Random thoughts: Micro 4/3 vs bigger sensors

[Karim Ghantous]

I've been getting more into the Micro 4/3 system over the past 18 months or so. Here are some thoughts about M43 vs bigger sensors, specifically 36mm (e.g. Sony A9).

 

For things very close, or very far away, Micro 4/3 is superior. Better for macro, and better for super telephotos. 1:1 or bigger is easier to achieve on a smaller sensor. While super telephotos are much more sensibly sized.

 

But for specific subjects that are very far away, like football, the FE Alpha camera will have an advantage in AF. Other than that, the E-M1 III or X would be more sensible choices.

 

The Olympus 75-300 is a bargain. The Sigma 150-600 is also great value, but it's almost three times the cost and much larger.

 

For things in between macro and very far away, bigger sensors can make more sense. I'm talking about products, still life, portraits, events, architecture. The body and lens combinations aren't always bigger than their Micro 4/3 equivalents. And, you're getting either more resolution or better sensitivity, or sometimes both.

 

Micro 4/3 is doing the best job at eliminating the need for post processing. Focus stacking, live composite, live ND, perspective correction, and a few other features are compelling.

[JDMvW]

IF ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL, then often "bigger is better", but that initial qualification is often ignored or forgot.

[conrad_hoffman]

All other things are rarely equal. I have some suspicions about the reasons Karim states these things, but not sure everybody would agree. I've found a useful advantage in DOF using tiny sensors, even smaller than the 4/3. I question the advantage at longer distances, but no reasons were given. In general, I find a quality increase with larger sensors under most conditions, not surprising, or the demand for larger sensors wouldn't be as strong.

[q.g._de_bakker]

The reasoning is (isn't it Karim?), that smaller sensors behind a given focal length lens make filling the frame (long distance and macro) faster/easier.

You'd get the same 'advantage' (it isn't one) when cropping a larger sensor, but the larger sensor hardware is bigger and heavier. And that would be the real advantage.

But you will have to consider the disadvantages of both options. Yes, bigger and heavier equipment, but you can achieve the same, on one side But also the disadvantage of smaller sensors on the other side. Image quality, mainly.

So the condition is "if you do not mind the disadvantages of small (tiny) sensors", the disadvantage of using bigger sensors tilts the balance in favour of the thing we just ignored the disadvantages of.

 

In short: if you like x more than y, you like x more than y.

Who could disagree?

[SCL]

I like both, each for a different reason, and have moved almost exclusively from film to these two digital cameras, both of which allow me to use most of my really good older lenses from different manufacturers as well as their own more modern AF ones. Once I got used to photo technology I came to love it. Still give love to my old film cameras too.

[mjferron]

This film shooter also shoots with a Panasonic G9 and a few Leica/Panny lenses. While playing in the backyard I noticed the auto ISO had me shooting at 3200. The files were impressively clean. Plenty good enough for me.

[Allen Herbert]

"disadvantage of smaller sensors on the other side. Image quality, mainly."

 

Really. The myth.

 

I have a Leica M240, and various size sensor cameras. The reality is, unless you like to heavily crop, you would not have a clue , from the photograph, what size the sensor was. Really.

 

APC sensor, just to hand.

 

[Allen Herbert]

Micro

 

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

"disadvantage of smaller sensors on the other side. Image quality, mainly."

 

Really. The myth.

 

I have a Leica M240, and various size sensor cameras. The reality is, unless you like to heavily crop, you would not have a clue , from the photograph, what size the sensor was. Really.

 

APC sensor, just to hand.

 

[ATTACH=full]1404464[/ATTACH]

Yes...

Another of such truisms: if you don't take advantage of what something has to offer over what something else has to offer, there is no difference between the two.

Really...

Edited October 6, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

[Karim Ghantous]

I question the advantage at longer distances, but no reasons were given.

Here's a rough example of what I mean (ignore the lens hood on the larger lens):

 

https://camerasize.com/compact/#692.376,713.1006,ha,t

[Gary Naka]

IF ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL, then often "bigger is better", but that initial qualification is often ignored or forgot.

 

Agree

IMHO, "all other things are equal" is usually a theoretical argument.

All things are usually NOT equal. There will be some variable that is different, sometimes SIGNIFICANTLY different.

 

And what is "better?"

"Better," has to be specific/objective, to be measured.

What is "better" to one may NOT be relevant to another.

 

Example, if "bigger is better," why did 35mm film take over as the primary hobby/pro film format? Why not 2-1/4, or 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film?

Image quality is "better" with the larger film formats.

[AJG]

Agree

IMHO, "all other things are equal" is usually a theoretical argument.

All things are usually NOT equal. There will be some variable that is different, sometimes SIGNIFICANTLY different.

 

And what is "better?"

"Better," has to be specific/objective, to be measured.

What is "better" to one may NOT be relevant to another.

 

Example, if "bigger is better," why did 35mm film take over as the primary hobby/pro film format? Why not 2-1/4, or 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film?

Image quality is "better" with the larger film formats.

35 mm took over when it became "good enough" for most professional purposes, in the same way that digital took over from film when it became good enough and also had other advantages like instant feedback and quicker turn around times. Just as with film, I expect that over time that smaller digital formats will take over as technology permits. There will always be a market for the ultimate in performance--8x10 film didn't disappear when smaller formats improved, but the user base will become smaller.