# What is it with M43 folks?



## analoggrotto (Nov 8, 2020)

I was at a photographic society meet once (something I will never bother with again), the speaker mentioned Full Frame and APS-C in some context. Of a few hundred people, a guy in the back shouted "M43" is smaller and better. Ever present DPR seems littered with people dedicated to reminding the world that this smaller format exists. 

Has anyone else noticed this? 

I'm not bashing M43, but now Canon has answered the call with such lenses as the new can sized 70-200 F4L, the F11 duo and the impossibly compact R5 itself; these folks must feel all the more evangelical.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 8, 2020)

Market wise, m43 is in the same bracket as EOS-M. Main difference is m43 manufacturers aren't limiting themselves to small & light, so they have 200mm f/2.8 & 300mm f/4 primes, and zooms that go to 400mm. Canon hasn't announced a camera 7DmkII owners could upgrade to, so maybe they'll go m43.

The R5 is expensive, and the f/11 primes are expensive. I can see why some people would prefer m43.


----------



## Joules (Nov 8, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> m43 manufacturers aren't limiting themselves to small & light, so they have 200mm f/2.8 & 300mm f/4 primes, and zooms that go to 400mm.


Like the Panasonic 100-400 mm 4.0-6.3?

These discussions around sensor formats basically boild down to equivalency. The crop factor simply has to be considered for DoF and light gathering, so these 200 mm 2.8 you mention are equivalent to 400 mm 5.6 on FF, the 300 mm is equivalent to 600 mm 8.0 and that zoom is a 200-800 mm 8.0-12.6.

Canon has shown that it is beginning to offer lenses like these, that trade off some aperture for size. The 600 mm f/11 and 800 mm f/11 are on the extremes of this spectrum, but I would fully expect some more moderate options to become available in the long term.

M43 and EF-M can maintain an even smaller size and weight I think. But how much of an advantage this is will be may shrink. And especially in terms IQ, sensor size and physical size will remain a tradeoff. M43 does not have an advantage because you can make a 2.8 or 4.0 lens much smaller - you have to factor in the sensor size.

As for the Psychologie behind it, I think there are two issues that goad each other. As photography is a hobby and can involve some large amount of money, I believe it is easy to become overly protective and emotionally invested in gear of a certain 'fraction', if you will. We've seen this also at play with Sony vs Canon. And the other aspect is another side of the same coin: a willingness to belittle a fraction. This becomes conflated with legitimate criticism easily.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each system. If they were all the same or one was superior to another in every aspect, the market would have gravitated to the cheapest manufacturer or the best long ago. Instead, we have diverse camera offerings that all have a value for respective niches in the market. These offerings and the size of these niches are currently changing, and so it is only natural that it creates some friction both between customers and manufacturers, as well as customers among each other and manufacturers among each other.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 8, 2020)

Joules said:


> Like the Panasonic 100-400 mm 4.0-6.3?
> 
> These discussions around sensor formats basically boild down to equivalency. The crop factor simply has to be considered for DoF and light gathering, so these 200 mm 2.8 you mention are equivalent to 400 mm 5.6 on FF, the 300 mm is equivalent to 600 mm 8.0 and that zoom is a 200-800 mm 8.0-12.6.



The same applies to the 7DmkII. And 600mm f/11 isn't better than equivalent to 600mm f/8.

And the price of super teles are a text book example of why compromises are necessary. I don't know a lot of people who could buy an EF 400mm f/2.8L or 800mm f/5.6L.



Joules said:


> As for the Psychologie behind it, I think there are two issues that goad each other. As photography is a hobby and can involve some large amount of money, I believe it is easy to become overly protective and emotionally invested in gear of a certain 'fraction', if you will. We've seen this also at play with Sony vs Canon. And the other aspect is another side of the same coin: a willingness to belittle a fraction. This becomes conflated with legitimate criticism easily.



I 2nd that.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 8, 2020)

I have been a Canon user for decades who got into M43 years ago when I bought an Oly OMD E-M5 instead of a 7D to add to my collection of various bodies. Since then I have found M43 extremely versatile, light weight, very well weather-sealed and durable. Serious phtogs can argue equivalency all day but for me and what I shoot M43 works just fine. I've had various pix shot on M43 published in a national magazine and used in state agency publications - never did anyone complain my sensor size was too small. Sometimes having greater DOF is an advantage, not a curse. Of course I still have a lot of Canon gear and prefer it at times, especially subjects that 'need' the wider 3:2 aspect ratio.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 8, 2020)

For the last 3 years, I have enjoyed only the (M43) Olympus EM1_II with the 12-100 f4 IS pro and 300mm f4 IS pro. They are spectacular *handheld* lenses for travel (where lightweight compactness is king), landscapes (where DOF and sharpness is king), and flower & insect photos (where telephoto high magnification & sharpness is king). The 20MP sensor took wonderful photos when used with DXO Photolab to remarkably denoise and adjust the images. During that time Olympus had the best waterproofing, and handheld dual IS of any camera system (only partially surpassed towards the end by Sonys eye AF tracking).

Unfortunately, Olympus always tried to increase their sales by saying those lenses are "equivalent" to a 24-100mm f4 and 600mm f4 lens, and many M43 users believed this and still shout it out now. I never believed this, as I saw proof that they were equivalent to 24-100 f8 and 600 f8 lenses - which was fine with me, as I saw how spectacular they were for their purpose. But their small sensor would forever have much less background blur than FF sensors, particularly for traditional portrait use, so I wanted to get into a FF system. I almost got into the Sony Alpha system for that, but I couldn't stand buying a camera without a fully articulating screen, which I relied on heavily for all kinds of photos including portrait ones shot from waist level, and Sony had no cameras with that type of screen.

I resisted getting into the Canon FF system because I wanted more than their initial R mount bodies offered, and I eagerly waited for them to come out with their 2nd generation body to go along with their spectacular RF lenses. When the R5 came out I jumped in with both feet and now have it with the RF f2.8 trinity and 800mm f11 lenses, with the 100-500 on order. Now that DXO Photolab4 supports the R5 and the RF 2.8 trinity lenses I am extremely happy with everything that I have. In the future I hope to get more lenses and a second body when they come out with their next R mount body that I like.

I don't like having 2 different systems with different menus (to be honest, I don't like the menu system in either of them), so I will be giving my Olympus system to my brother - but I will miss it dearly - it was so comfortable & lightweight in my hands. Now I have the R5, which is a moderately heavier body but it is still so comfortable in my hands. The RF 2.8 trinity lenses are heavier but are still acceptable for handholding and take stunning photos, far better than what my EM1_II could. When my RF 100-500 is delivered, I expect it will take even better pictures than the Olympus 300mm f4 (600 f8 EQ) lens. I'm delighted that Canon is coming out with so many new RF lenses that everyone can choose from, but I hope they come out with something like a RF 17-70 f4L IS or a RF 24(or less)-200 f5.6(or so)L IS lens.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 8, 2020)

I purchased an Olympus EM1_II along with their 60 mm macro and twin head macro flash. For $1700 total cost is if a very compact and lightweight macro system. Much easier to carry around than the FF equivalent. Moreover, the increase DOF (see above post) is beneficial for macro.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 8, 2020)

As long as there is a market for a given camera, it will be marketed. A M43 may indeed be the best camera for some users. Claiming a camera format is the best does not make sense without qualifying it as best for " "

I can certainly see why people like smaller cameras, if you can easily carry one with you, that is a advantage for vacations or lots of casual uses. As sensor sizes increase, so does lens size. We may see some breakthrough's in lens size using different technology but so far I've only seen theoretical new lens inventions. 

A camera that can autofocus with less light as in the R5 / R6 will allow for smaller lenses and for some, that will be just what they want. A 1 inch sensor camera that autofocuses at f/22 could have very small lenses so it could be a 400mm equivalent that was very easy to carry.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As long as there is a market for a given camera, it will be marketed. A M43 may indeed be the best camera for some users. Claiming a camera format is the best does not make sense without qualifying it as best for " "
> 
> I can certainly see why people like smaller cameras, if you can easily carry one with you, that is a advantage for vacations or lots of casual uses. As sensor sizes increase, so does lens size. We may see some breakthrough's in lens size using different technology but so far I've only seen theoretical new lens inventions.
> 
> A camera that can autofocus with less light as in the R5 / R6 will allow for smaller lenses and for some, that will be just what they want. A 1 inch sensor camera that autofocuses at f/22 could have very small lenses so it could be a 400mm equivalent that was very easy to carry.


I have a 1" sensor camera that has an f/4 220mm lens which gives 24-600mm equivalence. f/4 is the diffraction-limited aperture for a 20 Mpx 1" sensor and so f/22 would have a rather diffraction degraded image. Maybe a low Mpx sensor would be better.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 8, 2020)

My tuppence. 

I use Canon 5D2 for stills. For the kind of hobby stuff I do there isn't anything that would make any kind of economic sense for me to 'upgrade' to. I also have an M100, which is an amazingly capable wee pocket camera for stills. If it had AEB I think it would be just about perfect within reasonable expectations for the money, and quite a bit beyond the money.

I have 3 M43 cameras which I use exclusively for video. If you don't want to spend EOS C kind of money, and want 4k, there isn't really any other choice... I have f1.7 primes, a tascam and it all fits in a rucksack. I should say at this point I do corporate and third sector video work as my job. The stills from the pannys just don't come anywhere close to my Canons. Even my previous canons, original M's. 7Ds, 20Ds etc.. Canon noise handling and colour is just waay superior.

I also have a Pansonic FZ2000, which is very video orientated and has great video IQ and a very useful lens.

I don't go in hugely for ridiculous levels of depth of field, the 1" sensor and long lens give me plenty of options if I get my perspectives right.

From a video context, I would say that if you are spending GH5s money, there really is nothing better. Blackmagics maybe.. but not without their bugs or caveats.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 9, 2020)

What is it with M4/3rds folks? They like their camera and lenses, and are probably a bit annoyed at the internet influencers who for the past 2 or 3 years have been bashing the system - and perhaps - helped lead to the downfall of Olympus.

Personally, I have most recently owned both M4/3rds (Olympus e-m1 II) and FF (Canon R). I use the Olympus system far more often due to the size and weight advantage. Not to mention that for less money, the Olympus is a pro level body with 2 card slots, better weather sealing, and has features like hand held in-camera focus stacking that I use and don't have with the R. Although I have sold some of these lenses of late, my systems were:

Olympus e-m1 II: 574g, wide angle lens: 9-18mm 155g, 2" long, standard zoom: 12-45mm pro 254g, 2.7", all-in-one zoom 12-100mm pro 561g, 4.6", tele zoom 75-300mm 423g, 4.6". Total weight: 1,967g. Total lens length: 13.9"

Canon R: 660g, wide angle EF 16-35mm L 615g, 4.4", standard RF 24-105mm L 700g, 4.2", all-in-one zoom RF 24-240mm 750g, 4.8", tele zoom EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 II 710 g, 5.7". Total weight 3,435g. Total lens length: 19.1".

While the lenses are of course, not exact equivalents, both systems have 2 pro level lenses and 2 consumer lenses. There is a huge weight and size advantage to the m4/3rds system that I think is quite evident. And as I mentioned on amother thread, the wider DOF can also be advantageous, depending on what you shoot. I shoot a lot of flower pics where I need an aperture of f/13 or so to get the entire flower, or a few flowers in focus suing my M4/3rds lenses. I can not get the same pic with my FF Canon.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 9, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> What is it with M4/3rds folks? They like their camera and lenses, and are probably a bit annoyed at the internet influencers who for the past 2 or 3 years have been bashing the system - and perhaps - helped lead to the downfall of Olympus.



Thanks for answering that. I did not know Oly was being bashed to such a degree.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 9, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> Thanks for answering that. I did not know Oly was being bashed to such a degree.


I have an OLY. It deserves the bashings and the thrashings. Horrendous EVF, insipid menus, terrible ergonomics, etc. Internet influencer opinions of OLY didn't kill OLY. OLY killed itself.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 9, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have an OLY. It deserves the bashings and the thrashings. Horrendous EVF, insipid menus, terrible ergonomics, etc. ...


OK, the E-M5II wasn't the camera for you. Get a grip... no, literally. Did you try the add-on grip? Makes a huge difference in how the E-M5II feels and handles. Since you clearly enjoy portraiture I can understand your preference though. It takes some really expensive lenses on M43 to match the bokeh in your shots. I, too, love the look from the 135L.

