Full frame ever to show up on a M 4/3 camera?

[dreamspy1]

<p>I probably know the answer to this question, but I just want to make sure.<br>

The thing is that I'm currently considering to buy a M4/3 camera. But I'm a big fan of shallow DOF, and I recently learned that the size of the chip has dramatic effects on the DOF (smaller chip = bigger DOF).<br>

Is it possible that the m4/3 companies will ever put out a full frame camera that has the m4/3 mount? I guess not though, the lenses probably just cover the sensor that they are using today, and nothing bigger.</p>

<p>regards<br />Frímann</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>The sensor size is close to the old 110 film size, 13x17mm. Without the mirror, the micro 4/3 platform supports with appropriate adapters many lenses like Leica M and LTM, many cine lenses, Canon FD, Konica AR and a host of more common lenses by Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Olympus all manual focus. The tiny lenses make sense on the small pocketable mirrorless cameras but the crop factor remains at 2X. Of course there are many Olympus, Leica and Panasonic AF lenses dedicated CPU without adapter made for this type of digital camera. Therefore full frame as we know it would create a much larger bodied camera like the Leica M-9 at far more expense to manufacture and buy. </p>

[akira]

<p>The effective diameter of m4/3 mount is around 39mm, whereas the diagonal length of the full-frame is about 43mm. It should be physically impossible and impractical to make a full-frame m4/3 mount camera.</p>

<p>If you are such a big fan of extremely shallow DOF and want to achieve that using relatively wide (standard or wider) lenses, m4/3 or 4/3 system could be a wrong choice.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It's a contradiction in terms. The "full frame" paradigm is based on the 3:2 aspect ratio and 36mm X 24mm frame size that dates back decades to the first 35mm miniature format film camera. A larger 4:3 aspect ratio cannot be "full frame" according to the conventional wisdom about what "full frame" means. A 40mm X 30mm "Super 4/3" camera might be fuller-than-full-frame. But it's unlikely there's a sufficient market for that right now.</p>

[charlie_novice]

<p>How shallow do you want the DOF to be? You can find examples for comparison by going to Flickr.com, find groups like "Micro Four Thirds cameras using alternative and legacy lenses," and search the group photos on terms like "bokeh."</p>

 

[cc_chang2]

<p>As Lex pointed out, there are three major sensor sizes for the interchangable lens cameras, FF (the same size as 35mm film), APS-C, and 4/3. m4/3 uses the same sensor as 4/3 just that its cameras do not have a mirror box. Thus 4/3 and FF are mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>I assume that your goal of achieving shallow DOF is to blur the background. There are many different way to achieve this goal. Certainly using a wide aperture is one way but you can also use lenses of longer focal length to blur the background by compression. The major limitation with the m4/3 system is the lack of fast lenses with aperture that is wide enough. The exception is the 20mm f1.7 lens, but being a 20mm lens, it is harder to give shallow DOF. You can use many MF 50-85mm lenses however. Alternatively, you can use the long end of the 14-140 and 45-200 kit lenses to blur the background by compression. Both of these also allow you to shoot quite close to the subjects which also helps to blur the background. Finally, they both produce very smooth background in the out of focus area. The limitation is light as in order to shoot at long focal length, you need high shutter speeds to prevent camera shake. When light is low, you can only increase ISO to certain degrees.</p>

<p>In conclusion, if you are really into shallow DOF and do not care about the size of camera, m4/3 is not the ideal system for you. However if want a small camera system, it is still possible to get a shallow DOF look with some practice and creativity.</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Get the APS-C Sony NEX if you can tolerate the user interface.</p>

[dreamspy1]

<p>Thanks for all those great replies. This forum sure seems active!</p>

<p>I'we given this a good thaught and I think I'we come to the conclusion of sticking to the micro 4/3 mount. From examples on the net I'we seen that it's highly possible to create good shallow DOF results with that system. A good example can be seen here:</p>

