4 ms·

Enthusiastic (and, in solidarity with another popular post right now, mediocre) amateur photographer here. When I was a teenager I desperately wanted a 35 mm S

Enthusiastic (and, in solidarity with another popular post right now, mediocre) amateur photographer here. When I was a teenager I desperately wanted a 35 mm SLR. I bought photography magazines, read all the reviews. For me, price was the biggest factor, so I was looking at Pentax K1000-class cameras, which could be had then for a little over $100 with a lens. The thing that struck me then, and still strikes me today, is the sheer amount of brand snobbishness in photography. Back then, you weren't a “real” photographer”, and you weren't using a “real” camera, unless you were shooting Nikon, Canon, or Leica. And of those, only the Canons were at all affordable. And yet, you could throw the exact same Ektachrome in any 35 mm camera, grab a good prime lens, and shoot exactly the same pictures. No one on earth could tell whether you had taken it with a Leica or a Pentax. And the same thing is true today. Today, because most of my photography (which is, again, mediocre) is travel photography, I shoot an Olympus em-10 with a $300 lens most of the time. It's small and it won't break my heart if it gets broken or stolen. The m43 system has a ton of great lenses and high quality camera bodies. With the different sensors it's now possible, in theory, to even tell the difference between pictures shot on an Olympus and a FF Nikon, but in practice 99% of photographers won't ever realize those differences. But it isn't a Nikon or a Leica, so I'm still not using a “real” camera. Anyway, my point is this: to be perfectly honest, I doubt the ability of the field to choose standards based in technical merit. There are decent reasons to desire FF cameras over APS or m43 — the availability of a lot of legacy lens designs, for instance — but as far as I can tell that isn't the real reason it's taking off. It's taking off because it's now possible to drop ten grand on such a system. Sorry for the cynicism. But I've been told so often that I'm not using a real camera that I finally just decided to ignore the hype and enjoy taking pictures.

frostburg 8y ago
The Leica lenses were better than the Nikon lenses that were better than the Canon lenses that were better than the Pentax lenses, on average (there are exceptions to this). It didn't really matter at normal print sizes for usual focal length, but for example a 21/3.4 Schneider Super-Angulon for Leica from 1963 was a vastly better ultrawide than what you could have for other 35mm systems. If you try to print big (let's say A3+) you'll rapidly find the limits of the m43 system.
- jamesg 8y ago
  > If you try to print big (let's say A3+) you'll rapidly find the limits of the m43 system I’ve printed a good number of images shot on m43 at about that size, and that’s not been my experience. The specifics definitely matter, but I’ve found Olympus’s M.Zuiko 75/1.8 to be competitive with a 70-200/2.8 in terms of sharpness, distortion, etc, for instance (dxomark seem to broadly agree: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75mm-F18 https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITA... vs https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-200mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-...). You do have a larger minimum DoF, but 150/3.6 equivalent is not that far off. I would like a bit more resolution, but that’s also true of my Nikon D4S (also 16MP). Clearly FF and m43 have different strengths, and you’ll get the best results by playing to the strengths of each. I concede that all else being equal, larger sensors do afford you more flexibility (lower light performance, for instance). On the other hand, traveling with my Nikon FF kit is a huge PITA (mostly due to the lenses; the body is a constant cost I can mostly deal with). I’d love to hear more about the limitations you’ve hit with larger prints on m43.
  - frostburg 8y ago
    I don't actually use m43, but 16 or even 24mp would be rather inadequate for my needs, especially from a bayer sensor. I do my printing at 720 ppi on Pictorico OHP transparency stock, which I then use to contact print cyanotypes or pt/pd (I'm really dedicated to useless stuff). You can see how the resolution requirements for anything bigger than a postcard are stringent. In practice I use either a Sony A7r (36mp, with very sharp primes) a Sigma with a foveon sensor (which holds up very well to the Sony at ISO 100, and it's not like I use the Sony at more than ISO 100) or high-resolution scans from Adox CMS20 II microfilm stock (ISO 20, there is a special low contrast developer for pictorial contrast) shoot on a Leica or Contax with their respective very highly resolving primes.
    - jamesg 8y ago
      Gotcha. Cool setup!
TeMPOraL 8y ago
From my experience with amateur photographers (the ones usually most outspoken about who's not a real photographer), I recognize this as well. > Anyway, my point is this: to be perfectly honest, I doubt the ability of the field to choose standards based in technical merit. Well, here in the software industry we have the same problem. I wonder why that is.

frostburg 8y ago

The Leica lenses were better than the Nikon lenses that were better than the Canon lenses that were better than the Pentax lenses, on average (there are exceptions to this). It didn't really matter at normal print sizes for usual focal length, but for example a 21/3.4 Schneider Super-Angulon for Leica from 1963 was a vastly better ultrawide than what you could have for other 35mm systems. If you try to print big (let's say A3+) you'll rapidly find the limits of the m43 system.

jamesg 8y ago
> If you try to print big (let's say A3+) you'll rapidly find the limits of the m43 system I’ve printed a good number of images shot on m43 at about that size, and that’s not been my experience. The specifics definitely matter, but I’ve found Olympus’s M.Zuiko 75/1.8 to be competitive with a 70-200/2.8 in terms of sharpness, distortion, etc, for instance (dxomark seem to broadly agree: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75mm-F18 https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITA... vs https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-200mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-...). You do have a larger minimum DoF, but 150/3.6 equivalent is not that far off. I would like a bit more resolution, but that’s also true of my Nikon D4S (also 16MP). Clearly FF and m43 have different strengths, and you’ll get the best results by playing to the strengths of each. I concede that all else being equal, larger sensors do afford you more flexibility (lower light performance, for instance). On the other hand, traveling with my Nikon FF kit is a huge PITA (mostly due to the lenses; the body is a constant cost I can mostly deal with). I’d love to hear more about the limitations you’ve hit with larger prints on m43.
- frostburg 8y ago
  I don't actually use m43, but 16 or even 24mp would be rather inadequate for my needs, especially from a bayer sensor. I do my printing at 720 ppi on Pictorico OHP transparency stock, which I then use to contact print cyanotypes or pt/pd (I'm really dedicated to useless stuff). You can see how the resolution requirements for anything bigger than a postcard are stringent. In practice I use either a Sony A7r (36mp, with very sharp primes) a Sigma with a foveon sensor (which holds up very well to the Sony at ISO 100, and it's not like I use the Sony at more than ISO 100) or high-resolution scans from Adox CMS20 II microfilm stock (ISO 20, there is a special low contrast developer for pictorial contrast) shoot on a Leica or Contax with their respective very highly resolving primes.
  - jamesg 8y ago
    Gotcha. Cool setup!

TeMPOraL 8y ago

From my experience with amateur photographers (the ones usually most outspoken about who's not a real photographer), I recognize this as well. > Anyway, my point is this: to be perfectly honest, I doubt the ability of the field to choose standards based in technical merit. Well, here in the software industry we have the same problem. I wonder why that is.