Full Frame versus MFT

If bigger will always be better, then smaller will always be faster.

Hmmm. Try finding a lens with a wide enough aperture to enable differential focus on an MFT sensor.

 

It's dead easy with an f/2 or f/1.4 lens on a 24mm x 36mm sensor.

 

And what MFT sensor can give you decent IQ at 6400 ISO?

 

Conversely, you need a darned big (and expensive) telephoto lens on FF to equal a cheapish 200mm f/4 on MFT. Macro work is also more convenient with a smaller format.

 

There are good reasons for a whole range of sensor sizes to exist and be used. It's a case of 'horses for courses', or just choosing the right tool for the job.

 

No conspiracy of hype. Simply makers responding to demand. If tiny sensors were the be-all and end-all, everyone would be entirely satisfied with a phone camera.

 

That doesn't make the full frame King or Queen as you can still get larger format than full frame (it's silly to call it full frame any way). However, full frame can be King if you're talking about DSLR's use mount designed for the 35mm cameras. In this case any smaller format is considered to have the wrong mount.

Those HUGE full frame lenses, even the fixed focal length lenses, look a bit out of proportion on the new, small mirrorless full frame cameras.

 

You should see my Sony 6400 hanging on the end of my FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS! Guess what? It works really well.

samples samples...

Who made Full Frame King or Queen?

1. The film imaging industry (including labs). - Back in the 80s there were smaller film formats but shooting those did cost more.
   
2. The (heritage) lens (not?) makers. - Ideal perfect lenses don't exist. Something coming optically close might have other flaws be it in the mechanical parts or just the price tag.
   
3. No R&D for something bigger and still competitive AF or low light performance or features like OIS, not IQ wise.
   

Diving into DxO's lens data base the MFT sensors aren't my biggest concern. Like @AlanKlein I'm quite content with results presentable on a 4K screen. The better MFT primes should work fine for me but the endless or cheap zooms not really. Behind two similarly bad lenses the bigger sensor or film tends to win.

I fail to see a benefit in downsizing from FF; I am no birder, a basic Leica M kit meets a lot of my needs and doesn't bother me weight wise, although my lens line is mixed and not strictly optimized for weighing nothing or minimum bulk. A Q would weigh less and who needs something between that and their iPhone?

When I look back at Mamiya 6 & 7, I think FF lens makers could bless us with nice ultra light primes, not faster, just better(!) than kit zooms.

 

According to rumors recently spread by Tony Northrup the price difference between FF & APS C sensors is $150. - So, why bother with the smaller formats at all? Especially when you have a bunch of unspectacular lenses for the bigger one, that will most likely shine on something like an old 5D and suck on 24MP APS/MFT?

 

I am absolutely fine with mixed bags, FF has a significant bulk advantage over "makeshift APS" on the wide end and old wides aren't that great on digital anyhow. If a crop sensor floats your boat at the long end: Toss it in!

Our amateur sides have a problem; they are unlikely to have cameras they didn't like bringing at hand, in the right moment. - Find and live your compromise.

All I can say is I am really enjoying my m43 system, and quality wise I am entirely happy. I feel liberated. I still have the so-called "FF" because it is best for fast moving action, although that will change. I won't miss it when it has gone at this rate. Mind you, I was delighted to be rid of the Hasselblad too after 10 years of use to go to FF digital, so large size has never been a plus in my book. I, for one, welcome the increased depth of field of m43, it largely compensates for the poorer low light performance in normal circumstances, by removing the need to stop down to get anything in focus. If you need a thin slice of focus then you can buy a fast prime.

If you need a thin slice of focus then you can buy a fast prime.

Not really.

Somebody already mentioned f/0.95 primes, but that still doesn't give parity with an f/1.4 lens on full-frame, since you'd need a lens 2 stops faster on M4/3 - f/0.5. That's not going to happen any time soon. Not at an affordable price and with useable quality.

 

Anyhow; I really don't understand why this thread is titled 'Full frame versus MFT'. I didn't know a fight had been officially declared. I thought people had a free choice of which format to use. From phone camera to 10"x8", whatever gets the job done the best.

Somebody already mentioned f/0.95 primes, but that still doesn't give parity with an f/1.4 lens on full-frame, since you'd need a lens 2 stops faster on M4/3 - f/0.5.

Here I thought that 2 stops faster than f/1.4 is f/0.7 - although that would be lenses we won't be seeing anytime soon either; f/0.5 is three stops from f/1.4.

f/0.5 is three stops from f/1.4.