Despite the bashing, Olympus has brought a lot of technololgy to the camera world: industry leading IBIS (recall Sony bought into Olympus to have access to this technology), in-camera focus stacking, pre-shot buffering (Pro Capture), live composite, nearly unlimited customization and button reprograming (hence, more complex menus), etc. Olympus optics are fantastic - just check the MTF charts.

Let's hope that Olympus continues to contribute new technology to the photo industry under the JIP arrangement. It's not likely since the goal of the new company will be to drive higher profits not R&D investment.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 9, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> OK, the E-M5II wasn't the camera for you. Get a grip... no, literally. Did you try the add-on grip? Makes a huge difference in how the E-M5II feels and handles. Since you clearly enjoy portraiture I can understand your preference though. It takes some really expensive lenses on M43 to match the bokeh in your shots. I, too, love the look from the 135L.
> 
> Despite the bashing, Olympus has brought a lot of technololgy to the camera world: industry leading IBIS (recall Sony bought into Olympus to have access to this technology), in-camera focus stacking, pre-shot buffering (Pro Capture), live composite, nearly unlimited customization and button reprograming (hence, more complex menus), etc. Olympus optics are fantastic - just check the MTF charts.
> 
> Let's hope that Olympus continues to contribute new technology to the photo industry under the JIP arrangement. It's not likely since the goal of the new company will be to drive higher profits not R&D investment.


I agree strongly with what you mentioned above!
I'd like to add that they also offered their neutral-density software feature, which is fantastic (I wish Canon had it!)
Their EM1_II (and now EM1_III) are wonderfully comfortable in hand (which is the key ergonomics to me).
Their EVF could be better (or "much better"), but it is "adequate" to get the job done.
Their menu system is not the best, but neither is the R5 menu system.
In fact, the R5 menus have so many more items, fairly randomly distributed, so that it's a step down from the Olympus in that regard. However, the R5 does have a beautiful display of their menus with good touch screen interface.

In my opinion, Olympus died because they banked on a small sensor which has limitations relative to a FF sensor. When FF sensor cost dropped then it was no longer a compelling reason to get M43 bodies. When FF lenses snowballed in popularity and choice (through Sony Alpha mainly) and became smaller and more affordable then there was much less reason to get smaller & lighter M43 lenses.

I think Olympus would have been wise to start developing lenses for FF in Sony Alpha and Canon RF mounts. They are superb at building great lenses, and would have succeeded there, and would have rivaled Sigma if they had tried to do it early enough.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 9, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> OK, the E-M5II wasn't the camera for you. Get a grip... no, literally. Did you try the add-on grip? Makes a huge difference in how the E-M5II feels and handles. Since you clearly enjoy portraiture I can understand your preference though. It takes some really expensive lenses on M43 to match the bokeh in your shots. I, too, love the look from the 135L.
> 
> Despite the bashing, Olympus has brought a lot of technololgy to the camera world: industry leading IBIS (recall Sony bought into Olympus to have access to this technology), in-camera focus stacking, pre-shot buffering (Pro Capture), live composite, nearly unlimited customization and button reprograming (hence, more complex menus), etc. Olympus optics are fantastic - just check the MTF charts.
> 
> Let's hope that Olympus continues to contribute new technology to the photo industry under the JIP arrangement. It's not likely since the goal of the new company will be to drive higher profits not R&D investment.


No grip is gonna fix the problems I have with the OLY. Olympus might have contributed technologically, but usability trumps a lot of that. I just hate the camera. Some love it. I'm cool with however people feel about it. My wife likes it, but she's 4'11" and 98 lbs soaking wet. She always shoots in auto. 

The fact remains, though, that OLY committed suicide by putting all it's tech prowess into M43. My opinion, anyway. I might like it more if I truly took the time to memorize it's maze of menus... but I doubt it. It is not a good fit for me, grip or no grip.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 9, 2020)

Olympus at least HAS an M5 mark II.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 9, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No grip is gonna fix the problems I have with the OLY. Olympus might have contributed technologically, but usability trumps a lot of that. I just hate the camera. Some love it. I'm cool with however people feel about it. My wife likes it, but she's 4'11" and 98 lbs soaking wet. She always shoots in auto.
> 
> The fact remains, though, that OLY committed suicide by putting all it's tech prowess into M43. My opinion, anyway. I might like it more if I truly took the time to memorize it's maze of menus... but I doubt it. It is not a good fit for me, grip or no grip.


Whenever I use my Olympus, I find it difficult to quickly find out how to changes ISO, aperture etc...
Also impossible (have big hands) to use with gloves, even hard to hold without gloves.
I bought mine - an E-PL soandso - as an EDC, very good sensor, IBIS, excellent lenses though.
But, if I had to do it again, I'd get an EOS RP with the new 50 f1,8, costs less, and nice to use !


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 10, 2020)

Yep, gloves can be a problem w/some Olympus bodies & the E-PL series is the smallest of the Oly M43's. I fully appreciate that those with larger hands won't like smaller cameras (thanks CFB for pix - it looks almost painful for you to grip the E-M5II) . However, setting ISO is easy - just hit "OK" (middle of the 4-way control pad). That brings up the "Super Control Panel" (another great Olympus feature), touch "ISO" then use arrow pads to adjust. As to cost, in US the E-PL10 (latest) is $550 with kit zoom - about half an EOS RP w/o lens.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 15, 2020)

I have an Olympus camera. Other than its crazy menu system its quite a nice camera. Very compact. Of course the sensor is limited as its relatively small compared to full frame but its not bad if you can get the image right in camera. I think their lenses are superb. .
It's not the lenses that have caused the failure of the company.
They just tied too much faith in micro 4/3 sensor size that they were unable to improve. Getting into computational photography earlier might have helped but the sensor size was inevitably going to catch up.
In a camera itself the sensor only takes up a small portion of the camera and a full frame sensor is not that much bigger than micro 4/3 in physical dimensions. Fully frame cameras were always going to get smaller.
The Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark ii / iii are great cameras and very good with the 300mm F4. It's a very convenient weight and size. 
(Olympus naming conventions have been stupid - you can't even easily describe to someone else which one you have - should have been Olympus E1, E5 etc)
I know many happy owners. 
A Canon 600F4 is not easy to carry around. Even to find a bag to hold it wasn't easy. I have hand held it but its not easy.
Any Olympus EM-1 with a 300mm is very easy carry in comparison. Mobility is quite a useful characteristic in nature shooting.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 15, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I have an Olympus camera. Other than its crazy menu system its quite a nice camera. Very compact. Of course the sensor is limited as its relatively small compared to full frame but its not bad if you can get the image right in camera. I think their lenses are superb. .
> It's not the lenses that have caused the failure of the company.
> They just tied too much faith in micro 4/3 sensor size that they were unable to improve. Getting into computational photography earlier might have helped but the sensor size was inevitably going to catch up.
> In a camera itself the sensor only takes up a small portion of the camera and a full frame sensor is not that much bigger than micro 4/3 in physical dimensions. Fully frame cameras were always going to get smaller.
> ...


As a EM1_II (with the 300mm f4 pro lens) and Canon R5 owner, I would strongly agree with your post, up until the point where you compared the M43 300mm f4 pro lens with a Canon 600F4 lens. I'm afraid you drank the Olympus marketing coolaid - they loved to say that over and over. But the truth is that a supreme quality M43 300mm f4 lens would be equivalent to a supreme quality Canon 600mm **f8** lens, in the image it produces (including the 75mm entrance pupil(aperture) size and amount of light delivered to the *entire* sensor) as well as its approximate size and weight. The only difference would be the Canon sensor would have 4 times the area and thus 4 times well depth and thus would be able to have 4 times less image noise if given a 4 times longer exposure, and it may (or may not) have the same # of pixels, but both of those are a difference in the sensor, not the lens.


----------



## Nemorino (Nov 15, 2020)

This article was previously linked on Canon Rumors but it fits perfectly in this thread:

https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence

It explains the issue of the previous post by usern4cr.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 15, 2020)

I can see a lot of value to the concept, although I don't have first hand experience with any 4/3 system. If you are shooting songbirds or other smaller birds and having to crop 3/4 of the frame away because of being distance limited, it would be nice to have a smaller, lighter camera and lens rather than carrying around extra weight and bulk that you don't need.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 15, 2020)

In my opinion, the advantages to the m4/3rds system far outweigh the disadvantages if you are shooting in daylight. The two disadvantages are worse low-light performance and less DOF. As I mentioned in an earlier reply, less DOF may not be a disadvantage depending on what you shoot, and more DOF can also be an advantage to using a crop sensor camera. I can shoot the equivalent of 150-600mm with my Olympus 75-300mm lens and it is 4.6nches long and weights 425 g. Yes, it is a consumer lens, but show me anything close in terms of size and weight in a FF lens. My 12-100mm pro level lens (equiv 24-200mm) is also 4.6 inches long and weighs 560 g, pretty large for a M4/3rds lens, but small and light for anything similar in the FF world. 

I truly believe much of the issue with m4/3rds has to do with the many YouTube influencers like the Northrups, who declared m4/3rds dead a couple years ago. Many others followed suit. The constant drumbeat was the smaller m4/3rds sensor was not much better than a smartphone sensor and can't compare with an FF sensor. It's odd that they were all comparing m4/3rds with FF when it actually is competing with APS-C camera systems. Nobody is declaring APS-C dead, although it is not much different than m4/3rds, and, in my opinion, m4/3rds has more advantages than APS-C.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> As a EM1_II (with the 300mm f4 pro lens) and Canon R5 owner, I would strongly agree with your post, up until the point where you compared the M43 300mm f4 pro lens with a Canon 600F4 lens. I'm afraid you drank the Olympus marketing coolaid - they loved to say that over and over. But the truth is that a supreme quality M43 300mm f4 lens would be equivalent to a supreme quality Canon 600mm **f8** lens, in the image it produces (including the 75mm entrance pupil(aperture) size and amount of light delivered to the *entire* sensor) as well as its approximate size and weight. The only difference would be the Canon sensor would have 4 times the area and thus 4 times well depth and thus would be able to have 4 times less image noise if given a 4 times longer exposure, and it may (or may not) have the same # of pixels, but both of those are a difference in the sensor, not the lens.


I know people often don't take the time to read messages carefully and speed read through them. I compare the Canon 600mm F4 and the M43 300mm only in terms of size and weight. I didn't imply anything in terms of comparison of image quality and so didn't drink and Coolaid (or perhaps you mean Kool-Aid - which is something I've neither seen not tasted, maybe it didn't sell so well after Guyana). 
In terms of wildlife its handy to have a lens of the quality of the Olympus 300mm in its form factor because a 600 F4 lens is a tough lens to move around with. For me it's like an aircraft carrier. I have special bag for it and a Wimberly Gimbal and solid tripod - all adding to the weight to be carried. It's excellent in a hide but not a walkaround lens. Prolonged handheld use may cause strain injuries - well it does for me anyway..
I personally wouldn't describe a M43 300mm F4 as a 600mm F8 lens. I would describe it as a 300mm F4 lens. Funny that Olympus also describe it as that and print it on the lens. The M43 gives it extra reach through a viewfinder but its not a 600mm F8 lens. I don't expect it to match the Canon Lens but I admire it for what it is. The Olympus 300mm is a fine lens and a great weight


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 16, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I know people often don't take the time to read messages carefully and speed read through them. I compare the Canon 600mm F4 and the M43 300mm only in terms of size and weight. I didn't imply anything in terms of comparison of image quality and so didn't drink and Coolaid (or perhaps you mean Kool-Aid - which is something I've neither seen not tasted, maybe it didn't sell so well after Guyana).
> In terms of wildlife its handy to have a lens of the quality of the Olympus 300mm in its form factor because a 600 F4 lens is a tough lens to move around with. For me it's like an aircraft carrier. I have special bag for it and a Wimberly Gimbal and solid tripod - all adding to the weight to be carried. It's excellent in a hide but not a walkaround lens. Prolonged handheld use may cause strain injuries - well it does for me anyway..
> I personally wouldn't describe a M43 300mm F4 as a 600mm F8 lens. I would describe it as a 300mm F4 lens. Funny that Olympus also describe it as that and print it on the lens. The M43 gives it extra reach through a viewfinder but its not a 600mm F8 lens. I don't expect it to match the Canon Lens but I admire it for what it is. The Olympus 300mm is a fine lens and a great weight


Your original post compares the M43 300mm f4 lens in use to the Canon 600 f4 lens without mentioning it would behave as a FF 600mm f8 lens. If you compare a Canon 600mm f8 lens (if they ever made one) to a Canon 600mm f4 lens and say "See how much smaller & lighter it is?!" then people would say "Yes, but so what? - You're comparing a f8 lens to a f4 lens that's 4(or whatever) times as expensive so obviously it's going to be smaller & lighter than it".

