4 ms·

Interesting. “Full” is a weird way of saying 35mm. Aside from that I’ve come to think that software beats hardware in photography. My m43 body can drive the sen

by romed 8y ago

Interesting. “Full” is a weird way of saying 35mm. Aside from that I’ve come to think that software beats hardware in photography. My m43 body can drive the sensor around using the IS actuators to take a high-resolution image with no color filter artifacts. With a speed booster and an old Nikkor lens there’s a stupefying amount of light hitting the sensor. Best pictures I’ve taken in my life and I’ve used all kinds of cameras. So what’s magic about “full” frame digital?

aequitas 8y ago
I'm in the market for m43 and have been reading into some of this. One of the things I get told is that full frame produces 'better looking' images due to differences in focal length. Things like certain bokeh effects that aps-c/m43 cannot achieve, even with wider apertures and zoom lenses. Also the sensor resolution trick only works on stationary subjects, so probably a no-go for sports photographers. But I'd love to hear otherwise, as m43 seems a lot more appealing to me, considering cost, weight and size.
- erokar 8y ago
  The bigger the sensor, the more out of focus background (aka "bokeh") for any given aperture. Blurry background can sometimes be useful if you need to isolate a subject, bot often you want less of it, not more.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  My hobbyist opinion... m4/3 has it's limits, but they are well beyond my limits as a once-a-month photographer. I'm currently shooting an Olympus OMD EM5ii (standard-sized body) and a PEN EP5 (smaller rangefinder-sized body). I primarily use the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens on the big body and either the 17mm f1.8 or 25mm f1.8 on the small body. All three lenses will produce pleasing bokeh. Sometimes, I have to run them wide-open to do so. But, at laptop-screen size, any CA or distortion isn't noticeable to the people looking at my photos (family and friends). Anyway, for me, m4/3 hit the sweet spot of price, size, and photo quality. I used to shoot a Canon DSLR (older Rebel crop-senor) and it was just too bulky to haul around on active vacations. I stopped carrying it, preferring a compact Canon S90. But, it wasn't flexible enough, especially indoors. So, I moved to an Olympus PEN EPL7 to try out m4/3. Loved the size of the complete kit, and traded it for the EM5ii after a year of use. Added the EP5 a bit later just to have a second body on hand (was used and cheap, so I'll carry it places I won't take the more expensive EM5ii).
- cschmidt 8y ago
  m43 is one end of the size spectrum, and I've enjoyed my kit. If you find yourself not taking your camera along because it is too big, then it might be a good choice. The prime lenses in particular are very small, so a body and small prime fit nicely in your jacket. They are getting squeezed out from below by phone cameras. As they get better, you think, "I could have just used my phone" at times. You can't get a shallow depth of field in as many conditions as a larger sensor. (It isn't impossible, you can get it with some lenses wide open.) Fuji is doing well with their crop sensors as a good trade-off between size and sensor size. I would look at the new xt3 if I was starting from scratch. They have a nice lens line up. I used to shoot Nikon, but I wasn't taking my camera with me, so I sold it and went m43. But I do miss the look of the portraits I used to get with full frame. So the new Z series is tempting if somewhat irrational. There you're buying the future, or using old glass with an adaptor.
- Glyptodon 8y ago
  I love m4/3ds, but I do concede it has a ways to go for low-light performance. So far as bokeh goes, just remember your equivalencies: getting good bokeh is possible, but not as effortless as with full frame on an average lens. The big appeal of the system to me is how much less volume and weight you carry around when it comes to lenses.
cschmidt 8y ago
Full frame is a pretty standard term for 35mm. There is medium format, full frame, crop sensor, micro four thirds, and compact sensors (in decreasing sensor size). You can certainly take great photos with any sensor size. I've enjoyed my m43 setup. The main benefit is you can get a shallower depth of field with a larger sensor. And I suppose for a given resolution a larger sensor will have bigger photoreceptors, which will tend to be less noisy and better in low light.

by romed 8y ago

aequitas 8y ago

I'm in the market for m43 and have been reading into some of this. One of the things I get told is that full frame produces 'better looking' images due to differences in focal length. Things like certain bokeh effects that aps-c/m43 cannot achieve, even with wider apertures and zoom lenses. Also the sensor resolution trick only works on stationary subjects, so probably a no-go for sports photographers. But I'd love to hear otherwise, as m43 seems a lot more appealing to me, considering cost, weight and size.

erokar 8y ago
The bigger the sensor, the more out of focus background (aka "bokeh") for any given aperture. Blurry background can sometimes be useful if you need to isolate a subject, bot often you want less of it, not more.
alistairSH 8y ago
My hobbyist opinion... m4/3 has it's limits, but they are well beyond my limits as a once-a-month photographer. I'm currently shooting an Olympus OMD EM5ii (standard-sized body) and a PEN EP5 (smaller rangefinder-sized body). I primarily use the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens on the big body and either the 17mm f1.8 or 25mm f1.8 on the small body. All three lenses will produce pleasing bokeh. Sometimes, I have to run them wide-open to do so. But, at laptop-screen size, any CA or distortion isn't noticeable to the people looking at my photos (family and friends). Anyway, for me, m4/3 hit the sweet spot of price, size, and photo quality. I used to shoot a Canon DSLR (older Rebel crop-senor) and it was just too bulky to haul around on active vacations. I stopped carrying it, preferring a compact Canon S90. But, it wasn't flexible enough, especially indoors. So, I moved to an Olympus PEN EPL7 to try out m4/3. Loved the size of the complete kit, and traded it for the EM5ii after a year of use. Added the EP5 a bit later just to have a second body on hand (was used and cheap, so I'll carry it places I won't take the more expensive EM5ii).
cschmidt 8y ago
m43 is one end of the size spectrum, and I've enjoyed my kit. If you find yourself not taking your camera along because it is too big, then it might be a good choice. The prime lenses in particular are very small, so a body and small prime fit nicely in your jacket. They are getting squeezed out from below by phone cameras. As they get better, you think, "I could have just used my phone" at times. You can't get a shallow depth of field in as many conditions as a larger sensor. (It isn't impossible, you can get it with some lenses wide open.) Fuji is doing well with their crop sensors as a good trade-off between size and sensor size. I would look at the new xt3 if I was starting from scratch. They have a nice lens line up. I used to shoot Nikon, but I wasn't taking my camera with me, so I sold it and went m43. But I do miss the look of the portraits I used to get with full frame. So the new Z series is tempting if somewhat irrational. There you're buying the future, or using old glass with an adaptor.
Glyptodon 8y ago
I love m4/3ds, but I do concede it has a ways to go for low-light performance. So far as bokeh goes, just remember your equivalencies: getting good bokeh is possible, but not as effortless as with full frame on an average lens. The big appeal of the system to me is how much less volume and weight you carry around when it comes to lenses.

cschmidt 8y ago

Full frame is a pretty standard term for 35mm. There is medium format, full frame, crop sensor, micro four thirds, and compact sensors (in decreasing sensor size). You can certainly take great photos with any sensor size. I've enjoyed my m43 setup. The main benefit is you can get a shallower depth of field with a larger sensor. And I suppose for a given resolution a larger sensor will have bigger photoreceptors, which will tend to be less noisy and better in low light.