shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I think this article is worth spreading.
The author listed five reasons pros ought to reconsider their reservation against 4/3rd system.
What I like about the article is that it's not preachy, but it gets down to the facts and considerations.
http://blog.giuliosciorio.com/?p=550
What does it say to non-pros?
Discuss.
The author listed five reasons pros ought to reconsider their reservation against 4/3rd system.
What I like about the article is that it's not preachy, but it gets down to the facts and considerations.
http://blog.giuliosciorio.com/?p=550
What does it say to non-pros?
Discuss.
wilonstott
Wil O.
His point about full frame is an instance of fallicious equivocation.
He's using the term "full frame" to mean something that it does not mean. It means (or has come to mean) that the digital sensor is the same size as a 35mm frame of film (36mm x 24mm). By this definition, 4/3rds is not, and never will be full frame--as he claims it is. It does not mean "to use the entire sensor area, whatever those dimensions may be." This is idiotic.
Plus, he acts as if there are no distinct advantages to full frame cameras (by which I mean cameras with a 36x24mm sensor)--and there are many. Poor. Kills the article for me.
He's using the term "full frame" to mean something that it does not mean. It means (or has come to mean) that the digital sensor is the same size as a 35mm frame of film (36mm x 24mm). By this definition, 4/3rds is not, and never will be full frame--as he claims it is. It does not mean "to use the entire sensor area, whatever those dimensions may be." This is idiotic.
Plus, he acts as if there are no distinct advantages to full frame cameras (by which I mean cameras with a 36x24mm sensor)--and there are many. Poor. Kills the article for me.
I'm not so sure I saw it the same way. I thought he was saying that if you are using propriety lenses on m4/3, then you don't have to worry about FF. Since the lenses are matched, then m4/3 is fullframe m4/3 for those lenses. He is just pointing out that these cameras are good enough these days, full frame isn;t everything, and that maybe some people shouldn't be as biased against m4/3.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
I took it for what I think it is... time to look beyond the FF bias and consider M4/3 as a legit contender. I have an Oly EP2 and recently printed some 11x14 and 12x16 prints from my new Epson R3000. I was very pleased with the results, even with my nose pressed against the print.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
I think the fallacy here is the idea that a digital sensor HAS to be the same size as a 35mm frame to be any good. Different technologies altogether, and there's no reason a digital sensor has to be 35mm size to produce a good image. Been shooting a 4/3 E-3 for years, and I've been happy with what I get out of it.
I can't help but think that similar questions were raised at the time the Leica came out, when Real Photographers were shooting 6x4.5 CM plates, Speed Graphics, and such...
I can't help but think that similar questions were raised at the time the Leica came out, when Real Photographers were shooting 6x4.5 CM plates, Speed Graphics, and such...
jippiejee
Well-known
35mm FF is not a fallacy when shooting wide-angle lenses. At the wider ends of lens choices, sensor size *does* matter.
How about native lenses for that particular sensor?
Timmyjoe
Mentor
You will also never get the equivalent DOF with a m4/3 sensor that you can get with a full frame (36mm x 24mm) sensor. That's my main reason for shooting FF.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I concur. 35mm isn't "full frame" if you have a Hasselblad in mind; Hasselblad isn't "full frame" if you have a Sinar 4x5 in mind. etc etc etc
"Full frame" works in its context.
You can get some pretty decent shots with most m4/3 cameras, and some "surprisingly good" shots with some (in the context of someone being used to 35mm full-frame digital cameras -- and anybody who isn't religious can see how a 35mm system doesn't automagically spell "professional").
If a woodworker can create and sell works by using only a hammer and flat screwdriver, it's more of a testament to his/her skill. That other tools may save time, yes, that's also a valid (and verifiable) argument, but only within your context.
Painting acrylic isn't more efficient than oil, particularly if what the client really wanted was watercolor.
Or if your business is to deliver one letter envelope at a time, a motorcycle, even a bicycle, may be more reasonable and sensible than a super-equipped 4x4
Getting hung-up on the buzzword "full-frame" really detracts from the main point of the article, although it actually shows why this is such a difficult decision.
if you're a pro, use what brings in the cash.
if 4/3rds represents such a savings over cameras that offer a technically superior result AND the client can't tell, then it's fine.
what does it mean to an amateur? well, because no one is paying me ****, I can shoot with whatever I want and I apply MY standards to the pictures. And while I don't want anyone to mistake this for me saying better gear makes you take better pictures aesthetically (unless you shoot indoor sports or something where you need pro level AF, metering and AF), I don't think I could live with m4/3 as my main system. And since Canon's mount lets me use most of the SLR gear I personally own or would like to own, and I have only 1 rf lens and 1 lens I would have to carve up to use on Canon, I don't see the need to shoot with such a small sensor when Canon's APS-c is already noisier than I can stand.
if 4/3rds represents such a savings over cameras that offer a technically superior result AND the client can't tell, then it's fine.
what does it mean to an amateur? well, because no one is paying me ****, I can shoot with whatever I want and I apply MY standards to the pictures. And while I don't want anyone to mistake this for me saying better gear makes you take better pictures aesthetically (unless you shoot indoor sports or something where you need pro level AF, metering and AF), I don't think I could live with m4/3 as my main system. And since Canon's mount lets me use most of the SLR gear I personally own or would like to own, and I have only 1 rf lens and 1 lens I would have to carve up to use on Canon, I don't see the need to shoot with such a small sensor when Canon's APS-c is already noisier than I can stand.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
In my own analysis of the issue of sensor size, the only advantage that seems relevant to me is depth of field. There might be some other things relating to IQ, but they are very tiny. I think the author of the blog agrees with this, and his comment was how close m4/3 and APC-c were in terms of depth of field compared to each other...and that it was with FF that one sees the bigger difference...which is interesting and should speak to those who eschew m4/3 for an APS-C camera on the basis of achieving shallow DOF.