If you want to be fair, then compare the M43 300mm f4 lens (1475g, 227mm long) with something like a Canon *EF 300mm f/4L IS USM* lens (1190g, 221mm long) plus EF 2X III teleconverter (325g, 53mm long) which combined are (1515g, 274mm long). Now you have one FF 600mm f8 image compared to another 600mm f8 image, and they're close in size & weight.

I will reiterate that Olympus marketing statements, including their main proponent Robin Wong and many M43 owners, often talk over and over about a lens like a 300mm f4 lens being compared or equivalent to a Canon or Nikon FF 600mm f4 lens and only say "See how much smaller & lighter it is?". Olympus may put 300 f4 on the lens barrel, but they put 600mm f4, either directly or intentionally inferred, in their sales & marketing claims.

I have the Olympus 300mm f4 pro lens and it is absolutely superb! But whenever I talk to others who are familiar with 35mm film/sensor terminology, I say it's equivalent to a "600mm f8 lens". Then they understand what that would be.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> As a EM1_II (with the 300mm f4 pro lens) and Canon R5 owner, I would strongly agree with your post, up until the point where you compared the M43 300mm f4 pro lens with a Canon 600F4 lens. I'm afraid you drank the Olympus marketing coolaid - they loved to say that over and over. But the truth is that a supreme quality M43 300mm f4 lens would be equivalent to a supreme quality Canon 600mm **f8** lens, in the image it produces (including the 75mm entrance pupil(aperture) size and amount of light delivered to the *entire* sensor) as well as its approximate size and weight. The only difference would be the Canon sensor would have 4 times the area and thus 4 times well depth and thus would be able to have 4 times less image noise if given a 4 times longer exposure, and it may (or may not) have the same # of pixels, but both of those are a difference in the sensor, not the lens.



Your olympus lens is a 300 f4. And thats it.

What happens after that is a function of sensor equivalence.
Yes the sensor crop gives it a field of view similar to a 600 on full frame, and yes theoretical f number would be f4, the light gathering of the lens would in theory be the same as a 600mm f4 on full frame, different optical designs etc would really not make them equivalents.. you'd need to measure T-stops objectively..

The smaller sensor would of course mean a depth of field similar to f8 on a 600 full frame but with that kind of focal length, if you get sufficient subject separation you'll still get blurry backgrounds etc..

This is the problem with equivalence.. you need to compare the whole system. 

There is no doubt about the fact that a lighter oly body and lens around your neck will get a better shot that a huge canon set up left at home.

I don't really care whats better. I care whats right for me.

For me, it's canons for stills, panasonic for video.

But hey, each to their own.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 17, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> Your olympus lens is a 300 f4. And thats it.
> 
> What happens after that is a function of sensor equivalence.
> Yes the sensor crop gives it a field of view similar to a 600 on full frame, and yes theoretical f number would be f4, the light gathering of the lens would in theory be the same as a 600mm f4 on full frame, different optical designs etc would really not make them equivalents.. you'd need to measure T-stops objectively..
> ...






usern4cr said:


> Your original post compares the M43 300mm f4 lens in use to the Canon 600 f4 lens without mentioning it would behave as a FF 600mm f8 lens. If you compare a Canon 600mm f8 lens (if they ever made one) to a Canon 600mm f4 lens and say "See how much smaller & lighter it is?!" then people would say "Yes, but so what? - You're comparing a f8 lens to a f4 lens that's 4(or whatever) times as expensive so obviously it's going to be smaller & lighter than it".
> 
> If you want to be fair, then compare the M43 300mm f4 lens (1475g, 227mm long) with something like a Canon *EF 300mm f/4L IS USM* lens (1190g, 221mm long) plus EF 2X III teleconverter (325g, 53mm long) which combined are (1515g, 274mm long). Now you have one FF 600mm f8 image compared to another 600mm f8 image, and they're close in size & weight.
> 
> ...


F4 is F4. You might compare the depth of field to being like F8 and this is how you explain it in your own head but aperture is still F4.
It's a sort of irrelevant argument. I can't see the point about talking about depth of field equivalents . You obviously like the lens seeing as you have it.
It's size and weight is its advantage. A decent job by Olympus, a pity they never went full frame as they can make good lens.


----------



## Joules (Nov 17, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> F4 is F4. You might compare the depth of field to being like F8 and this is how you explain it in your own head but aperture is still F4.
> It's a sort of irrelevant argument. I can't see the point about talking about depth of field equivalents . You obviously like the lens seeing as you have it.
> It's size and weight is its advantage. A decent job by Olympus, a pity they never went full frame as they can make good lens.


300mm 4.0 is 300 mm 4.0. No doubt about it.

I think we also all agree that the image of a 300 mm 4.0 lens attached to a M43 sensor will look dramatically different compared to one taken on a FF sensor, right? In which way? Well, one has only 1/4 the sensor area of the other, so the m43 image has only half the field of view in all directions (2 times crop). You don't have a problem referring to a 300mm 4.0 on m43 as equivalent to 600mm in terms of FoV, as I understand?

In terms of light, the total amount entering each lens is the same. But that's just looking at the lens. They both have a physical 75 mm aperture. But due to the different areas of the sensor, the FF system captures 4 times as much of this light compared to the m43 one.

So it's comparing apples to oranges. So usern4cr suggested using a 2 time TC on the FF 300mm 4.0, to also get to 600 mm on that, without increasing the size dramatically. Effective aperture is also multiplied by 2 in this instance, resulting in f/8. So far so good?

From f/4 to f/8 is two stops - 1/4 the light. So now the FF system captures the same FoV as the bare 300 4.0 on m43, and they also capture the same amount of light. So really, they take the same image. No difference in DoF, nor noise. Sharpness may be reduced in the FF one due to the TC though. The R5 is not quite high resolution enough to match the pixel density of a 16 MP m43. The Sony a7 R IV is, though. And the high resolution R will exceed it. So cropping is an alternative to using a TC that will neither reduce sharpness nor increase size and weight.

And as demonstrated through the lenses noted by usern4cr, m43 does not have a real long term advantage in terms of size and weight of long lenses. Of course, using a TC is a hassle and the Canon 300 mm 4.0 L IS USM is an old lens. So for now, m43 is the cleaner over all system. But in the long term, we may see FF manufacturers offer more slow Tele offerings to compete head to head in terms of size. The 600mm and 800mm f/11 are on the extreme of this, going more for entry level. But they prove the concept.

None of this is to say m43 is bad, or is going to go away. I just wanted to illustrate why you can't have your cake and eat it too with the crop factor. Comparing between different sensor sizes requires to look at both lens and sensor combined, and that affects not just focal length but aperture (DoF, more importantly noise) too.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 17, 2020)

In my case the super telephoto range (say 600 mm eq. or greater) is only for fun - it's not something I'd use to try and get published. Therefore budget comes into play big time. $12,999 for a Canon 600 mm makes no sense for me. The M43 world offers several more budget friendly solutions, e.g. Olympus: 75-300 f4.8-6.7 $400, 100-400 f5-6.3 $1400, or 40-150 f2.8 (which I have already for event work) plus 2X TC $1350 + $380; Panasonic: 100-300 f4-5.6 $550, 100-400 f4-6.3 $1600. Of course there are the Oly 300 f4 $2750 and new 150-400 f4 w/1.25TC $7500 - neither as budget friendly.

*Someone just wanting to dabble in long telephoto can do so fairly inexpensively w/M43*. (<$1000 body+lens or <$2300 for pro grade fully weather sealed kit) Canon is trying to capture that market w/its new f11 telephotos, but these f11's demand fair weather, really good light, slow shutter speeds or very high ISO's. In the Canon world I settle for the 100-400 L and a crop body to get 640 mm eq. I've considered the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 options but they are monsters compared to M43 for eq. FOV. Again, for me, more DOF is usually helpful and noise can be addressed reasonably w/software. Size & weight are big considerations as well.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> 300mm 4.0 is 300 mm 4.0. No doubt about it.
> 
> I think we also all agree that the image of a 300 mm 4.0 lens attached to a M43 sensor will look dramatically different compared to one taken on a FF sensor, right? In which way? Well, one has only 1/4 the sensor area of the other, so the m43 image has only half the field of view in all directions (2 times crop). You don't have a problem referring to a 300mm 4.0 on m43 as equivalent to 600mm in terms of FoV, as I understand?
> 
> ...


Thanks, Joules, for you re-explaination of my post on FF Equivalence to try to make it understandable to those that have differing opinions. I searched Canon & Nikon to see if they made a 600mm f8 FF lens, but didn't find any. That's why I had to use the FF 300mm f4 and 2x TC to act like a 600mm f8 lens. It's a shame that Canon doesn't make a RF 600 f8L lens (well, yet). 

Another crucial spec for lenses is the maximum magnification. The Olympus 300mm f4 pro lens has a 0.24x maximum magnification onto a sensor with half the width as FF, which would be the same subject size & perspective onto the entire sensor of a FF 600mm f8 lens with 0.48x max magnification (and yes, there will be those that disagree with that statement, too). So that is why I wish Canon would come out with a lens like a RF 600mm f8L IS with 0.5x maximum magnification. This would finally be a quality RF equivalent of the absolutely superb Olympus 300mm f4 pro IS lens, which I love so much for tack sharp shots of flowers or insects (that you don't scare away) with huge smooth background blur and incredible IS handheld stabilization. I have lots of flower shots with it, and will repost one of them (reduced size) here:


----------



## Joules (Nov 17, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> [...] Olympus: 75-300 f4.8-6.7 $400, 100-400 f5-6.3 $1400, or 40-150 f2.8 (which I have already for event work)
> [...] Panasonic: 100-300 f4-5.6 $550, 100-400 f4-6.3 $1600. [...] Oly 300 f4 [...] 150-400 f4 [...]
> 
> Canon is trying to capture that market w/its new f11 telephotos, but these f11's demand fair weather, really good light, slow shutter speeds or very high ISO's.


Let me get this straight. You just listed lenses with the following FF equivalent properties:

150-600mm 9.6-13.4
200-800mm 10.0-12.6
80-300mm 5.6
200-600mm 8.0-11
200-800mm 8.0-12.6
600mm 8.0
300-800 8.0

But then go on to critique the Canon f/11 primes for their slow aperture?

Once again. I am not saying there is anything wrong or inferior about m43. But for the love of Haruhi, recognize what the advantages actually are: The ecosystem and market that demands small and light and therefore enables the manufacturers to cater to this niche by offering these slow lenses. That's something that FF didn't have in the past, especially since on DSLR, such narrow apertures would create significant challenges for the AF. And they still do, as the diminished AF area on the f/11 primes shows. In m43, you can create these lenses and still create a round, statisfying customer experience, since the sensors are less demanding anyway and the market actually prioritizes size and weight over IQ and flexibility. That in itself is a value and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. And FF is not able to directly compete with these aspects.

But in terms of just size or weight per mm of reach, FF absolutely can absolutely compete. And it will in the near future, as Canon's first push demonstrates.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> Let me get this straight. You just listed lenses with the following FF equivalent properties:
> 
> 150-600mm 9.6-13.4
> 200-800mm 10.0-12.6
> ...


Canon f11 lenses are slow. In terms of exposure the lenses I listed are all faster, period. Your "equivalence" is in terms of DOF and noise, not exposure. I agree if one is driven to produce an image that is equal in terms of DOF, noise and FOV then one must adjust for aperture. However, if all one cares about is getting the right exposure then f4 is f4 independent of the sensor crop. (Assuming similar T-stop values). I clearly stated that I wasn't worried about minimizing DOF and could adjust for noise in software.


----------



## Joules (Nov 17, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> Canon f11 lenses are slow. In terms of exposure the lenses I listed are all faster, period. Your "equivalence" is in terms of DOF and noise, not exposure. I agree if one is driven to produce an image that is equal in terms of DOF, noise and FOV then one must adjust for aperture. However, if all one cares about is getting the right exposure then f4 is f4 independent of the sensor crop. (Assuming similar T-stop values). I clearly stated that I wasn't worried about minimizing DOF and could adjust for noise in software.