<p>

<p>I went to my local camera store and took a looong good look at the Canon 5D and tried out various fast lenses. I came to the same conclusion as before when I sold my Canon 30d about 3-4 years ago. This system is just to big for my taste. Which is the main reason why I'm so fond of the micro 4/3 format.</p>

<p>The Sony NEX cameras look promising, small formfactor, big sensor, lenses feel sturdy and a good possibility to use 3rd party lenses. But there are a few things that are keeping me from that system. Mostly it is the lack of manual controls, or any exposure controles at all, while shooting video. The NEX-VG10 also looks promizing, but it's lacking RAW capabilities, which I really don't understand. I guess they are keeping things simple for their consumers.</p>

<p>I do care about things like the size of the camera, manual controls for shooting video and the possibility to use a huge range of 3rd party lenses. And the shallow DOF I'we seen from various lenses on the m4/3 system is quite adequate for my standars. So my conclusions is that I'm sticking to the micro 4/3 mount. So it's probably just a matter of waiting for the GH2.</p>

<p>regards<br />Frímann</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>A good example can be seen here:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href=" target="_blank">

</blockquote>

<p>Before I went to this link, I said to myself, this must be one of those "macro" close up shots, and indeed it is. In macro mode (when the lens is very close to the object of interest), even P&S can blur the background nicely. Do you also shoot just inches away from your objects, people included?</p>

[dreamspy1]

<p>Well you got a poin there. But these aren't the only type of shoots I'we been looking at. I'we seen some really nice examples of good bokeh in "regular" shots. Good enough for me at least.</p>

<p>On another note. I'we been thinking about doing a small experiment. Since LF cameras are capable to create very dramatic DOF results, I was thinking about to try to rig togeather a LF camera and some digital camera. Symply taking pictures or videos of the matte screen. I've never actually used a LF camera, but from what I'we heard they are capable of creating hairthin DOF. I'm very interested in this phenomena and use it in animation, scanning objects with the focus plane. Anyone heard of this being done before?<br>

<img id="smallDivTip" src="chrome://dictionarytip/skin/dtipIconHover.png" alt="" /></p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>As you know, the screen is of ground glass. Resolution, determined by this screen, will be notably poor.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Is it a handicap or an asset? A perennial question. Short focal length lenses give greater apparent depth of field. How to get the softer or out of focus background, as you have discovered , is still about technique, distances, f stops and such...<br>

It surprised me, years back. when I caught a Sports Illustrated photographer on one of our sunny beaches with a telephoto lens and the model who looked to be like fifty yards away. And that was with 35mm FF and the big Canon 300mm.<br>

I don't think there are too many real world shooters who find this to be a limitation ,although in a small home studio it could be I guess. Sure, habits need to be adjusted if one uses several formats and that may be the biggest obstacle, mental comfort I mean.Always been so I think. Did I find that so when I shot super 16mm film, I just can't remember..</p>

<p> </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I am of the real world, Gerry, and this is sometimes so great a limitation that I must use a film Leica. There is only so much that one can do with "distances, f stops and such". The laws of physics cannot be changed. It is all relative, as you say. I remember when I first used a fixed lens 35mm camera after some years with 120. Depth of field was suddenly no longer a problem and f/4 was as good as f/11.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>The laws of physics cannot be changed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aye, verily so. Photographers nonetheless have always been able to' fishtoosh' them immutable laws. (Thinking about the use of green and blue chroma screens behind subject in a studio setting. Poof, subject is in now front of the Sphinx. Poof again, the Eiffel Tower. Poof. The Imperial palace w/ creamy bo-keh..and so on..) I can see that there is an occasion to pull out the old Leica and a roll of Fuji, Mukul, makes a good reason to keep one on tap. several systems. Or a long long lens on micro four thirds like the 50-200mm plus EC 14, mooshy galore I am thinking with little downside except manual focus which one would be checking on anyway I expect at that distance.<br>

