Numbers and equivalence theory aside , I think you can pretty much summarize things as follows:
Smaller sensors = smaller lenses (less weight), lower S/N ratio (noisier images), and more DOF (good or bad depending on your application).
Very high quality cameras area available with sensor sizes ranging from 1" ($1200 for the Sony RX-100) to medium format cameras costing upwards of $100,000. All of these sensor formats are available in mirrorless cameras. For me, as a landscape photographer who backpacks, it boils down to my tolerance for dealing with noise vs. weight. Fortunately the cameras I cannot afford I would also be unwilling to carry because of size/weight. I'm very happy with m4/3. I wish I had the lower noise of an APS-C or full frame sensor, but I'm not willing to carry the weight of those systems. In the end this becomes a personal choice.
Oh, and one more thing I keep telling people. Sharp glass trumps pixel count every day!
Nonsense. F-numbers are simply the ratio of focal length to the diameter of the aperture. So, if the 17mm lens has a maximum aperture of 10mm, it is an f/1.7 lens-- no false advertising involved.
It comes down to how the lens can be used.
Let's say the lens is built such that the quality of the image projected by the lens on the sensor is only good enough when center cropped by a factor of 2. This is why the lenses can be made smaller, there is no free lunch. In this case the numerator is 34mm and I would concur with InFlight that it really is the equivalent of a 34mm f/3.4 lens on a full frame.
On the other hand let's say it's manufactured as a lens you could use on another system without a crop. In that case it really is a 17mm f/1.7 full frame equivalent. You may choose to use it on a system with a sensor crop factor of 2 and transform it something that performs similar to a 34mm f/3.4 lens on a full frame camera, but you are not forced to.
Nonsense. F-numbers are simply the ratio of focal length to the diameter of the aperture. So, if the 17mm lens has a maximum aperture of 10mm, it is an f/1.7 lens-- no false advertising involved.
It comes down to how the lens can be used.
Let's say the lens is built such that the quality of the image projected by the lens on the sensor is only good enough when center cropped by a factor of 2. This is why the lenses can be made smaller, there is no free lunch. In this case the numerator is 34mm and I would concur with InFlight that it really is the equivalent of a 34mm f/3.4 lens on a full frame.
I saw InFlight's post last night and thought about addressing it but had already written a small novel about his/her error in the equivalency math for the ISOs. With respect to the lenses, from an equivalency standpoint, if your goal is (for some reason) just to replicate the angle of view/DOF as it would be on a FF sensor, then yes, as your sensor gets smaller there are diminishing returns in paying for ultrawide or ultrafast lenses because in order to get equivalency you will need to use them at slower apertures to get the same DOF because the AOV is reduced. The interchangeability of crop/FF lenses (eg, EF lenses on EF-S cameras, vs not being able to do the reverse) wasn't the point InFlight was making.
But f/1.7 is still f/1.7 for exposure purposes, so if your goal is to, say, shoot handheld in low light, being able to shoot a 1 1/3 stops faster shutter speed could justify the f/1.7 lens, just as it would on any other format. Your background blur on a crop sensor just won't be as good as it would on FF because there's more DOF at f/1.7 on the crop sensor.
This is all very academic and not really important for actual photography. You would never say that "due to equivalence," my 80mm f/2.8 Bronica 6x6 lens (crop factor .55) is "actually" a 44mm f/1.5. (If so, it was a hell of a bargain!)
-------------- Follow the river until it turns to ice. Follow the ice until it turns to rock. Follow the rock until it turns to sky. Then we will be there.
--Woodrow Wilson Sayre
0
-------------- Follow the river until it turns to ice. Follow the ice until it turns to rock. Follow the rock until it turns to sky. Then we will be there.
--Woodrow Wilson Sayre
Numbers and equivalence theory aside , I think you can pretty much summarize things as follows:
Smaller sensors = smaller lenses (less weight), lower S/N ratio (noisier images), and more DOF (good or bad depending on your application).
Equivalence theory has to do with DOF and DR and Noise only, not exposure. i.e. FF has more bokeh at the same aperture (or exposure) but less DOF. For me, DOF is valuable in landscape and macro. FF has less noise and more DR, but the latter difference with newer m4/3 cameras is quite small.
Quote:
Very high quality cameras area available with sensor sizes ranging from 1" ($1200 for the Sony RX-100) to medium format cameras costing upwards of $100,000. All of these sensor formats are available in mirrorless cameras. For me, as a landscape photographer who backpacks, it boils down to my tolerance for dealing with noise vs. weight. Fortunately the cameras I cannot afford I would also be unwilling to carry because of size/weight. I'm very happy with m4/3. I wish I had the lower noise of an APS-C or full frame sensor, but I'm not willing to carry the weight of those systems. In the end this becomes a personal choice.
The noise level in m4/3 cameras/lenses only becomes an issue in low light situations, or if one underexposes errantly and is forced to lift shadows/mid-levels significantly. Consequently, I only see noticeable noise on images fairly rarely. The biggest difference is undoubtedly in astro/landscape where there is a limit on length of exposure and just how much light can be gathered. I find with the EM-1 I and it's sensor I don't generally want to raise the ISO above about 2000 maybe 2500 with an exposure of 20-30 seconds. The EM-1 II, which I also have, supposedly has (with a different sensor) 1/4 the noise of the EM-1 I. I've not yet used my EM-1 II for astro/landscape. Regardless, images shot with 8mm F1.8 FE show little objectionable noise because the noise itself is very small.
Quote:
Oh, and one more thing I keep telling people. Sharp glass trumps pixel count every day!
Especially from edge to edge on a single image where it becomes quite noticeable when there is variable sharpness. This matters much less shooting wildlife where the focus is at the center.