What do you mean by exposure? The settings? As in, exposure time, ISO and f number? Sure, for determining those f/4 is the same regardless of sensor size. The image brightness is independent of the sensor size. Just as cropping does not decrease brightness. But it does discard signal, hence making noise more visible. 

Aperture just determines your photons per area and time. Your shutter speed multiplies out the time, and your sensor size the area, resulting in a signal in photons. ISO does amplify this. But the amount of signal is what ultimately determines the image quality as far as noise and tonality are concerned. At best, the lenses you listed have a single stop advantage over the f/11 primes, and at worst just under a stop of disadvantage.

I am talking purely about the quality of the output in total here. Not just DoF. If you are fine dealing with noise in software, this should apply equally to the Canon f/11 primes as the similarly slow or slower zooms you listed. That's the point that I am confused about.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> Canon f11 lenses are slow. In terms of exposure the lenses I listed are all faster, period. Your "equivalence" is in terms of DOF and noise, not exposure. I agree if one is driven to produce an image that is equal in terms of DOF, noise and FOV then one must adjust for aperture. However, if all one cares about is getting the right exposure then f4 is f4 independent of the sensor crop. (Assuming similar T-stop values). I clearly stated that I wasn't worried about minimizing DOF and could adjust for noise in software.


If you had carefully read my posts above, you would have seen my mention that an Olympus 300mm f4 lens & sensor will produce the same image & perspective & DOF & blur as a FF 600mm f8 lens. They will also have the *same aperture* of 75mm to let the light in for the same exact image and thus they transmit the same total amount of light for the same period of time. This light will indeed be more concentrated on the smaller Olympus sensor, and spread out further on the FF sensor, but it will still be the *same rate of total amount of photons* coming through the lens to illuminate the *entire sensor*, whether it is a 300 mm f4 & crop sensor or a 600mm f8 & FF sensor. However, after the Olympus has filled its sensor to 100% of its well depth, the FF sensor will only be 1/4 filled because it has 4 times the area and thus 4 times the well depth. If you choose to stop the FF exposure at 1 second then you have the same total sensor exposure in #photons for the image! You also have the choice of continuing the FF exposure for up to 4 seconds total to fill its sensor if you want to have 4 times as many photons and thus 4 times less noise than the Olympus - but keep in mind that this is an option the FF system allows that the Olympus can't. What you are missing is just what I mentioned here - a full sensor on the Olympus is equivalent in #photons to a quarter-full sensor on the FF because the FF sensor has 4 times the well depth. You can get the same #photons and noise in the 300mm f4 Olympus full sensor as you can with a 600mm f8 FF quarter-full sensor in the exact same amount of time, so the exposure as defined by the #total photons on sensor per second is also the same in both, but the FF is able to optionally expose for 4 times longer before being full.


----------



## Joules (Nov 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> However, after the Olympus has filled its sensor to 100% of its well depth, the FF sensor will only be 1/4 filled because it has 4 times the area and thus 4 times the well depth. If you choose to stop the FF exposure at 1 second then you have the same total sensor exposure in #photons for the image! You also have the choice of continuing the FF exposure for up to 4 seconds


I think you have a mistake here in your train of thought.

Full well capacity is proportional to pixel area given identical generations of technology, right? So for identical resolution, each pixel on a FF sensor has a 4 times higher full well capacity compared to a M43 one. However, they both take exactly the same amount of time to fill up to 100%, since the 4 times larger surface of the FF pixel also means it is gathering photons at 4 times the rate.

I think what you are trying to explain is the lesser dynamic range of smaller sensor formats? But as I understand it, that is caused by the difference in noise floor, rather than well capacity. Or maybe I am just misinterpreting your point.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> I think you have a mistake here in your train of thought.
> 
> Full well capacity is proportional to pixel area given identical generations of technology, right? So for identical resolution, each pixel on a FF sensor has a 4 times higher full well capacity compared to a M43 one. However, they both take exactly the same amount of time to fill up to 100%, since the 4 times larger surface of the FF pixel also means it is gathering photons at 4 times the rate.
> 
> I think what you are trying to explain is the lesser dynamic range of smaller sensor formats? But as I understand it, that is caused by the difference in noise floor, rather than well capacity. Or maybe I am just misinterpreting your point.


I did say that full well capacity of the entire sensor is proportional to sensor area given the same sensor technology.
But just because a sensor is 4 times bigger doesn't mean it is inherently illuminated by 4 times the amount of light.
I said a M43 300mm **f4** lens and sensor fills at the same rate *(defined by #photons on entire sensor / time)* as a FF 600mm **f8** lens and sensor, but the FF sensor would take 4 times longer to fill completely due to 4 times larger well capacity.
I think you're OK with a f4 lens filling up the entire sensor to 100% well depth 4 times faster than a f8 lens, right?
I also imply that total sensor well depth is inversely proportional to noise, if given time to fully fill the entire sensor.
I didn't mention dynamic range, but would guess that it is proportional to total sensor well depth, but is also inversely affected by #pixels on the sensor.

I didn't mention noise floor or other issues like lens transmission, as I assume other things are equal so as to allow the main issue of equivalence to be discussed (which is already prone to too much argument as it is).


----------



## Joules (Nov 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I said a M43 300mm **f4** lens and sensor fills at the same rate *(defined by #photons on entire sensor / time)* as a FF 600mm **f8** lens and sensor, but the FF sensor would take 4 times longer to fill completely due to 4 times larger well capacity.


Ah, I see. You were still comparing the example with the f/4 vs f/8. Yes, nothing wrong with what you said then. In simpler terms, the image you get from a 600mm 8.0 on FF will be 2 stops darker than 300mm 4.0 on M43. So by the time the M43 is starting to be blown out, FF can still push 2 stops further.

Not sure what this implies in terms of practice though, as shutter speeds are usually heavily constrained by the focal length and the degree to which it emphasizes even small motions.

Especially since strictly speaking you should probably shoot at two stops of ISO higher, in order to keep it apples to apples for the sake of arguing equivalency.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> The Olympus 300mm f4 pro lens has a 0.24x maximum magnification onto a sensor with half the width as FF, which would be the same subject size & perspective onto the entire sensor of a FF 600mm f8 lens with 0.48x max magnification (and yes, there will be those that disagree with that statement, too)



No. Magnification of 0.24 would be the same as magnification of 0.24. You are letting sensor crop equivalence trip you up.

In terms of quality there is no reasonable comparison between the systems. 

m43 fans (and I am one of them, for video at least) should stick to actual tangible demonstrable benefits. Key to this is portability.

I personally don't like the stills from my m43s. I find them noisy even at base iso. The stills from my canons are far better. Even my old clunker 20D. More organic noise pattern.
My main stills camera, a venerable 5D2 is so far above the panasonics especially in low light it's like different beasts...

Video, different story. The quality is fantastic. The 4K scales beautifully to 1080 output. The m43 telecentric lenses are great corner to corner.

Personally, I would forget what the other guy is using and decide if m43 is good enough for you. If it is, great. FF is objectively better. But there is cost, there is portability.

Everybody seems fairly entrenched and some are making confused comparisons. I know it's a gear forum, but there are other factors such as usability etc.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> No. Magnification of 0.24 would be the same as magnification of 0.24. You are letting sensor crop equivalence trip you up.
> 
> In terms of quality there is no reasonable comparison between the systems.
> 
> ...


Ok - you figure this out and let me know:
How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a M43 lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a M43 sensor?
How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a FF lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a FF sensor?
Are the two values the same?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> What do you mean by exposure? The settings? As in, exposure time, ISO and f number? Sure, for determining those f/4 is the same regardless of sensor size...


My main point was that M43 allows someone to get into long telephoto photography relatively inexpensively. E.g. Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 for $550, add an E-M10III body for $450 and for $1000 you are good to go with a very effective, compact, lightweight kit. The lowest cost Canon solution - RP plus the RF600 f11 is $1700 (possible exception being a high zoom ratio P&S). Beside cost, equivalent exposure was all I was addressing. I have no argument with other aspects of "equivalence" calculations; however, most of the time I have no reason to care. M43 is plenty good enough for me, typically less expensive to purchase, and generally easier to tote around than my Canon gear.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> My main point was that M43 allows someone to get into long telephoto photography relatively inexpensively. E.g. Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 for $550, add an E-M10III body for $450 and for $1000 you are good to go with a very effective, compact, lightweight kit. The lowest cost Canon solution - RP plus the RF600 f11 is $1700 (possible exception being a high zoom ratio P&S). Beside cost, equivalent exposure was all I was addressing. I have no argument with other aspects of "equivalence" calculations; however, most of the time I have no reason to care. M43 is plenty good enough for me, typically less expensive to purchase, and generally easier to tote around than my Canon gear.


I agree that M43 allows inexpensive entry into long telephoto photography in general. The forced 2x crop makes all lenses 2x longer in angle of view of the subject in focus (ignoring f#, DOF, OOF blur, strength/weakness of lighting ). Their superb IBIS + OIS combo has been the best for quite a while (IMHO) for handheld use. My EM1_II and lenses are super comfortable to hold in my right hand while I walk around (note: I don't have any other M43 body and can't comment on them). And the Olympus EM1_II and their pro lenses are the best (IMHO) in build quality when subject to really bad weather (yes, I'm told that the Canon pro DSLRs and lenses are too). I just wish they came out with the EM1_III a year or more earlier when I would have considered buying it as a 2nd body, and that they came out with a better EVF and better organized touch screen menu system and a few more pro lenses, and oh - they didn't go out of business!


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 17, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> My main point was that M43 allows someone to get into long telephoto photography relatively inexpensively. E.g. Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 for $550, add an E-M10III body for $450 and for $1000 you are good to go with a very effective, compact, lightweight kit. The lowest cost Canon solution - RP plus the RF600 f11 is $1700 (possible exception being a high zoom ratio P&S). Beside cost, equivalent exposure was all I was addressing. I have no argument with other aspects of "equivalence" calculations; however, most of the time I have no reason to care. M43 is plenty good enough for me, typically less expensive to purchase, and generally easier to tote around than my Canon gear.


Unfortunately, while you main point is completely obvious to any M4/3rds user - that no FF system can come close to portability and cost to M4/3rds - FF enthusiasts can't help but try and denigrate M4/3rds. FF snobbery is the reality on forums, YouTube reviews and the internet in general. Thus the demise of Olympus. It's not FF, therefore it must be crap. 

I say let the FF enthusiasts haul around their lenses that are at least 3 times heavier and are considerably more expensive. We don't want them to feel bad when they know that there are better alternatives in terms of cost and weight. Let them pixel peep and be glad that their images have less noise. They have to have something to be happy about.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Ok - you figure this out and let me know:
> How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a M43 lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a M43 sensor?
> How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a FF lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a FF sensor?
> Are the two values the same?




The magnification factor of any lens regardless of dimensions is the magnification factor of that specific lens design.

The sensor does not come into it, the size of the projected image at the film plane is what it is.
There is no point comparing apples with elevators. It's a silly rabbit hole to go down.

If you can show me a full frame EF camera that can be adapted for m43 then I'll maybe consider your point... until then....

And beyond that point, as I've already said... even if you were to allow for sensor crop etc.. the sensor designs, pixel pitch, microlens designs etc are so different that there really is no useful comparison other than to see who can pee the highest under lab conditions (spolier, it's always going to be FF)

If it works for you enjoy it. All the best.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 18, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> The magnification factor of any lens regardless of dimensions is the magnification factor of that specific lens design.
> 
> The sensor does not come into it, the size of the projected image at the film plane is what it is.
> There is no point comparing apples with elevators. It's a silly rabbit hole to go down.
> ...


OK, since you won't do it, I'll do it for you.

Q: How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a M43 lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a M43 sensor?
A: A M43 sensor is 18mm wide. Since we know a 1:1 (1x) magnification is a true "macro", and a true macro by definition will place the same size subject width onto the sensor width(18mm), then the subject width would be 18mm. Now a .24x magnification is less magnification, so the image on the sensor would correspond to a bigger subject width, so subject width = sensor width / magnification. So the subject width = 18mm / 0.24 = 75mm

Q: How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a FF lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a FF sensor?
A: The FF sensor is 36mm wide, so subject width = 36mm / 0.24 = 150mm

So the picture taken with the M43 setup is of an object half as big as the picture taken with the FF setup.
Now if you want to claim these 2 pictures are the same, then you go ahead. But show the two pictures to ordinary people and ask them if they're the same. They'll say "No" since the subject content of each is different. So they're not equivalent.

