Full Frame versus MFT

I am willing to wait to see if Panasonic comes out with newer MFT cameras with a significantly improved sensor.

"Panasonic Unveils Its S1R and S1 Full-Frame Mirrorless Cameras"

Bigger is better:)

"Panasonic Unveils Its S1R and S1 Full-Frame Mirrorless Cameras"

Bigger is better:)

Ouch my back.

Here's another factor which may very well make this debate even more juicy: Leica Q2 or Micro 4/3 + 14-40 zoom?

I wrote a detailed post about the Q2 and its paradigm in the Leica forum, so I won't repeat all that here. But having a fixed lens on a large sensor might be arguably better than a zoom lens on a small sensor. The Q2 at 50mm crop gives you 14Mpx files. The 75mm crop gives 6.5Mpx files. The fixed 28 Summilux is definitely sharp enough.

But my major idea is that narrower angles of view are better suited to camera systems with smaller sensors. So you wouldn't shoot birds or sports with an A9 (I know, that's what it's made for), you'd use an E-M1.

I made the mistake of NOT doing that ONCE. I carried a 4x5 kit on a shoot, and I was so worn out that I stopped shooting.

After that one outing, I swore that I would NOT use the 4x5 more than 100 feet from the car, or if I could not put it on a wheeled cart.

After that, I have more appreciation for what guys like Ansel Adams went through with their LARGE format view cameras.

 

It is time to go downstairs for some cookies and milk :)

I found out the Adams actually shot a lot of his stuff from the top of his cars. Who knew he was such a wimp?

ansel adams car top - Google Search

wimp

Seriously: Landscapes and architectures might benefit from such a POV. - If absent traffic permitted, why not utilize the car instead of carrying ladders + LF?

I wrote a detailed post about the Q2 and its paradigm in the Leica forum, so I won't repeat all that here. But having a fixed lens on a large sensor might be arguably better than a zoom lens on a small sensor. The Q2 at 50mm crop gives you 14Mpx files. The 75mm crop gives 6.5Mpx files. The fixed 28 Summilux is definitely sharp enough.

I'm perfectly content changing lenses on my Sony and getting 42 MP images throughout. Cropping is for touching up, not changing focal lengths. Now if you're willing to spend nearly $5000 on a P&S with a big red dot, that's another matter.

These things all have their uses, right? No need to argue about it.

Personally, I went through a few generations of DSLR and eventually FX with a D700 and then a D800. They certainly had advantages. Huge finders, good in low light, easy to go between blurring a background and getting a large DOF. Then I got a MFT system to use for travel because I was carrying too much, then got unsatisfied with the limitations of MFT and ditched everything and got a Fuji APSC.

All those sensor sizes are best for one thing or another but there’s really nothing that isn’t possible with any of them. (Have you seen what some people are doing with drones with 8x6mm sensors these days?) It’s just about priorities. Money, size, speed, low light shooting - everybody has a different set of needs.

Landscape photography with larger formats can also have a problem with subject movement (particularly large format landscape): to get sufficient depth of field you need to stop down a lot which can lead to slow shutter speeds where leaf and grass movement also interfere with sharpness. On a still day both pixel shifting and larger formats have an easier a time of it.

One thing that is worth pointing out is that MFT, being a 4:3 format, fits less satisfactorily on a 16:9 monitor. This does not help its wow factor, as the full image wlll always be smaller in area than a FF or APS image which scales nicely to the 16:9.

Cropping is for touching up, not changing focal lengths.

It's virtually the same thing. And anyway, everything is a crop of everything else. 35mm is a massive crop down from 4x5. What is a portrait lens on 35 is a wide angle on 4x5. Same exact focal length. All you've done is 'crop'. ;-)

However, cropping has a hard limit, much more than the heaviest lens you are willing to carry. The Sony 400/2.8 has a ring dedicated to telling the camera to go to half-frame mode, for a 600mm AOV. If you only shoot with a 14-40, you might want to look at the Q series instead.

Furthermore, new paradigms are not always well understood.

One thing that is worth pointing out is that MFT, being a 4:3 format, fits less satisfactorily on a 16:9 monitor.

You're not wrong, but 4:3 is far superior if you like vertical compositions. Mind you, I never shoot that way - with rare exceptions that have nothing to do with my preferences, I always shoot a horizontal frame.

It's virtually the same thing

A 75 mm lens is still 47 MP, not 14 when cropped to the same FOV.

A typical 4x5 lens has about 40 l.mm resolution, or about 4000x5009 ouxeks, That's only 20 MP, a net loss from nearly every digital camera for the last 5 years or so. 4x5 is only big compared to 35 mm film, not a modern digital camera.

A 75 mm lens is still 47 MP, not 14 when cropped to the same FOV.

 

A typical 4x5 lens has about 40 l.mm resolution, or about 4000x5009 ouxeks, That's only 20 MP, a net loss from nearly every digital camera for the last 5 years or so. 4x5 is only big compared to 35 mm film, not a modern digital camera.

A typical medium format lens is not far off a typical 35mm lens - in fact in some cases it will be sharper. Wait until Leica (or somebody) releases a Q-like camera with a 35mm lens and a ProFormat sensor. The Sony A7s is a 'mere' 12Mpx, and the M8 a 'mere' 10Mpx. There's plenty of resolution in either, although your framing should be close to what you really want.

