set to 25. Edits limited to exposure values and white balance."

@C plus plus
True, didn't read that. You cannot see it on the mobile version.
That said I think my original comment still holds true

detail, noise -real camera better

dr, contrast -smartphone better for both JPEG engine and default RAW conversion, you need to manually develop the files

color -better on camera in optimal conditions, better on smartphones in poor conditions

Glen; Bingo

I think you are not alone.

Uh, no. M4/3 sensors have not progressed as have the sensors in, say, the Canon M6 II.

@dmanthree
That's because Canon has caught up with the rest. But Sony sensor in Sony/ Nikon / Fuji cameras have shown slow progress. And it seems all sensor manufacturers are hitting the same limit. More is just not possible with silicon sensors.

All sensor progress is slow these days and has been for a good while, just the nature of things, luckily the latest/best 20MP M4/3 sensor was on the leading edge of readout speed (1/60 vs 1/40 for what Fuji is using or vs ~1/20 for what a lot of others are using, outside of the A9 at 1/180) and that enables some pretty interesting features and burst rates. It's about where it should be for the size in all other regards (DR, res, etc.).