When I talk about one system taking an "equivalent" picture as a different system, I mean that the content of the picture in one is the same as the content in the other. Otherwise there is no use in calling any two pictures "equivalent" at all. A single photo printed to two sizes of 4x6" and 8x12" will be "equivalent" photos to me. If you ask an ordinary person if they are a photo of the same thing, they will say "Yes". That's why they're equivalent.

Ok, if you want to define "equivalent" some other way, then go ahead.


----------



## Joules (Nov 18, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 for $550, add an E-M10III body for $450 and for $1000 you are good to go [...]
> The lowest cost Canon solution - RP plus the RF600 f11 is $1700 (possible exception being a high zoom ratio P&S).


I don't disagree with you. I have said multiple times I don't mean to say that M43 is bad.

But you don't have to buy a Canon P&S to get the reach of the body and lens combination you named. You can also get a SL3 for 550 $ and an EF 70-300 IS USM II for 460 $ on Amazon currently. That's virtually the same pixel density, resulting in the same reach given identical focal lengths and apertures. Also at 1010 $.

This does not really matter in the context of our previous discussion, as that was more geared towards FF and M43, and there you definitely can't get this much reach at or below 1000 $ - yet.

Regardless, my point is just this: when comparing apples to apples, M43 has no noteable technical advantage in terms of size and weight for long tele lenses. But the ecosystem has the advantage of being built around the idea of small and light and its users value these ideas enough to support the release of slow zooms and primes that simply have no equivalent in bigger formats.

It does not matter that a 300 mm 4.0 prime on M43 delivers the same images as a 600 mm 8.0 one in FF would, if that's the sweet spot of what a user is going for and there simply is no 600mm 8.0 available to buy for FF. Or a 300 4.0 is available, but a 60+ MP FF camera is outside of that user's budget. A 2X TC makes for a great argument, but in practice, it has more side effects beyond just the desired ones

So for the millionth time: there is nothing wrong with M43. I just want to provide some perspective when it seems like users are perceiving getting values from M43 that aren't actually there. Like getting the IQ (noise, detail, DOF) of a 600mm 4.0 FF lens at a fraction the size or weight when using a 300mm 4.0 on M43. Or having less noise to deal with in software when shooting with slow equivalent M43 zooms compared to f/11 primes on FF. Those simply are values M43 isn't providing, and the people promoting them anyway run the risk of deceiving others.


----------



## Joules (Nov 18, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> We don't want them to feel bad when they know that there are better alternatives in terms of cost and weight. Let them pixel peep and be glad that their images have less noise. They have to have something to be happy about.


Can we just please acknowledge that different people value different aspects of the shooting experience?

As you say, trading some IQ for lower size and weight as a perfectly reasonable compromise. And if you can get more joy out of it when the gear in use is so tiny, that's what should matter the most. The reverse is just as true.

What better means is entirely subjective when we talk about about the whole experience. What's the point of calling out the behavior of folks who push the thought of their gear being better onto others, when you're just going to do the same?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 18, 2020)

Joules said:


> I don't disagree with you. I have said multiple times I don't mean to say that M43 is bad.
> 
> But you don't have to buy a Canon P&S to get the reach of the body and lens combination you named. You can also get a SL3 for 550 $ and an EF 70-300 IS USM II for 460 $ on Amazon currently. That's virtually the same pixel density, resulting in the same reach given identical focal lengths and apertures. Also at 1010 $.
> ...


Thanks for suggesting the SL-3 w/70-300 M2. (I should have thought of it since I happen to own that combo - well SL-2 & Mark I lens version.) Of course there is also the even cheaper 75-300 for $180. Doesn't get to the full 600 mm eq. but close enough to crop the rest of the way. 

Just for fun, here are the various kits mentioned thanks to camerasize.com. Weights are: M43-920 g, APSC-1161 g, FF-1415 g.


----------



## Joules (Nov 18, 2020)

old-pr-pix said:


> Of course there is also the even cheaper 75-300 for $180.


If you are talking about the EF lens, yes, it exists. But it is a terrible deal, primarily due to actually bad IQ. I would go with the EF-S 55-250mm any day for light, cheap Tele on Canon EF-S.



old-pr-pix said:


> Just for fun, here are the various kits mentioned thanks to camerasize.com. Weights are: M43-920 g, APSC-1161 g, FF-1415 g.
> View attachment 194047


Good point of reference. The Canon APS-C setup provides a bit more range on the wide end, so there the weight at least gets you something. The FF combination is of course achieving it's reach through the physical properties of the lens rather than the pixel density, and it shows as a clear disadvantage in size and weight. Honestly, that's one of the things I'm most interested in seeing how Canon will handle it going forward.

On the one hand, they kind of restarted the MP wars with the 90D and M6 II. But if they can't transfer that density to affordable R bodies, the use of TCs and huge lenses remains the only option for reach. And it will make it much harder to excite even the current APS-C users to switch.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Now if you want to claim these 2 pictures are the same, then you go ahead. But show the two pictures to ordinary people and ask them if they're the same. They'll say "No" since the subject content of each is different. So they're not equivalent.
> 
> When I talk about one system taking an "equivalent" picture as a different system, I mean that the content of the picture in one is the same as the content in the other. Otherwise there is no use in calling any two pictures "equivalent" at all. A single photo printed to two sizes of 4x6" and 8x12" will be "equivalent" photos to me. If you ask an ordinary person if they are a photo of the same thing, they will say "Yes". That's why they're equivalent.
> 
> Ok, if you want to define "equivalent" some other way, then go ahead.



Ok thanks. So you did fancy the rabbit hole then?

So what lens and which bodies are we talking about here? Are you sitting with a calculator or are you talking about something that exists that can actually take pictures that people could compare?

You are then into the realms of lens designs, of coatings, of circles of confusion and the effect on how much of a subject depth is rendered in focus...

You are then talking about the very best m43 sensor scraping 1300 iso on DXO vs the very best Canon FF soldiering well beyond 3200.. what time of day are you taking your image? Is it a sports image? Bird in flight? Okay you could go down the dual-iso M43 sensor as used in the GH5s.. but then you are cutting your resolution in half.

What print size are you talking that you are going to show your ordinary person? 6x4? 15x10? A1? Billboard?

I'll reiterate. In BOLD to help you. IF YOU CAN GET RESULTS YOU ARE HAPPY WITH FROM YOUR CHOSEN SYSTEM I AM HAPPY FOR YOU. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS COMPARABLE. FOR MANY MANY REASONS. IT'S VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALL THINGS TO BE EQUAL IN THE REAL WORLD UNLESS YOU ARE COMPARING THE LATEST OLYMPUS WITH A 1DS MKII...

I live in the real world. Not down a rabbit hole.

Best wishes, we're done here.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 20, 2020)

FYI: Here's a just published interesting video about the latest Olympus lens release, comparing it to Canon, Sony etc:


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 21, 2020)

Great.

Another factor to consider is that Olympus have went bust and FF cameras are now cheaper than an EM1. They can release all the lenses they want, and you can talk about equivalence (in strictly theoretical terms) all you want. Health to you use the kit you are happy with.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 21, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have an OLY. It deserves the bashings and the thrashings. Horrendous EVF, insipid menus, terrible ergonomics, etc. Internet influencer opinions of OLY didn't kill OLY. OLY killed itself.


I'm not sure of all the factors that led Olympus to sell off its camera division, but I think influencers were no big factor. (Notice recently how quick the People are to BASH free speech?)

If influencers and BASHERS could kill a camera company, wouldn't Canon be long forgotten by now?


----------



## Joules (Nov 21, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> If influencers and BASHERS could kill a camera company, wouldn't Canon be long forgotten by now?


Oh, they'd be *******, for sure!


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 21, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> Great.
> 
> Another factor to consider is that Olympus have went bust and FF cameras are now cheaper than an EM1. They can release all the lenses they want, and you can talk about equivalence (in strictly theoretical terms) all you want. Health to you use the kit you are happy with.


We understand that you have the usual forum opinion that FF is automatically better than any crop camera. In the opinion of others, a crop camera may be preferable to an FF camera even if the price is the same or the FF camera costs less. An Olympus EM-1 Mark II may cost more than a Canon RP, but in my opinion (having owned both) they are not comparable. The Olympus has 2 card slots, IBIS, pro level weather sealing, in camera focus stacking and other features that the Canon does not have. It also has better Dynamic Range based on the photons to photos website. To get a comparable FF Canon camera, with 2 card slots, IBIS, good weather sealling (but still inferior to the the Olympus), focus bracketing (not stacking in-camera) you need to get an R6, which costs $1,000 dollars more.

As you say, If a person gets results they are happy with, we should all be happy for them. If you are happy with FF, I have no argument with that. If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 21, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> We understand that you have the usual forum opinion that FF is automatically better than any crop camera. In the opinion of others, a crop camera may be preferable to an FF camera even if the price is the same or the FF camera costs less. An Olympus EM-1 Mark II may cost more than a Canon RP, but in my opinion (having owned both) they are not comparable. The Olympus has 2 card slots, IBIS, pro level weather sealing, in camera focus stacking and other features that the Canon does not have. It also has better Dynamic Range based on the photons to photos website. To get a comparable FF Canon camera, with 2 card slots, IBIS, good weather sealling (but still inferior to the the Olympus), focus bracketing (not stacking in-camera) you need to get an R6, which costs $1,000 dollars more.
> 
> As you say, If a person gets results they are happy with, we should all be happy for them. If you are happy with FF, I have no argument with that. If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons.


I think we can believe, rightly so, that FF sensors are generally capable of producing files that result in better image quality and more cropping flexibility, and at the same time we can envy the compactness of Olympus gear. Who wants to pay more to lug around heavy gear? Nobody if there aren't visible benefits!

I've read several times in this thread that Olympus is finished. Is that true? I thought that the photography line had been sold, not closed? Meanwhile, Olympus, after learning so much about producing tiny cameras, has gone all in on endoscopic equipment!


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 21, 2020)

Joules said:


> Can we just please acknowledge that different people value different aspects of the shooting experience?
> 
> As you say, trading some IQ for lower size and weight as a perfectly reasonable compromise. And if you can get more joy out of it when the gear in use is so tiny, that's what should matter the most. The reverse is just as true.
> 
> What better means is entirely subjective when we talk about about the whole experience. What's the point of calling out the behavior of folks who push the thought of their gear being better onto others, when you're just going to do the same?


Yes, absolutely - everyone has different wants, needs and values when it comes to their photography. If everyone had that rather obvious opinion, then Olympus, and other crop camera users wouldn't have to deal with the constant bashing and - at times - contrived comparisons that those who prefer FF cameras are constantly making. That was my point, made rather sarcastically.

I am not saying that Olympus is "better" in any overall generic use of the term. If you read what I wrote..." there are better alternatives in terms of cost and weight," I think you will see that I am not pushing the thought that my gear is better than anyone else's, but merely stating two areas that can be "better" if you are buying Olympus. When it comes to low light performance, narrower DOF, less noise, than FF is clearly better in those respects. Just trying to state facts, as best I can, not trying to push the thought that any one system is "better" than any other.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 21, 2020)

I'm imagining how Olympus decided to get into the endoscopy game so deeply. Maybe one night at a karoke bar in Japan, some Olympus and Canon employees were getting drunk, hurling boasts and insults at each other, and one of the Canon guys said, " Why don't you just take your tiny camera and shove it up your ______!" 

And Olympus did!


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 21, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I think we can believe, rightly so, that FF sensors are generally capable of producing files that result in better image quality and more cropping flexibility, and at the same time we can envy the compactness of Olympus gear. Who wants to pay more to lug around heavy gear? Nobody if there aren't visible benefits!
> 
> I've read several times in this thread that Olympus is finished. Is that true? I thought that the photography line had been sold, not closed? Meanwhile, Olympus, after learning so much about producing tiny cameras, has gone all in on endoscopic equipment!