Landscape photography with larger formats can also have a problem with subject movement (particularly large format landscape): to get sufficient depth of field you need to stop down a lot which can lead to slow shutter speeds where leaf and grass movement also interfere with sharpness. On a still day both pixel shifting and larger formats have an easier a time of it.

 

One thing that is worth pointing out is that MFT, being a 4:3 format, fits less satisfactorily on a 16:9 monitor. This does not help its wow factor, as the full image wlll always be smaller in area than a FF or APS image which scales nicely to the 16:9.

When I shoot on vacation, I switch to 16:9 format. That way, I compose for the 16:9 format of the 4K TV I intend to show my vacation shots on. Often, composition will fail if shot at another format when reframed in post processing to a TV's 16:9. Also, video is shot in 16:9. Since I combine video clips with stills in my shows, the video and still images stay consistent at 16:9 filling up the whole TV screen. What was interesting when I first started to shoot in 16:9, was how quickly I became at ease of composing in 16:9. Our brains are very nimble and automatically adapt to the format in the viewfinder.

One thing I do though is shoot Raw + Jpeg. That way if the 16:9 cut something off, the RAW photo has stored the additional head and foot portion unseen in the jpeg but kept in the RAW. That way I can move the 16:9 up and down having the full 4:3 capture in RAW.

The A7S is optimized for high ISO and HD video, not exactly up to current expectations.

According to MTF data, high quality MF lenses have about half the resolution of premium FF lenses. Until the advent of "technical" digital cameras (e.g., Arca), MF lenses were designed for use with film. With a few exceptions, 35 mm film lenses aren't all that great either

Still images embedded in video are usually "fitted," "keyholed" or "letterboxed" into the 16:9 format. Those are choices you make when compiling the sequence.

Alan, that's a good idea - too bad most cameras don't have a 16:9 mode.

Ed, I haven't tested MF lenses, but some claim to have done so:

and

Link: Mamiya 645 lens on D2Hs , D2Xs ?: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D5, D600-D850) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I do have a few 645 lenses but I have not yet compared them. I might do so eventually.

Alan, that's a good idea - too bad most cameras don't have a 16:9 mode.

 

Ed, I haven't tested MF lenses, but some claim to have done so:

 

A lot of people discount MF lenses as "not as sharp as 35mm ones" and never bother to give them a try. My conclusions (and many of my friend's) are exactly opposite and I am not hesitating to haul them on my trips with DSLRs as long as I can handle the weight.

 

and

 

My own casual observations agree with your statemnts about MF lenses. I once compared the 50mm f1.4 SMC Takumar to my 67 55-100mm zoom; shots taken on a DS; I could see no difference in resolution. The 67 300mm ED lens is, as you say, remarkable; very sharp wide open. I suggest you try the Pentax 645 120mm macro sometime; the sharpest lens I have.

 

Link: Mamiya 645 lens on D2Hs , D2Xs ?: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D5, D600-D850) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

I do have a few 645 lenses but I have not yet compared them. I might do so eventually.

Karim, When Clyde Butcher switched over from LF film to digital, he combined Mamiya medium format lenses thru a Cambo Actus bellows into a Sony A7R. In his Venus, Florida gallery, I saw both his 5 foot wide film and 5 foot wide digital prints and all were spectacular. His technician was explaining his digital methods to me. You can find a complete description on Butcher's web page. It might help you out. You might even call them in Venus if you have any questions. I don;t know for sure, but they might be helpful in answering questions about his process. He doesn;t seem to hide anything.

Technical Information - Clyde Butcher | Black & White Fine Art Photography

Alan, that's a good idea - too bad most cameras don't have a 16:9 mode.

 

...

Most modern cameras which offer video mode which is 16:9, will also offer 16:9 mode for stills. If it doesn't, that's too bad. Because shooting video at 16:9 and then being forced to present it along side of let's say 4:3 still shots leaves black portions on the screen for the still shots unless you crop. That forces you to compose full viewfinder screen for videos and then have to interpolate 16:9 for stills in the 4:3 viewfinder, a stupid design. Just as stupid as shooting 3:2 and printing on an 8x10" print. You'd think camera manufacturers would learn. What I'd also like to see is print format on the viewfinder. That way, even if you are shooting let's say 3:2, you flip on 8x10, and shoot in 8x10 format to match the 8x10" print you intend to use. It wouldn't take much to add that to the menus.

I own a 4x5, 6x6 , Nikon full frame and APS, Fuji APS and an Olympus EM1 M4/3. I do not treasure one over the other. All have advantages and disadvantages. The one that travels with me most often is the EM1. Super camera for near anything I do.

Advantages for M4/3 is as mentioned the small lens size on primes. I put my D7000 with a DX 35mm 1.8 next to the EM1 with a 25mm 1.8 and it is huge in comparison.

Also I get a lot of DOF on the EM1 at 5.6 and as I tend to shoot a lot of subjects rather close this is an advantage. To be honest My DSLRs despite the fine build and image quality are starting to feel somewhat dated in features compared to Mirrorless in general. Not a criticism just a personal observation.

Sorry, but I have to add another post to this thread. About 16 min into this YouTube review of Panasonic’s new full frame camera:

Hugh Brownstone makes a great plug for micro four third.

what next, do i hold my camera upside down or not?

As I said before, we do whatever works.

I was shooting a softball game the other day, and the top of the wooden backstop was at my eye level.

That put the lens axis below the top of the backstop.

So without a stool to stand on, I flipped the camera upside down, to raise the lens axis to my forehead level, and above the wooden backstop.

It looked weird, but it worked.