Full Frame versus MFT

Who made Full Frame King or Queen? Just because full frame digital camera sensors produce the same size "negative" as a 35mm camera, 35mm cameras were NOT digital technology, but a chemical technology of silver-based emulsions that react to light. How do you equate that process to the digital process and what makes "Full Frame" sensors the standard for digital technology?

 

I love my MFT camera because of its size and weight. I have heard more than once that MFT sensor technology has hit a wall. Well, that remains to be seen. I am willing to wait to see if Panasonic comes out with newer MFT cameras with a significantly improved sensor. If yes, then I'm in. If not, I may have to choose one of the other "Gorilla" camera manufacturers and go with their technology,

There is a reason why the top of the line professional cameras are only 20mp. There is no perceivable difference on the printed page or computer monitor between MFT and full frame.

Manufacturers, in response to and influenced by photographers, who were used to shooting with lenses whose stated focal length filled the full frame on 35mm film, made full frame Queen of the Hill. Technology has provided a variety of alternatives to full frame, and the public's buying power will probably dictate the direction things go, just as it has in the past.

Well, bigger is better. Diffraction means that there is a finite limit to the amount of detail that can be captured for a given sensor size, in real-world use we reached it a few years back, there really is no point going above 16-20 megapixels in micro four thirds.

 

So if you want more detail, you need a bigger sensor, this has always been true, for film as well as digital.

 

But economics of chip manufacturing mean bigger chips are more expensive. It's a logarithmic scale, not a linear one. It's only in the last few years that full frame has started to become affordable to amateurs, hence the dominance of APS sized sensors on SLRs.

 

I'm very happy with the performance of my m4/3 gear, but I've just purchased a Fuji X-E1 to add to my camera bag. Why? I wanted to reclaim some focal length from my classic lenses, full frame is still out of my price range, but 1.5x is better than 2x, for me. Any image quality increase is a bonus.

What do you do with the final images? I don't own a FF and stopped using my MFT. I'm shooting a pockletable 1" Sony RX100iv for 19-20mb stills and 4K video. I make slide shows for my 75" 4K UDHTV which only needs 8mb per still and 3240 x 2160 video what the camera captures. If I needed a print, I still could do very well with the 20mb still. Not as big as 45mb capture, but really, who's printing that big? Of course, my setup wouldn't work if you're shooting birds, nature, and other stuff. So it boils down to what you intend to do with your shots.

I went from DX/APS-C to m4/3 for bulk and weight reduction.

 

For IQ, I would shoot FF/FX because of the larger pixels for low light (D750) or higher MP for more resolution (D810/850).

The MP discussion is is really no different than the old 35mm film vs 6x6 vs 4x5 film discussion.

But lets get real, how many MP do you need to print a 4x6 or even 8x10? I did a 16x20 for my wife's office with a 6MP D70.

But if I do heavy cropping, as I do with some of my sports pics, then a high MP camera delays the point where I run into pixelation.

 

FF/FX is because that is where the profits are.

Both Canon and Nikon treat their APS-C/DX line as a second rate line, and that is frustrating. While they have decently good consumer grade lenses, I think there are only TWO good DX lenses. If I want GOOD glass for my D7200, I have to buy FX glass. And there is no DX equivalent of the 70-200/2.8, the closest is the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8. So if you want GOOD glass, you are boxed into going FF/FX.

What do you do with the final images? I don't own a FF and stopped using my MFT. I'm shooting a pockletable 1" Sony RX100iv for 19-20mb stills and 4K video. I make slide shows for my 75" 4K UDHTV which only needs 8mb per still and 3240 x 2160 video what the camera captures. If I needed a print, I still could do very well with the 20mb still. Not as big as 45mb capture, but really, who's printing that big? Of course, my setup wouldn't work if you're shooting birds, nature, and other stuff. So it boils down to what you intend to do with your shots.

Touche! I have a Lumix DMC-ZS50 that makes one look twice when examining the resolution of photos shot at low ISO. Sensor area: 27.9 sq mm vs. 864 sq mm for FF.

I went from DX/APS-C to m4/3 for bulk and weight reduction.

 

For IQ, I would shoot FF/FX because of the larger pixels for low light (D750) or higher MP for more resolution (D810/850).

The MP discussion is is really no different than the old 35mm film vs 6x6 vs 4x5 film discussion.

But lets get real, how many MP do you need to print a 4x6 or even 8x10? I did a 16x20 for my wife's office with a 6MP D70.

But if I do heavy cropping, as I do with some of my sports pics, then a high MP camera delays the point where I run into pixelation.

 

FF/FX is because that is where the profits are.

Both Canon and Nikon treat their APS-C/DX line as a second rate line, and that is frustrating. While they have decently good consumer grade lenses, I think there are only TWO good DX lenses. If I want GOOD glass for my D7200, I have to buy FX glass. And there is no DX equivalent of the 70-200/2.8, the closest is the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8. So if you want GOOD glass, you are boxed into going FF/FX.

As is obvious from many forum discussions, marketing, manufactures and, above all, profit drives the design and production decisions. RIP Betamax.

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.

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.

Good points. Now I have an excuse to tell my spouse I need a MFT camera AND FF and with appropriate lenses. And as AlanKline indicated, it depends on what are your (my) goals.