Well, at the moment it is still unknown exactly what the future holds. As of now, the Olympus Imaging division has been sold. Olympus will retain a small percentage of a new company that will be formed with JIP. Here is an article on the sale:

https://petapixel.com/2020/09/30/ol...-imaging-business-to-jip-shares-more-details/

I think most Olympus owners are rather pessimistic about the future, as JIP is not a camera or imaging company. What little we know about them is that they are the company that Sony sold their VAIO laptop business to a few years back. From what little I have read about that, they ended up making a rather inferior, cheaply made product, that still hoped to take advantage of the VAIO brand name. JIP's goal is to take failing companies and somehow turn them into profit making ones. With the shrinking camera market, and the long term economic effects of Covid, this seems like an unachievable task.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 21, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I've read several times in this thread that Olympus is finished. Is that true? I thought that the photography line had been sold, not closed? Meanwhile, Olympus, after learning so much about producing tiny cameras, has gone all in on endoscopic equipment!


Olympus sold 95% of their camera business to JIP and retained 5%. The new organization - OM Digital Solutions Corporation - has promised to focus on high-end cameras and lenses and to continue to sell the OMD line under the Olympus name. It is endeavoring to retain key technical staff and production facilities. However, It appears there are major shake-ups in marketing/sales and contracted pros. It is rumored a big part of the move was to avoid Japanese regulations/customs surrounding employee benefits and life-time employment expectations. Down-sizing can be difficult there. Some say JIP is only known for stripping assets and selling pieces or creating cheap products. Others think the Richo/Pentax model is more realistic - the brand continues w/modest development but solid products still available. Only time and the market will tell!

Of course, there are still Panasonic and numerous other M43 providers to pick from. And today's gear will likely function for years to come.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 21, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> If you are happy with FF, I have no argument with that. If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons.


Got to be pretty insecure to think you need to defend an inanimate object you like from the opinions of others. I have an Oly. My opinion is that it sucks. So what. Who cares?


----------



## stevelee (Nov 21, 2020)

Deeply is the only way to get into endoscopy.

As for "equivalence," anything you say (without six web pages of explanation) is going to be misleading. For us old guys who used to shoot 35mm film, it is handy to think of what will give me the same field of view I used to get on my old camera. Whether an f/4 lens is really an f/10.8 lens or what, is not particularly meaningful. (And yes, I must have read dozens of web pages on the subject.)

I've never used a M43 camera, but the sensor I guess is cavernous compared to the so-called 1" sensor in my travel camera, which itself was a big advance over the S cameras I had and more so over my iPhones. I have taken good pictures with all of them. In real life, I can no longer find any use for my Rebels. And having taken 3200 pictures in Europe last fall with my G5X II, I find it now languishes at home, since so am I. My 6D2 and array of lenses are helping me stay sane around home, and then I rented a couple TS-Es to boot.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 21, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Got to be pretty insecure to think you need to defend an inanimate object you like from the opinions of others. I have an Oly. My opinion is that it sucks. So what. Who cares?


Ah, typical forum dweller. Feeling that over-riding need to insult someone. Nope, I'm not insecure. I guess you have decided what is OK and what is not OK for a forum discussion. This thread, in case you missed it, is entitled "What is it with M43 folks." I have tried to contribute my honest opinion and my honest assessment. So have you. But I won't insult you. OK?


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 21, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Ah, typical forum dweller. Feeling that over-riding need to insult someone. Nope, I'm not insecure. I guess you have decided what is OK and what is not OK for a forum discussion. This thread, in case you missed it, is entitled "What is it with M43 folks." I have tried to contribute my honest opinion and my honest assessment. So have you. But I won't insult you. OK?


Yeah, obviously throwing around terms in your posts like "typical forum dweller" "ff snobbery" "usual forum opinion" etc... those are meant to be French kisses, not insults to other "forum dwellers". Got it.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 21, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> We understand that you have the usual forum opinion that FF is automatically better than any crop camera. In the opinion of others, a crop camera may be preferable to an FF camera even if the price is the same or the FF camera costs less. An Olympus EM-1 Mark II may cost more than a Canon RP, but in my opinion (having owned both) they are not comparable. The Olympus has 2 card slots, IBIS, pro level weather sealing, in camera focus stacking and other features that the Canon does not have. It also has better Dynamic Range based on the photons to photos website. To get a comparable FF Canon camera, with 2 card slots, IBIS, good weather sealling (but still inferior to the the Olympus), focus bracketing (not stacking in-camera) you need to get an R6, which costs $1,000 dollars more.
> 
> As you say, If a person gets results they are happy with, we should all be happy for them. If you are happy with FF, I have no argument with that. If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons.



Hi.

I shoot both M43 (although Panasonic not Olympus) and m43.

I cannot rate my 4 lumix cameras highly enough for video, especially for the money. My FZ2000 is designed with video users in mind... ND filters, great IQ in video mode, 10 bit internal etc etc. And it's 1" sensor is even smaller than m43.

The cheapest Lumix I have is a G7. And I make a living from it (although in tandem with other better m43s) It cost me £250 and shoots good 4K which compresses to superlative 1080 for output. It's brilliant as a B or even A camera (I use it on my wiral or gimbal)

Unfortunately despite trying very hard to love them for stills, there is visible luma noise even at base settings. The out of camera jpegs are not usable in my opinion, and the RAWs need a lot of work. Thats my experience and my opinion.

I went back to Canon for stills because of this. My stills are purely hobby, where as video is my work.

So it's not clear cut. Both systems have their benefits. And I appreciate the benefits emphatically. This is why I said if you are happy with what you shoot with, thats all that kind of matters.

But I will stand my ground on the desperados clinging to equivalence. I think they are being very very silly. Even theoretical idealised on paper physics aside.. that takes no account of big things like sensor design, of optic design.. as it goes I think FF is sucky for video... demanding to manually focus, huge rolling issues still.. so I'll reiterate.. use what makes you happy but this is not the same thing as equivalence.


----------



## Joules (Nov 21, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> as it goes I think FF is sucky for video... demanding to manually focus, huge rolling issues still.. so I'll reiterate.. use what makes you happy but this is not the same thing as equivalence.


Also worth reiterating: There are values being attributed falsely to M43.

What does the sensor size has to do with manual focus or rolling shutter?

Especially on sensors like the one in the R5 or A7S III? I can't follow you here.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 21, 2020)

On larger sensors the rendering of depth of field is more pronounced.. paper thin sometimes depending on perspective, focus distance and aperture...

Keeping a subject in focus can become very tricky. An M43 camera set to iso f2 will be much more forgiving and less critical than a FF camera at f2.

Being a tiny fraction out on say, the eyes in an intimate interview, will be very obvious on the huge TVs folks have these days. I know some folk switch to AF and forget about it. I'm not one of them.

The larger the sensor the longer the electronic scan takes to pass over the chip, hence greater rolling shutter. Smaller sensors are not immune although some high end or video dedicated cameras use a global shutter.


----------



## slclick (Nov 22, 2020)

Base iso noise is what led me to sell my Pen F. Cute, quirky and fun over contrasty B&W but beyond that? Besides social media sized files, it was nothing but an experiment. Lensbaby use turned out to be a longer lasting niche for me on FF than shooting anything at all with m43. Oh and that Oly menu system, geezus. Even Canon P&S menu structure blows it away. Never anything smaller than 1.6 for me any longer.


----------



## Joules (Nov 22, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> Keeping a subject in focus can become very tricky. An M43 camera set to iso f2 will be much more forgiving and less critical than a FF camera at f2.


Sure enough. Apart from comparing apples and oranges once more, there's nothing to note about this. Where you lost me is with this sentence:

"as it goes I think FF is sucky for video... demanding to manually focus" 

To me, the implication here is that FF has trouble performing AF in video, requiring you to do it manually. Since no such statement is made about M43, you further seemed to imply the M43 has an inherent advantage when it comes to autofocus performance.

Now, I am either misinterpreting you here (hence the post asking for clarification) or I am not aware of the most recent comparisons. As far as I know, tracking and eye AF performance from the Sony FF models and now even Canon's with the R6 and R5 is considered superior to at least Panasonic's.

I any case, I would appreciate if you could point me to a comparison that backs up your claim, or elaborate on what you meant. 



Eric Potter said:


> The larger the sensor the longer the electronic scan takes to pass over the chip, hence greater rolling shutter.


I am not doubting you, but I struggle to find a good source for this. Especially when looking at actual numbers (the theoretical aspects are apparently not appreciated as much around this thread), there aren't as many M43 models as APS-C and FF, but the few that are there do not look like they are clearly superior to either.

If you are correct, what should I expect the advantage of a M43 to be in terms of sensor read speed? Intuitively, I had looked for a difference in time proportional to the sensor area, so 1/4 the time vs FF. That I am not seeing clearly in the numbers presented. There are a lot of different factors at play here (bit depth, what percentage of the sensor is actually samples, resolution of the sensor itself). But if just being 1/4 the size would result in 1/4 the read out speed (=> rolling shutter), I would have expected this to show more clearly.

Numbers I found:






Measuring rolling shutter: put a number on this issue!


So, in the D5200 thread here, we're kind of worried that this exceptional little toy may have more rolling shutter issues than other cameras. This should be a measurable thing: if we knew how many ms it takes each camera to read the sensor, we wouldn't have to be looking at all those piles of...



www.dvxuser.com





https://www.photohaustv.de/rolling-shutter-effekt-im-vergleich (German) 

Again, I would appreciate if you could share your source of you have it at hand, or point me in the right direction.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> "as it goes I think FF is sucky for video... demanding to manually focus"
> 
> To me, the implication here is that FF has trouble performing AF in video, requiring you to do it manually. Since no such statement is made about M43, you further seemed to imply the M43 has an inherent advantage when it comes to autofocus performance.
> 
> Now, I am either misinterpreting you here (hence the post asking for clarification) or I am not aware of the most recent comparisons. As far as I know, tracking and eye AF performance from the Sony FF models and now even Canon's with the R6 and R5 is considered superior to at least Panasonic's.



Your reading is wrong. That should clear things up for you completely.

I don't use AF. Most of the lenses I have for video do not even have AF on them.

I was not comparing AF systems. Sony may be better than Canons, and Canons better than panasonics. Means nothing to me. I don't use it.

When I said 'demanding to manually focus' I meant it was an arduous task, rather than a compunction forced upon you by the camera.

I've been doing video for 25 years. I trained on betacam ENGS and used that format for the next 15 years. AF has certain limitations, and my experience is that if you become lazy and let even a usually reliable system do the work for you, your eye will be off the ball when it really matters and AF gets it wrong. I shoot a lot of interviews, so it really has to be focus on the eyes, the eyes the eyes.

I hope this addresses your concerns and curtails your supposition.


----------



## Joules (Nov 23, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> When I said 'demanding to manually focus' I meant it was an arduous task, rather than a compunction forced upon you by the camera.


Ah, yes. It did not occur to me that 'damanding' may mean 'more challenging' in this context (I'm German). Thanks for clearing it up!

As far as your comments about the superiority of small sensors with regard to rolling shutter are concerned, I remain curious as to how much this difference is. If you don't have a source at hand that demonstrates the difference or explains why it exists, that's fine if course. I would just appreciate the leg up for my own understanding.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Nov 23, 2020)

The rolling shutter effect may well be relatable to sensor size, but there are other factors that are in play as well. The recent video by Chelsea Northrup comparing various 600mm +/- wildlife lenses (



 at 9:20) illustrates the significant rolling shutter difference between Sony a7RIV and Canon R5. These are both FF and current generation but clearly the Canon has much faster readout speed and negligible rolling shutter. The tall grass in the background of her Sony shot leans over like there is a 40 mph wind blowing while in the Canon shot the grass is standing vertical. Of course, the Northrups have already proclaimed M43 dead so she didn't bother to include the 300 mm f4 Olympus in her lineup. And, Tony has proclaimed buying the new Olympus 150-400 w/1.25 TC would be stupid so it didn't make the line-up either.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> Ah, yes. It did not occur to me that 'damanding' may mean 'more challenging' in this context (I'm German). Thanks for clearing it up!



Ah ok. Your English is far better than my German, and possibly my English as well haha.

I can't find an imperical source that gives comparative read off times.. I can say anecdotally that my 7D was better than my 5D2 regarding rolling shutter, and that my m43 cameras are better than my EOS m100.. this is also bourne out by any like for like contemporaneous reviews.

You tend to adopt a different shooting style with large sensor cameras, partly because of the absence of parfocal & servo zooms, avoid whip pans etc, things that are problematic for most CMOS type sensors in a way they weren't for CCD cameras.


----------



## Joules (Nov 24, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> I can't find an imperical source that gives comparative read off times.. I can say anecdotally that my 7D was better than my 5D2 regarding rolling shutter, and that my m43 cameras are better than my EOS m100.. this is also bourne out by any like for like contemporaneous reviews.