No rebuttal at all. My personal and maybe my individual problem has typically,not always, of course, been getting <em>enough</em> depth of focus with the systems I used from day one. And, accordingly, until the arrival of multi target, wizard of automation focus systems, a little <em>wiggle room</em> has been useful to me , OOF was a shot killer.<br>

Now beyond that there is room to finesse. When I snapped the clown lady today (see it in POTW) I was in a hurry or could have thought a bit, opened the lens to 1.7, avoided highlights maybe, played a bit more, and then perhaps fuzzed up the yucky taco sign could have done without . Likely lowered the ISO from 200 where I keep it who knows. So it goes. I fancy my micro thing with the elex screen, surprised myself re that. However, not giving up all other gods and goddesses, so to speak :-)</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Some can never get enough DOF and others always want less. It's all about the type of photo and the artistic statement. I need to get a Leica to M4/3's adapter so I can use a Voigtlander 40 1.4 I have hanging around. I'll bet that will give decent shallow DOF wide open. I love my epl1 and if the next generation of m4/3's appears with speed improvements I'll probably ditch my DSLR. I don't like walking around looking like a newspaper photographer.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>You might like to try walking among sensible people who will look at your photographs and not at you. For myself, if my work is acceptable I don't care if I look like a walrus.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Mukul says "You might like to try walking among sensible people who will look at your photographs and not at you".<br>

#1... though I have big cameras I don't like using them for travel/city.</p>

<p>#2... I don't care if you look like a walrus either but how is the size of my preferred camera your business anyway??</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Michael Ferron: "...how is the size of my preferred camera your business anyway??"</p>

<p>My apologies. I had no idea that you would read my post. I thought you would be in front of a mirror, preening with your small whatsit.</p>

[alan_ginman]

<p>"The effective diameter of m4/3 mount is around 39mm, whereas the diagonal length of the full-frame is about 43mm. It should be physically impossible and impractical to make a full-frame m4/3 mount camera"</p>

<p>But the original Leica rangefinder cameras had a 39mm mount, and they managed full frame coverage. The lens to film/sensor distance is probably the limiting factor. But of course, there is no reason why a company couldn't make their own full frame, mirrorless camera, with a new 'standard'.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

[dreamspy1]

<p>Your probably right Alan, but I'm wondering though. If they would design a system with a bigger sensor, then they would have to increase the sensor-to-lens distance, because the projected image from the lens has to be bigger. And by doing that, the lens focus would have to be adjusted, which I guess can be done in software. But I'm not sure if this will put physical restrictions on the system. If we take f.x. one of the modern µ4/3 lenses, wouldn't we loose focus at infinity by increasing the lens-to-sensor distance? Just like when one uses bellows between a lens and a camera for doing macroscopic work.</p>

<p> </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Frimann, the M 4/3 lenses are made to the <em>standard</em>, which includes many things. They do not have the covering power to form a 36 x 24 mm image. It is possible, though not so likely, that the Leica M9 will be joined by other physically small digital "FF" cameras which use either existing range-finder camera lenses or similar ones. An M 4/3 camera which does not match the M 4/3 standard is impossible.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>The subject began as a query re focus effect in four thirds, opportunities and limitations. More opportumities than limitations is my personal take.. If you were to adapt for micro and use a nice budget grade long lens, take this here one, Olympus's large but still wieldy ED 70-300mm, which has to be steady ,think of a 600mm at far end, sure footed as mountain goats are tele lens users..)<br /> Employing Image Stabilization feature as well as handy doorframe yields pleasant enough bkgrnd blur.. on so small a target acquisition too. In the case of little yellow birdie ( a finch says my wife), I was ca.15 feet from the papaya tree and the background way further, at least another twenty feet. ( No profound point, yet presented an opening to post a shot of this cute li'l guy. I like papaya, doesn't everyone...:-))</p><div></div>

[mag_miksch]

<p>DOF is not defined by focal lenght but by magnification and aperture.^^</p>