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

They do exist - but also cost a pretty penny. And some are manual focus only.

Voigtlander 10.5/0.95

Olympus 17/1.2

Voigtlander 17.5/0.95

Olympus 25/1.2

Voigtlander 25/0.95

Panasonic 42.5/1.2

Olympus 45/1.2

Voigtlander 42.5/0.95

plus a few more from Rokinon and Mitakon.

I see someone was suffering from a really boring day. These posts get so tiring. Good lord. Both formats are a load of fun. I like carrying my OM-D (the new E-M1X right now) with the 12-100mm f4 and my Leica M262 with the 18mm f3.8 Super Elmar for wide subjects, in the same bag....(gulp) TOGETHER, to use at the same time..

Who made Full Frame King or Queen?

How about nearly 100 years of lens development? That translates to lower cost due to greater popularity and amortization of development and manufacturing costs. A major consideration is the cost and complexity of wide angle lenses. You need a 12 mm lens with M43 to get the same field of view as a 24 mm lens on a FF camera, and 24 mm is practical a "normal" lens for wide-angle enthusiasts.

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.

Cameras and lens are nothing but tools to get the perceived job done. So, pick your tool and use it for a purpose you want to get out of it. I remember once a lady coming up to me at a craft fair and wanting to know what camera I used to shoot my prints. I told her it really does not matter about the brand but it is more about the person behind the camera doing the shooting. She would have nothing of it insisting she wanted the exact same camera and lens I had used. LOL

Panasonic?

What do you do with the final images? I don't own a FF and stopped using my MFT. I'm shooting a pockletable 1" Sony RX100iv for 19-20mb stills and 4K video. I make slide shows for my 75" 4K UDHTV which only needs 8mb per still and 3240 x 2160 video what the camera captures. If I needed a print, I still could do very well with the 20mb still. Not as big as 45mb capture, but really, who's printing that big? Of course, my setup wouldn't work if you're shooting birds, nature, and other stuff. So it boils down to what you intend to do with your shots.

Just to add a couple of thoughts. A lot of my shooting is on vacation and travel. The deep DOF from a 1" sensor works very well for what I look for. OK, I sacrifice portrait's narrow DOF's, but overall, I want greater DOF's. I had a pocketable Canon S95. But it had a small 1/2.3" sensor. I found the larger 1" sensor of the also pocketable Sony RX100iv far superior for stills and videos when showing on a 4K UHDTV.

I have to admit I was very interested when Canon and Nikon came out with their mirrorless FF. I got a really bad case of GAS. But I ate a couple of cookies with some chocolate milk and the GAS passed. Frankly, I hate the wieight, the camera bag, etc of larger camera systems. It's amazing how nice it is carrying something small and light. On the other hand, I shoot medium format film with an RB67 and a 9 lb Gitzo. But I dio that locally and try not to shoot far from the car.

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

 

I actually did that in the past.

It was a way to get the lens axis a few inches higher, at the forehead level. And still be able to aim the camera through the viewfinder.

For a relatively short guy, compared to my classmates, those few inches helped.

 

As my mentor once said, whatever works, do it.

I see someone was suffering from a really boring day. These posts get so tiring. Good lord. Both formats are a load of fun. I like carrying my OM-D (the new E-M1X right now) with the 12-100mm f4 and my Leica M262 with the 18mm f3.8 Super Elmar for wide subjects, in the same bag....(gulp) TOGETHER, to use at the same time..

 

I gotta get my Hasselblad out to shoot more.

Interestingly, I had not thought about carrying two systems at the same time. For me it had always be one system at a time, either or.

Although now, getting old is putting a weight limit on my kit.

I will agree this far: 36x24mm is arbitrary as far as digital is concerned. But there are many lenses that cover the image circle, and that's why people find the format so useful. Up until now I've preferred APS-C, but I am considering Micro 4/3 for the future.

I will agree this far: 36x24mm is arbitrary as far as digital is concerned. But there are many lenses that cover the image circle, and that's why people find the format so useful. Up until now I've preferred APS-C, but I am considering Micro 4/3 for the future.

That's it in a nutshell. Although mentioned is several posts in this thread, you summed it up nicely. And now I can opt out of receiving email updates. ;)

I have to admit I was very interested when Canon and Nikon came out with their mirrorless FF. I got a really bad case of GAS. But I ate a couple of cookies with some chocolate milk and the GAS passed. Frankly, I hate the wieight, the camera bag, etc of larger camera systems. It's amazing how nice it is carrying something small and light. On the other hand, I shoot medium format film with an RB67 and a 9 lb Gitzo. But I dio that locally and try not to shoot far from the car.

 

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 used to carry a 6x6 or 6x9 folding camera in my bag, along with whatever 35mm gear I was carrying.

 

These days, it's an Instax Wide that lives in the corner of my bag, slightly larger, but a lot lighter.

 

Having an alternative format that works completely differently to the one you normally use is fun and helps to view things differently.

There is a reason why the top of the line professional cameras are only 20mp. There is no perceivable difference on the printed page or computer monitor between MFT and full frame.

 

The reason is processing speed and post processing speed, not image quality. Now that 40MB files can be processed at 20-fps, the mp will start moving up. Wireless speed is also an issue for the pro, shooting on the sidelines. Pros shooting in studios and landscapes don't limit themselves to 20mp.