Okay, thanks. There's definitely a lot of factors at play. I just have a hard time imagining what would cause an electrical process (something moving at the speed of light) to become notably slower due to an increase in the area over which the charge is collected and moved on the scale of millimeters (0.094"). If somebody has any good points for or against sensor size having an effect on rolling shutter, please share. 

I don't understand well enough how A/D converters work (haven't looked into it), so maybe that answers it. Or maybe if there have been advantages m43 cameras had in this regard in the past, they have not been due to the actual size of the sensor but rather different manufacturing priorities. Panasonic for example is known for pushing video forward a lot more than Canon has at times. 

I've argued multiple times now that the sensor size may not bring as many advantages as some believe, but the market segment m43 is aimed at allows designs not found in APS-C or FF currently. This could be an example - although maybe one of the past, seeing that the R5 is right up there when shooting 8k and beating almost all other models when shooting skipped/cropped according to the tests I linked previously.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> Okay, thanks. There's definitely a lot of factors at play. I just have a hard time imagining what would cause an electrical process (something moving at the speed of light) to become notably slower due to an increase in the area over which the charge is collected and moved on the scale of millimeters (0.094"). If somebody has any good points for or against sensor size having an effect on rolling shutter, please share.
> 
> I don't understand well enough how A/D converters work (haven't looked into it), so maybe that answers it. Or maybe if there have been advantages m43 cameras had in this regard in the past, they have not been due to the actual size of the sensor but rather different manufacturing priorities. Panasonic for example is known for pushing video forward a lot more than Canon has at times.
> 
> I've argued multiple times now that the sensor size may not bring as many advantages as some believe, but the market segment m43 is aimed at allows designs not found in APS-C or FF currently. This could be an example - although maybe one of the past, seeing that the R5 is right up there when shooting 8k and beating almost all other models when shooting skipped/cropped according to the tests I linked previously.


Well said, Joules. 

My opinion is that there is no *inherent* reason a smaller sensor is better for rolling shutter. The benefit is indirect in that there are (typically) fewer pixels to digitize and thus (with the same technology) it may take longer to finish the digitization of the entire sensor as the sensor gets bigger and thus the max speed of the electronic shutter could have a lower limit in speed across the entire sensor - But that only applies to using the electronic 2nd shutter. If you use the electronic 1st shutter and mechanical 2nd shutter (as many might choose for stills) then the electronic shutter is only triggering a "dump to zero" of the sensor pixels simultaneously of a row at a time, which doesn't use a ADC and thus I *am guessing* could happen at the same speed no matter what the sensor size is. But for video purposes you use electronic 1st & 2nd shutters so this could be an issue (using the same sensor technology). But if the video is only reading the *same number of pixels* in each small & large sensor then I see no reason why there would be an appreciable difference in speed at all.

The real difference (besides the MP count of the sensor) is in the technology of the sensor in how fast you can "dump to zero" for electronic 1st shutter and/or "read ADC" for electronic 2nd shutter. A new Olympus EM1_III uses (to my knowledge, but I could be wrong) a 3 year old sensor, while a FF Canon R5/6 uses a brand new sensor, and the newer technology can have a drastic difference here, possibly surpassing the ability of an older smaller sensor. I assume Panasonic or Fuji would use newer sensors, but I haven't been following them at all.


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 24, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I was at a photographic society meet once (something I will never bother with again), the speaker mentioned Full Frame and APS-C in some context. Of a few hundred people, a guy in the back shouted "M43" is smaller and better. Ever present DPR seems littered with people dedicated to reminding the world that this smaller format exists.
> 
> Has anyone else noticed this?
> 
> I'm not bashing M43, but now Canon has answered the call with such lenses as the new can sized 70-200 F4L, the F11 duo and the impossibly compact R5 itself; these folks must feel all the more evangelical.



There is a parallel in the video world, with those that sing the virtues of m4/3. Several years ago, a manufacturer that is actually kind of known for their m4/3 cameras produced a relatively small and highly anticipated cine camera(small in that sense) with a s35 sensor(slightly bigger than APS-C) and EF mount. It was a little crazy the amount of people who just couldn’t understand why they didn’t use the m4/3 mount and kept saying/wishing that “hopefully” they’ll bring out an m4/3 mount version. The manager of the product division was actually a very active member of that particular message board(imagine if Canon’s product managers were real photographers and frequented Canon Rumors and responded to posters like real people, this was that person) and addressed multiple times why and it was still, “Why not m4/3? It should have been m4/3. m4/3 would have been so much better. Etc.”.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> Ah ok. Your English is far better than my German, and possibly my English as well haha.



Yes, he has fooled me too.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 25, 2020)

RunAndGun said:


> There is a parallel in the video world, with those that sing the virtues of m4/3. Several years ago, a manufacturer that is actually kind of known for their m4/3 cameras produced a relatively small and highly anticipated cine camera(small in that sense) with a s35 sensor(slightly bigger than APS-C) and EF mount. It was a little crazy the amount of people who just couldn’t understand why they didn’t use the m4/3 mount and kept saying/wishing that “hopefully” they’ll bring out an m4/3 mount version. The manager of the product division was actually a very active member of that particular message board(imagine if Canon’s product managers were real photographers and frequented Canon Rumors and responded to posters like real people, this was that person) and addressed multiple times why and it was still, “Why not m4/3? It should have been m4/3. m4/3 would have been so much better. Etc.”.



It is fascinating how Canon lenses are so desirable for video.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 25, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> It is fascinating how Canon lenses are so desirable for video.



The canon EF mount has a few things going for it..

- wide range of existing lenses including very good value, fast primes.. 50mm f1.8, 85 f1.8, 35mm f2 etc

- it is an adaptable mount because of the flange distance etc. the nikon mount less so. All those takumers, m42 helios etc.. can be adapted to mount on Canons no bother.

- Canon really dominated the early years of DSLR film-making, the 7D was the first with manual controls and manual audio out of the box (although these came to the 5D2 a little while into the production run via magic lantern initially, but then a firmware update, so a lot of budding film makers would already have some canon glass.

- The EF mount is out of patent now. 

- There are some great third party manual lenses for video. The Samyang range is excellent in places, and many video users prefer a manual iris and MF with proper end stops etc rather than fly by wire.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 26, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> The canon EF mount has a few things going for it..
> 
> - wide range of existing lenses including very good value, fast primes.. 50mm f1.8, 85 f1.8, 35mm f2 etc
> 
> ...



Good points, I wonder if RF will follow suit given EF's seamless adaptation to it and some interesting adapters with the new C70.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 26, 2020)

slclick said:


> Base iso noise is what led me to sell my Pen F. Cute, quirky and fun over contrasty B&W but beyond that? Besides social media sized files, it was nothing but an experiment. Lensbaby use turned out to be a longer lasting niche for me on FF than shooting anything at all with m43. Oh and that Oly menu system, geezus. Even Canon P&S menu structure blows it away. Never anything smaller than 1.6 for me any longer.



I've enjoyed shooting different size formats, myself, and think about my cameras similarly, i.e., they have to be fun, and some are more like experiments. I started shooting film during the pandemic and am currently doing Instax Wide (basically medium format film, as far as the size of the frame), 35mm half frames (film, again) with a Canon Demi, and full frame digital on my 5D (vintage m42 lenses) and RP (adapted EOS lenses). Switching things up is keeping me amused.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 26, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, obviously throwing around terms in your posts like "typical forum dweller" "ff snobbery" "usual forum opinion" etc... those are meant to be French kisses, not insults to other "forum dwellers". Got it.



Not exactly sure why you insulted me and are trying to pick a fight with me. I don't think my "defending" my positive opinion of the Olympus cameras and lenses really warranted that type of response. 

If you, or anyone else, took the term "forum dweller" as an insult, I do apologize. Considering there is nothing to my knowledge insulting about the term dweller - commonly used in terms like city dweller - I do not intend it as an insult. If I had written "cave-dweller" - then, maybe that would have been an insult, but not because of the use of the word dweller. As for having the opinion that there is a lot of FF snobbery on the forum, I am quite convinced of that, but, again, if I have ever personally called someone an FF snob, I apologize. But for having that general opinion, I think there is a lot of evidence to support my opinion. I would ask all those 7D mark II users who are hoping for a new crop camera to replace it, how they feel when they are told to "just buy an R6," or "why would anyone even want a crop RF camera when they can buy Full Frame?" This very thread, it seems to me, implies that M4/3 folks seem to be missing something, or that something is wrong with them. I am not saying that was the OP's intent, but if I am misreading the intent of a large number of forum users in that they often feel the need to lecture and talk down to crop users, then that is my bad.

Yes, I am guilty of sometimes using sarcasm in my replies. Considering forums such as this one clearly are inhabited by a number of trolls and others who feel that - by being anonymous - they can provide mis-information and promote an agenda (such as we have seen for years by Sony users), I feel that someone needs to speak up and point out that those users hurt forums such as this and should not be tolerated. And yes, I suppose that sometimes by using sarcasm, I can inadvertently upset unintended targets. Again, if you feel that I have done so to you, I apologize.

Have a Happy and safe Thanksgiving.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 26, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I was at a photographic society meet once (something I will never bother with again), the speaker mentioned Full Frame and APS-C in some context. Of a few hundred people, a guy in the back shouted "M43" is smaller and better. Ever present DPR seems littered with people dedicated to reminding the world that this smaller format exists.
> 
> Has anyone else noticed this?
> 
> I'm not bashing M43, but now Canon has answered the call with such lenses as the new can sized 70-200 F4L, the F11 duo and the impossibly compact R5 itself; these folks must feel all the more evangelical.



For some of us, size and weight matter a great deal. If I were a pro photographer on assignment, then it might not, I would take whatever I needed. But some of us might be taking our camera with us while we are also walking the dog (or dogs). Or are towing along kids and family on vacation or to a state park. I am glad you think the R5 is "impossibly compact." To me, as a M4/3rds user, it is too heavy, weighing about 150 grams more than my Olympus E-M1 II. I was hoping to replace my Canon R with the new R6 - really looking forward to it, in fact, until I found out the the R6 is slightly heavier than the R. I was hoping that it woud be closer to the RP in terms of its size and weight.

Maybe some day I will get the 70-200 as it is small and light - for a FF lens. But it is still over 100 grams heavier than my Olympus 12-200mm - and the Olympus is a one-lens solution, which is definitely a huge plus for those aforementioned trips with the dog or the family. And when I need a whole kit, from wide angle to 75-300mm zoom, my Olympus gear fits in an 8" x 6" x 6" camera bag. I would need a bag about twice that size for a Canon FF kit. That is why I - and I assume many others - like the system, despite that there are a few drawbacks in comparison. In many cases I will take the Olympus gear with me, where I would not bother taking the Canon gear because it would be too heavy and cumbersome. That alone, it seems to me, makes m4/3rds worthwhile.

Hope this doesn't sound too evangelical.


----------



## slclick (Nov 26, 2020)

Love to know just how large the m43 crowd is printing? 

I know, I know... kids are asking "What is printing?"


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 26, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Hope this doesn't sound too evangelical.



Do you interrupt photography meets to bring up these advantages to the m43 ecosystem? That is what I'm getting at here, just wondering if my observations are universal. 

And yes for all the R5 has, especially coming from the weapon like weight of the 5D, it is Prince versus Charlie Murphy.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 26, 2020)

slclick said:


> Love to know just how large the m43 crowd is printing?
> 
> I know, I know... kids are asking "What is printing?"


Well, I printed some of my Olympus 20MP files (with their 'pro' lenses after DXO work & prime denoising and quality upsampling) to 32" wide, sent to Whitwall in Germany for fuji crystal photo(not ink) prints, and they look truly beautiful, and I'm sure I could print them bigger if I had to. Also made panos from them to over a GigaPixel which I could print to full 4'x8' size, or larger(if that was possible somewhere), all from those M43 20MP files. It's not always the size of what you start with, but what you can do with it with the right tools!

But the single 45MP files I'm getting from the R5 and RF L lenses are even better! (and yes, they better be for the price & size/weight).