Yes. My mistake. I'm not used to decimal stops below f/1.2!

 

As for a desire to own sub-unity aperture lenses - no thanks.

There is hope for sub-FF formats. There already exists software which emulates bokeh, which I'm sure will continually improve. The old standby, Gaussian Blur, renders OOF point sources of light as a fuzzy, symmetrical blur, whereas a real lens renders them as snowballs, or in the worst case as balloons or onions.

 

If you select sub-FF cameras for a more compact, lighter solution, I'm not sure lenses wider than f/1.4 or shorter than 24 mm fit that particular narrative.

Yes it is silly to be MFT vs FF.

 

With my current kit of f1.2/f1.8 primes I get the equivalent minimum depth of field of a 45mm f2.5 or a 75mm f3.5. Not shabby and just fine for me. There are also f0.95 lenses available if really needed. If one needs to take most pictures with an 85mm at f1.4, then clearly this is not at all satisfactory, but for normal humans I would contend it is perfectly sufficient. One can always focus on some "weakness" of a system and contend that it is a deal breaker. It is a disadvantage in the same way that a 24-70mm zoom for full frame weighs 800+ g and an MFT equivalent weighs about half this. It all depends on what works for you.

shorter than 24 mm fit that particular narrative.

 

Not sure I understand why. The 8-18mm Elmarit and the 7-14 Olympus, in particular, are top-notch lenses and not large. Then there are excellent fisheyes and the Laowa 7.5mm rectilinear and so on.

Then there are excellent fisheyes...

- That's surely an oxymoron?

I wouldn't base my entire camera system buying strategy on the fact that in some extremely rare occasions I might need a shallow DOF.

I wouldn't base my entire camera system buying strategy on the fact that in some extremely rare occasions I might need a shallow DOF.

For some those cases aren't "extremely rare" - just the opposite. Obviously, m4/3 isn't the system they should be choosing then. I always drew the line at APS-C and could not convince myself that m4/3 would be in any way beneficial for me. I admit to have thought about an E-M1 Mkii with the 12-100/4 as a walkaround - quite an expensive proposition at $4k though.

 

I find it hard to make a case for m4/3 when I compare, for example, a system based on the E-M1 MkII to a system based on the Sony A7III. It appears that savings in weight and size are rather negligible - though there's some rather substantial cost saving to be had.

There's been a lot of chat about very fast lenses.

 

I like and I use very fast lenses.

 

Smaller format cameras combined with very fast lenses might not be everyone's cup of tea, but for some, they are.

 

The characteristics of: light weight; compactness and for want of better phrase 'light gathering ability' makes for a kit of fun tools which is useful for many aspects of available light photography.

 

I see my APS-C gear as a supplement to and a compliment of my 'full frame' digital cameras and NOT 'in competition' with them.

 

Additionally I do not necessarily use very fast lenses on APS-C Mirrorless Cameras for the specific reason of shallow Depth of Field: such is much more easily achieved across a range of Focal Lengths using 'full frame' cameras and the very fast lenses which suit those cameras.

 

 

WW

I admit to have thought about an E-M1 Mkii with the 12-100/4 as a walkaround - quite an expensive proposition at $4k though.

 

Dieter: but if you used one, I bet you'd really like it...

 

There are all sorts of reasons to not try something and often they are theoretical concerns that turn out to be unimportant in reality. The "FF frame way of thinking" is that somehow all smaller formats should be cheaper then FF, but I contend there is really no reason why this should be the case. Once you have made a decision to liberate yourself from a camera bag stuffed with large FF lenses, then you have similar price choices as you do with FF - cheaper kit lenses or more expensive primes and pro lenses. Of course, if indeed you do use an 85mm lens at f1.4 for most of your shots then MFT is not for you, but then I would say that this is quite unusual. Everything is a ultimately a compromise.

Dieter: but if you used one, I bet you'd really like it...

I'm afraid you might be right :cool:

Probably would even overcome Olympus cryptic menu system and at-first-sight strange UI.