I personally suspect that IQ differences between the two smaller formats have had less to do with sensor size than with sensor quality, and now that better 4/3 sensors are coming out, the trailing distance in high iso performance, dynamic range, etc, will largely disappear. Sony has a gem of a sensor in their 16mp APC-c line (Nex 5n, Nikon D700, etc) and I'd love to see that tech in m4/3. The differences I would expect to be pretty slight, even if the resolution dropped a bit from the shrinkage.
I think it's a good article, and is indeed worth spreading.
I personally suspect that IQ differences between the two smaller formats have had less to do with sensor size than with sensor quality, and now that better 4/3 sensors are coming out, the trailing distance in high iso performance, dynamic range, etc, will largely disappear. Sony has a gem of a sensor in their 16mp APC-c line (Nex 5n, Nikon D700, etc) and I'd love to see that tech in m4/3. The differences I would expect to be pretty slight, even if the resolution dropped a bit from the shrinkage.
I think it's a good article, and is indeed worth spreading.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
It seems like a considered view, by one person, of what meets his needs. In that respect, I found it interesting.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
With 7-14 and 9-18mm lenses available, m4/3 is not too badly served.
Mind you, I'm keeping my Canon 24x36 system, because I need tilt-shift lenses for the architectural work that is my bread and butter. But m4/3 works fine for everything else I do.
wilonstott
Wil O.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii
Look at the description of the 5DmkII on the manufacturer's website.
See how they use the term "Full Frame."
You know why? You know what that refers to? You know what it means?
Of course you do. It means the sensor is the size of a 35mm frame of film.
Why is there debate over the definition of "Full Frame"?
It has a clear and set definition--which issues forth from the industry itself. It's not effing up for debate--it's a manufacturing distinction.
It doesn't mean Medium Format digital---we call that "Medium Format" digital.
It doesn't mean 4/3rds--we call that "4/3rds"
That's the Equivocal fallacy --some of you may not have looked that up, or know exactly what that means either--in that case--here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
I think you'll find that it fits, although I'm sure some of you will disagree, and then we can fight about what color the sky is.
Also, I said there are distinct advantages to FF. They are--IQ from larger sensors, DOF (big one), use of wide angles, legacy lenses, and overall system strength (lens options, accessories, and future viability).
Look at the description of the 5DmkII on the manufacturer's website.
See how they use the term "Full Frame."
You know why? You know what that refers to? You know what it means?
Of course you do. It means the sensor is the size of a 35mm frame of film.
Why is there debate over the definition of "Full Frame"?
It has a clear and set definition--which issues forth from the industry itself. It's not effing up for debate--it's a manufacturing distinction.
It doesn't mean Medium Format digital---we call that "Medium Format" digital.
It doesn't mean 4/3rds--we call that "4/3rds"
That's the Equivocal fallacy --some of you may not have looked that up, or know exactly what that means either--in that case--here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
I think you'll find that it fits, although I'm sure some of you will disagree, and then we can fight about what color the sky is.
Also, I said there are distinct advantages to FF. They are--IQ from larger sensors, DOF (big one), use of wide angles, legacy lenses, and overall system strength (lens options, accessories, and future viability).
dasuess
Nikon Freak
Nose grease is very difficult to remove from print surfaces. . .
Well, at least they were printed on matte paper
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I have been using M4/3 since the Panasonic G1 was introduced. I've had many images published from this and other M4/3 cameras that I own. It is a great little system. If you are careful, shoot at low ISOs, you'll have no problems. I am greatly looking forward to the Olympus OMD.
Ok, ok, you win... I don't want to be responsible for your heart attack!
I agree with you that 35mm film size is what everyone calls full frame. However, I don't think the author is debating that. I think his point is that it doesn't matter.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I don't think "size" matters anymore. As time and technology go further into the future, it will be less so.
rbelyell
Well-known
looking at the above responses, i personally agree with three statements: the only advantages of 'FF' are DOF and ability to shoot legacy lenses at the FLs they were intended to be shot. thats it, as technology advances have taken care of the rest, like low light ability or DR. for some these are exceedingly important, if they werent no one wouldve bought an M9 over the less than half priced M8.
the third staement i agree with, and one whose obverse really ticks me off, is that BOTH apsc and m4/3 ruin legacy WA glass. to choose apsc over m4/3 because one wants to shoot their legacy WA glass AS WA glass is hogwash. when your ultrawide 21mm turns into a barely wide 32mm, its character is ruined. period. you wanna shoot your wides as wides, you have only one choice: FF.
further, comparing new m4/3 to new apsc cams in terms of shooting legacy glass, only m4/3 seems at this point to have no 'intrinsic' focus shift, color shift, corner softness or other IQ issues that apsc do.
tony
the third staement i agree with, and one whose obverse really ticks me off, is that BOTH apsc and m4/3 ruin legacy WA glass. to choose apsc over m4/3 because one wants to shoot their legacy WA glass AS WA glass is hogwash. when your ultrawide 21mm turns into a barely wide 32mm, its character is ruined. period. you wanna shoot your wides as wides, you have only one choice: FF.
further, comparing new m4/3 to new apsc cams in terms of shooting legacy glass, only m4/3 seems at this point to have no 'intrinsic' focus shift, color shift, corner softness or other IQ issues that apsc do.
tony