----------



## stevelee (Nov 26, 2020)

Printing is not that critical. I know there are lots and lots of “that depends“ considerations. I mostly make prints on 13” x 19” paper. My first digital camera was 4MP. I have a print of a picture I made with it in Glacier Bay in 2002, framed and hanging in my hall gallery. It looks great. Others were made with my 1” sensor cameras. M43 has about twice that sensor size (?) so should do fine. While not a linear relationship, generally the bigger the print, the farther from it you stand to view. I like to have 300 pixels per inch when printing on my inkjet. But if I go below that, I really don’t see a practical difference.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 26, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Not exactly sure why you insulted me and are trying to pick a fight with me. I don't think my "defending" my positive opinion of the Olympus cameras and lenses really warranted that type of response.
> 
> If you, or anyone else, took the term "forum dweller" as an insult, I do apologize. Considering there is nothing to my knowledge insulting about the term dweller - commonly used in terms like city dweller - I do not intend it as an insult. If I had written "cave-dweller" - then, maybe that would have been an insult, but not because of the use of the word dweller. As for having the opinion that there is a lot of FF snobbery on the forum, I am quite convinced of that, but, again, if I have ever personally called someone an FF snob, I apologize. But for having that general opinion, I think there is a lot of evidence to support my opinion. I would ask all those 7D mark II users who are hoping for a new crop camera to replace it, how they feel when they are told to "just buy an R6," or "why would anyone even want a crop RF camera when they can buy Full Frame?" This very thread, it seems to me, implies that M4/3 folks seem to be missing something, or that something is wrong with them. I am not saying that was the OP's intent, but if I am misreading the intent of a large number of forum users in that they often feel the need to lecture and talk down to crop users, then that is my bad.
> 
> ...


Nobody was trying to insult you. You are just sensitive, I guess. You said, "If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons."

People who feel the need to "keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons" are insecure. I have an OLY. I have an R. Why would I care a bit what someone else thinks of my gear or any "unfair" comparisons (a matter of opinion) they make? That's what I was stating. You, being sensitive, took that as an attack on yourself. Knock it off. It was an attack on the idea that one should feel compelled to defend his gear... as though blood related. Silliness. Insecure silliness. It makes no got dang difference what the opinions of others happen to be concerning what we shoot with... unless, or course, one's self worth and identity are dependent upon the gear one has and opinions of others about that gear.


----------



## slclick (Nov 27, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Printing is not that critical. I know there are lots and lots of “that depends“ considerations. I mostly make prints on 13” x 19” paper. My first digital camera was 4MP. I have a print of a picture I made with it in Glacier Bay in 2002, framed and hanging in my hall gallery. It looks great. Others were made with my 1” sensor cameras. M43 has about twice that sensor size (?) so should do fine. While not a linear relationship, generally the bigger the print, the farther from it you stand to view. I like to have 300 pixels per inch when printing on my inkjet. But if I go below that, I really don’t see a practical difference.


Your critical is not another's critical. Please....


----------



## stevelee (Nov 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> Your critical is not another's critical. Please....


You could come by my house and see the pictures for yourself, if you like. I agree it is not everybody’s answer. I’m addressing just home inkjet printing, albeit with 9 colors of ink. If you are shooting for a high quality magazine, I wouldn’t recommend small cameras, maybe not full frame.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 27, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> Good points, I wonder if RF will follow suit given EF's seamless adaptation to it and some interesting adapters with the new C70.



The RF mount has a much shorter flange depth making it less adaptable. Although of course folks could still adapt lenses to EF and use an EF-RF adaptor.


----------



## Eric Potter (Nov 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> Love to know just how large the m43 crowd is printing?
> 
> I know, I know... kids are asking "What is printing?"



A better question might be 'What screen size are M43 films being projected to / displayed on.

Nothing comes close to the video quality of panasonic m43s for the money and quite a bit beyond it.


----------



## Dalantech (Dec 3, 2020)

Joules said:


> ...The crop factor simply has to be considered for DoF and light gathering, ...



I honestly think that both of those are kinda "wrong" -wrong in quotes cause it's not the crop that's effecting either, it's what you do to create an equivalent full frame image.

Light gathering is done on a per pixel basis, not on total surface area. If there are any exposure differences it's due to equivalence issues or pixel size and the way that the signals that those pixels produce are being amplified. Smaller pixels are less light sensitive than larger ones.

Depth of field doesn't change with sensor size either. I can fill the frame at lower mags when shooting macro because I'm shooting with an APS-C sensor. Shooting at a lower mag gives me more depth, since depth of field is really just a function of Fstop and magnification. So is the smaller sensor giving me more depth of field? Not really, but it is allowing me to shoot at lower magnifications. I could get the exact same effect if I was using a full frame sensor and cropping images in post. It's called a crop factor because that's all it really is, and it's functionally no different than cropping in post.


----------



## honeyiscool (Dec 3, 2020)

As a long time MFT who fully converted to Canon mirrorless (both EF-M and RF) in 2020, anybody who hasn't used MFT probably doesn't realize how good these cameras are. I had a GX85 that in 2016 had specs that most EF-M shooters would be ecstatic with in 2020. Pretty old bodies like the GH5 and E-M1 Mk II are still extremely competitive in their niches.

Literally the only thing that Panasonic hasn't gotten right over the years is AF in video, and I switched because that finally became enough of a dealbreaker. And the weird part is they were one of the first to really nail snappy AF in stills, and they had pretty breathtaking video quality even in 2012 (GH3). Literally a serviceable C-AF in video, not even a great one, would have made people unwilling to switch out of brand loyalty, but for me, GX85 wasn't even usable for casual video use with AF. I became less interested in Olympus cameras when they started focusing exclusively on OMD bodies instead of PEN bodies.


----------



## honeyiscool (Dec 3, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> A better question might be 'What screen size are M43 films being projected to / displayed on.
> 
> Nothing comes close to the video quality of panasonic m43s for the money and quite a bit beyond it.


Not only that, especially if you're on, say, the GH5S with its supersized sensor, the crop factor is actually pretty competitive with some APS-C cameras that can't do full 4K readout in some frame rates, like Sony in 4K.

Also, think about how projects such as _The Walking Dead_ have been shot on 16mm, and that is a much smaller picture circle than MFT.


----------



## Eric Potter (Dec 3, 2020)

honeyiscool said:


> Literally the only thing that Panasonic hasn't gotten right over the years is AF in video, and I switched because that finally became enough of a dealbreaker. And the weird part is they were one of the first to really nail snappy AF in stills, and they had pretty breathtaking video quality even in 2012 (GH3). Literally a serviceable C-AF in video, not even a great one, would have made people unwilling to switch out of brand loyalty, but for me, GX85 wasn't even usable for casual video use with AF. I became less interested in Olympus cameras when they started focusing exclusively on OMD bodies instead of PEN bodies.



I shoot video professionally. AF isn't a deal breaker for me. Thats probably why the GH cameras have had such success amongst film-makers.

The GH2 was embarrassingly far above the 5D2 as a video tool.


----------



## Eric Potter (Dec 3, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> I shoot video professionally. AF isn't a deal breaker for me. Thats probably why the GH cameras have had such success amongst film-makers.
> 
> The GH2 was embarrassingly far above the 5D2 as a video tool.



Although, obviously no comparison when it comes to stills.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 4, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nobody was trying to insult you. You are just sensitive, I guess. You said, "If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons."
> 
> People who feel the need to "keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons" are insecure. I have an OLY. I have an R. Why would I care a bit what someone else thinks of my gear or any "unfair" comparisons (a matter of opinion) they make? That's what I was stating. You, being sensitive, took that as an attack on yourself. Knock it off. It was an attack on the idea that one should feel compelled to defend his gear... as though blood related. Silliness. Insecure silliness. It makes no got dang difference what the opinions of others happen to be concerning what we shoot with... unless, or course, one's self worth and identity are dependent upon the gear one has and opinions of others about that gear.



Thanks for defining what an insult is.

Thanks for defining what being insecure is.

Thank you for stating that I am sensitive, as a matter of fact.

Thanks for letting me know that I consider it an attack on myself and my "self worth and identity are dependent upon the gear one has...". I would never have thought of that! I guess saying all these things about me is for my own good..and not an insult at all!

Bullcrap! I know English well enough to know whan I am being insulted...and I'm guessing so do you. But no matter. I won't pretend to psychoanalyze you. 

I guess I would disagree to all those "proclamations" listed above But, of course, based on your comments, responding to them would only further reveal my sensitivity and insecurity. 

I would say that responding to - and defending - UNFAIR comparisons, is merely trying to set the record straight and try to bring some truth into the conversation. But, thanks for letting me know that I am wrong...that it is all due to my personal shortcomings. 

Can't wait for your next non-insult.


----------



## honeyiscool (Dec 4, 2020)

Eric Potter said:


> I shoot video professionally. AF isn't a deal breaker for me. Thats probably why the GH cameras have had such success amongst film-makers.
> 
> The GH2 was embarrassingly far above the 5D2 as a video tool.


That's the thing. Panasonic works great as a semi-pro or pro video camera, and it always worked great when I was behind the camera. However, it is terrible if there's nobody behind the camera and you're in front of the camera.

I realize the concept of a set-it-and-forget-it video AF in a hybrid body is a concept that didn't really exist until 2013 with the 70D, but it's been 7 years since then and almost every company, even Fuji, do at least a serviceable job of it today, and Canon and Sony are amazing at it, and Nikon and Olympus are just a bit behind. The fact is, Panasonic is actually the worst among all the major camera manufacturers today at C-AF in video, and the only one you can't even begin to count on. Considering how much better than the rest of the manufacturers they are at everything else involving video, it's baffling that they have let even Olympus pass them in this regard.

I mean, I've been using Panasonic long enough that I remember a time when "not including IBIS" was a feature they used to tout. All that went away in 2016 when the GX85 was released w/ 5-axis IBIS in video that really worked. I just kind of figured that PDAF would be the same way; they'd be like, "nope" til the last minute and then it'd come out of nowhere and it'd be amazing. That's just how Panasonic seemed to do business up until 2017, when the GH5 was released. But it's like everything since then feels marginal. The GH5 is still their best body, and other cameras just feel like weird exercises in crippling. And they're still using the same sensor since 2017, which is basically the only truly superior sensor they'd made since the GH3 in 2012, since I was one of many who thought the GH4 sensor was a side-grade and that the GH3 had nicer images, IMO.

To me, it's just weird that they were the best, most forward thinking mirrorless manufacturer up until 2017, and then they became the one with the most quirky caveats as every other manufacturer tried to round out their weaknesses. Heck, Fuji used to be tragic at video and now they are pretty dang good at it. Same with Olympus. They were laughably bad even up to the E-M5 Mk II, but with the E-M1 Mk II, they really made an effort, and slowly, with firmware updates, they even got pretty good at video C-AF, and it actually became a pretty good 4K shooter.


----------



## Eric Potter (Dec 4, 2020)

honeyiscool said:


> Heck, Fuji used to be tragic at video and now they are pretty dang good at it.



I have been very very impressed with the quality of footage from the XT-2 & 3. A stringer I use has them and the tonal and colour quality is lovely.
They don't do anything flashy headline wow... i.e. no full frame etc.. but what they do do, they do better than anybody else in their class.

I'm in the panny system. I don't vlog so although I get your concerns, they don't apply for me.

The dual IS system is pretty hard to argue with results wise.. The GX80 would be just about perfect for a lot of stuff if it had a mic input. I've got mine hacked for Cine-D and it serves as a discreet GVs camera or B or C interview camera. I love using it for street photography.. the screen is very like a WLF to use and I have a wee ERC case for it. In good to decent light it's as good as anything.


----------



## Joules (Dec 5, 2020)

Dalantech said:


> I honestly think that both of those are kinda "wrong" -wrong in quotes cause it's not the crop that's effecting either, it's what you do to create an equivalent full frame image.
> 
> Light gathering is done on a per pixel basis, not on total surface area. If there are any exposure differences it's due to equivalence issues or pixel size and the way that the signals that those pixels produce are being amplified. Smaller pixels are less light sensitive than larger ones.


I would not agree with that. I am pretty certain that total surface area is all you really have to care about when it comes to comaring real images rather than individual pictures. I've put together some posts with pictures to illustrate my point. Maybe you can have a look and point out to me what you consider wrong and why: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/equivalency-now-with-pictures.39787/post-874838


----------



## analoggrotto (Dec 6, 2020)

The root of this problem is even attending a "Photographic Society" meetup. Quite an exclusive set there, a pompous lot uninterested in camaraderie or welcoming new members. I'd had an easier time talking to a fellow with a $7 million hyper sports car than these snooty goofs; rather donate the membership dues to Ken Rockwell.


----------