 

I didn't jump at the first opportunity to go FF - I actually waited quite some time after it became available (Nikon). Despite the fact that I've been shooting film since 1979 I had gotten used to the DX crop and didn't really miss FX. It was one lens (16-35/4 VR) that eventually drew me into FX and for one reason or another that mushroomed into me now dealing with three systems (DX and FX Nikon DSLR and Sony A7 Series mirrorless); at one point at least one of them will have to give (probably Nikon FX DSLR - whether or not in favor of going fully Sony FX or by buying into the Nikon Z system (which would have to wait for 2nd generation camera bodies and more native Z-mount lenses)). Getting into a fourth system with m4/3 is just not feasible. I use DX mostly with long lenses for avian and airshow photography (though I do have a wide-angle and a mid-range zoom "just in case") - I just don't think there's a better camera than the D500 out there to compete in this area. For "walk-around" a Sony A7II with a 24-105/4 does just as well as a E-M1 Mkii with the 12-100/4 while costing less and weighing about the same. My wife is using a D500 with four zoom lenses covering the range from 11mm to 400mm - she wouldn't trade for a smaller camera (like the D7500) and certainly not for a smaller one with an EVF; for her, DX is the best compromise.

I have a Sony A7Riii. I may even have a lens which weighs less than the body ;)

Those HUGE full frame lenses, even the fixed focal length lenses, look a bit out of proportion on the new, small mirrorless full frame cameras.

Not so much in the rangefinder world. Leica and VC. In APC world, Fuji's 2.0 X lenses are compact and can take great images. I'm just sort of chuckling at the OP's indignation. Really, when it comes to sensors, size does matter in most instances. I'm pretty sure you can see a difference between a M 4/3; a full frame or even more so a Medium Format camera's images.

In my opinion, the difference is visible when you get above 800 to 1600 ISO, otherwise not really: unless you notice the current 20 MP resolution ceiling. Increased resolution you tend to notice only in direct comparisons. The ISO limitation is much less of an issue than might be expected given that you have an extra 2 stops of depth of field available so you do not have to stop down to ensure sufficient depth of field as you may well want to do with FF. IBIS is good too and for landscape and nature shots this is also excellent particularly so with MFT where I think it is (arguably) most effective. But, when the light gets really low: i.e. >3200 ISO and when high shutter speeds are required, then things are not so rosy. This is a limitation: but it depends whether this is an important part of your photographic life. Currently for me this is significant as I have school and college age kids who are playing in dim gyms, but it will not be like this for much longer. I have FF for those situations.

 

My overall experience of MFT, APS and FF output is that they are not the same, but for most shots you can get largely equivalent output, but the smaller formats may require more work post processing. No experience of MF digital, but I notice that with the new Fuji MF cameras, many reviewers point out that the difference between their files and equivalent resolution FF files is small (negligeable?) and needs careful study. If you must have resolution >20 MP then obviously you can't get that in MFT. I have decided chasing resolution is not necessary and a red herring for my photography.

 

As to weight, I think you can probably always find an MFT combination that will be smaller and lighter than an APS or FF camera with an equivalent lens, but, of course, all combinations will not necessarily be smaller.

Robin, I agree with much of what you said there. But there are a few points of minor disagreement.

 

Regarding MFD: the potential for very high pixel counts is there, and that's before you factor in pixel shift. Pixel shift (for lack of a better term) is a real feature, for Micro 4/3 all the way up to MFD.

 

In addition, it seems that the best low-light camera right now is the Hasselblad X1D-50c. Or, at least, it's the best high-res low-light camera. Not that low-light performance, or shallow DOF are the most important features of a camera, even if it's all you hear these days.

Yes, I forgot to mention the high-res mode on the top MFT cameras: quite right. I rarely us it as it happens, I probably should use the feature more.

I would not make a decision based on pixel-shifting. Pixel-shifting is a very specialized tool. The subject must not move, and even grass blowing in the wind creates bizarre artifacts. You must use the utmost care to keep the camera steady as well. I have used pixel-shifting for landscapes, but more as an academic exercise. It effectively doubles the resolution, which is impressive with a 42 MP Sony. On the whole, though, HDR bracketing is more useful, and not compatible with pixel-shifting in a practical sense (e.g., 20 exposures over an interval of a minute or so).

 

For that matter, I wouldn't make my decision based on any feature other than the basics - including low noise, resolution, auto-focus speed, build-quality and ergonomics. Most, but not all popular cameras have enough compatible lenses available. It's something to think about, though. You get a high performance camera to take high quality photos. Just any lens isn't going to cut it.

 

Anyhow; I really don't understand why this thread is titled 'Full frame versus MFT'. I didn't know a fight had been officially declared. I thought people had a free choice of which format to use.

The evolution of this thread does make the use of the word “versus” inappropriate, and I agreed it would have been better to use the word “and” rather than “versus.” Perhaps the title should have been “MFT Lenses versus Full Frame Lenses.”