Guess I'll switch sights to Fujifilm. Don't want to go full frame.
Obviously inventing in a new camera system and all the lens isn’t cheap.
The Nikon Z, Canon R, and and Sony 7 are not that much larger, heavier, or expensive than a full Fuji APS-C setup.
There is a lot of Olympus & Panasonic m4/3 glass out there. Panasonic will support the m4/3 market to the extent that its profitable. Used gear m/3 gear prices might keep it an attractive system for another decade.
-------------- “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately...” ― Henry David Thoreau
0
-------------- “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately...” ― Henry David Thoreau
Took some sample pictures this morning of some flowers in my yard with my Fujifilm X-E3 and Fujinon 16-55mm f2.8 lens.
-------------- You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. - Abraham Lincoln
Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened. - Dr. Seuss
0
-------------- You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. - Abraham Lincoln
Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened. - Dr. Seuss
Panasonic will support the m4/3 market to the extent that its profitable.
Anyone have any secret intelligence on what Panasonic is planning? I note that the GX9 is still available at B&H, for example, but no longer shows on the Panasonic webpage. Does that mean they're dropping the idea of an uber-small micro-4/3 format or they've got something smaller and better in the pipeline?
Enquiring minds want to know (and might snag one of those GX9's from B&H if the format is going away).
The u4/3 standard is certainly not going away. And perhaps neither is the line of high-end cameras that Olympus developed, at least not anytime soon...
"It's not yet clear what the JIP investment fund intends to do with Olympus' imaging arm, but it's not necessarily the end of the road for its much-loved OM-D cameras or Zuiko lenses...
...The fund will apparently "utilize the innovative technology and unique product development capabilities which have been developed within Olympus, and will realize continuous growth of the business by bringing better products and services to the users and customers".
In other words, it will take ownership of Olympus' existing models and look to develop new ones, possibly in line with some of the roadmap the company had outlined up to 2023."
I am skeptical that Olympus Imaging under the ownership of JIP will be doing a whole lot of innovation. If you look at what they did with VAIO (Sony's previous laptop business), they didn't continue innovating, and basically just capitalized on VAIO's brand recognition while eventually shrinking the business to a few core markets like Japan. You can't buy VAIO laptops in the US anymore, even though 10 years ago you would see multiple VAIO models in stores like Best Buy.
Long term, I'm not so sure that m43 is going to survive. The ILC market has been in free fall since 2012, and we haven't hit the bottom yet. I'm pessimistic about Olympus's prospects under JIP, and while Panasonic will certainly continue supporting m43 for some time, they now have a FF line of cameras and lenses that are getting a bit more love now from the company.
Meanwhile, the size/weight advantage of m43 has started to shrink as 1) m43 brands create big, bulky cameras like the G9 or the E-M1X...heck even the E-M1 III is almost the same size as a Z6/Z6, R, or A7R IV, etc. Also, the FF companies are starting to create slower lenses like the Canon 105 f/4-7.1 or Nikon 24-200 f/4-6.3 that are relatively small, and still superior from a light gathering perspective (i.e., equivalence) than their m43 counterparts.
Now, while I don't think m43 looks great from a financial or business standpoint, I think m43 is a fantastic format for lots of people, especially people posting in this forum. In particular, the stabilization of m43 is unrivaled, meaning that many people trying to save weight could forget about the tripod if they had an E-M1 II with a 12-100 (an incredible combo). The weight savings for the format really start to add up for telephoto lenses, so if you're into wildlife, BIF, or telephoto landscapes, m43 deserves close consideration. And, of course, it doesn't matter if Olympus or Panasonic go out of business today...your m43 gear will keep on working for years and years to come .
Meanwhile, the size/weight advantage of m43 has started to shrink as 1) m43 brands create big, bulky cameras like the G9 or the E-M1X...heck even the E-M1 III is almost the same size as a Z6/Z6, R, or A7R IV, etc. Also, the FF companies are starting to create slower lenses like the Canon 105 f/4-7.1 or Nikon 24-200 f/4-6.3 that are relatively small, and still superior from a light gathering perspective (i.e., equivalence) than their m43 counterparts.
Now, while I don't think m43 looks great from a financial or business standpoint, I think m43 is a fantastic format for lots of people, especially people posting in this forum. In particular, the stabilization of m43 is unrivaled, meaning that many people trying to save weight could forget about the tripod if they had an E-M1 II with a 12-100 (an incredible combo). The weight savings for the format really start to add up for telephoto lenses, so if you're into wildlife, BIF, or telephoto landscapes, m43 deserves close consideration. And, of course, it doesn't matter if Olympus or Panasonic go out of business today...your m43 gear will keep on working for years and years to come .
Another major thing about m4/3 mid to top end bodies and Pro lenses are amazing software innovations like In Camera Focus Stacking, Live ND, Live Composite, the ability to shoot a High Res shot, Pro capture for birds, and others. The things you can do with these bodies is amazing.
I ended-up purchasing an Olympus OM-D EM-5 III and a Panasonic Lumix G95.
It's going to take me a little while to decide which one to keep.
The G95 is easier to use wearing fleece gloves, compared to the Em-5 III. This is because the buttons are smaller on the EM-5. But the Olympus seems to get shaper images. I could be due to the lens (Olympus Pro 12-45mm, vs Lumix 12-60mm), or it could possibly be because the Em-5 has phase detect auto focus.
Both take very nice photos.
The image stabilization in both cameras is amazing (think photos of tents at night lit-up from inside).
The only thing I am not completely satisfied with is the aspect ratio of the u4/3 sensor itself. I don't like the 4/3 width/height ratio, much preferring the 3/2 ratio. Yes, I can crop, and I will. Yes, all cameras have their tradeoffs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).
, I think you can pretty much summarize things as follows:
.
