DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

I was watching Tony Northrup's video (link below) "Micro Four-Thirds is DEAD" and he says a micro 4/3 camera plus using fast glass can equal FF camera results. I'm trying to get my head around this concept. This concept is mentioned around 2/3rds into the video and I haven't heard this before anywhere. Let me know you thoughts, ideas and results if you have this setup please. I'm curious as I really like how compact of mirrorless is but I'm not willing to sacrifice the quality of FF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjXSnNMZ0PU

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Better be damn fast glass - something like a 35-100mm f1.4 or a 25mm f 0.8 to make up for 2 stop disadvantage in high ISO, low light performance. M43 is great for many things, but for low light, high ISO, FF (given the same generation of sensors) rules - can’t deny the physics of sensor technology with hyperbole.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Even for same generation crop, APS-C, bodies (Canon 70D) and a M4/3 body (Olympus OM-D E-M5 II ) the APS-C body has at least one stop better high ISO performance, let alone comparing to a full frame body.
This is from personal experience.
However there may be other advantages (and some disadvantages) like image stabilisation in the camera body as well as some cost factors (there was for me).

tdekany Loc: Oregon

M4/3 has f0.95 lenses, so that will match the f1.8 setup in FF. There are Olympus f1.2 primes that can equal to f2.4. One advantage of m4/3 lenses is that they are sharp wide open. Let’s say you are photographing a person with FF with an f1.8 lens, for example, the lens may not be tack sharp wide open, or f1.8 doesn’t provide enough DOF and you have to shoot at f2.8. In that case, the f1.2 prime may provide even better results. But either way, neither format is going to make you a better photographer. You either have the eye or you don’t. Use what works. Btw, m4/3 isn’t going anywhere.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I shoot quite a bit with a 75mm f1.8 (150mm equiv), 45mm f1.8 (90mm equiv), and 25mm f1.4 (50mm equiv) on my em1ii and love it’s compactness, while giving me enough control to isolate my subjects...for what I do, there’s no way would I want to carry or travel (air) with a ff equivalent of this setup. I carry enough other gear (ipad, battery backups, paper documents, and snacks/water) for work that my camera has to be as small/light as possible. This past week I had to do a punch list on some exterior signs that required me to walk 23 miles in a little over 2 days. Luckily it was nice outside (70 degrees and sunny), but I’ve done the same thing in 90+ temps.

For work, my subjects are stationary objects, so having a camera that has the best image stabilization on the market is imperative. By being able to hand hold the 75mm at super slow speeds eliminates me needing to carry a tripod...which is something I’d need with a ff setup. So I can easily recapture those 2 stops (usually more) by using a slow speed and lower iso.

It’s not a perfect system though. If you need the light gathering capabilities of a ff sensor and razor thin subject isolation, then you’re better of with ff.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Ok, so I just looked at most of the pictures that you had posted on UHH. There is nothing there that you couldn’t do with m4/3.

My question is? What do you do with your photos? Do you print? How large?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

My 2 favorite photographers who shoot m4/3

https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/visionaries/tracie_maglosky#0

https://www.pacartists.com/collections/bobby-tan

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

But there are f1.2 50 and 85 lenses in FF, (just to name a couple) - anything 2 stops faster in M43? They need to be 2 stops faster for equivalent high ISO low light performance. And why do you think an M43 lens is sharper wide open than a FF? You can make lots of good arguments for M43, but low light, high ISO performance isn’t one of them.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not exactly. And TN is a baiter - posting a controversial opinion to drive clicks to his site. Sometimes he gets it right, but not this time.

You can get some incredible results using the sensor shift tech that is built into some M4/3 cameras, but that only works for still subjects.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Hey, I’m all for light weight (I have a Fuji system as well as FF). Regarding IBIS, I would just point out a couple of things. First, that 2 stop high iSO/low light advantage can translate into a 4x faster shutter speed, which often makes a tripod unnecessary (I almost never need one). Secondly, it’s generally agreed that while IBIS is superior for shorter wide lenses, in-lens stabilization is superior for longer telephoto lenses, where it is most important.

As I said in another thread, photography is not a zero sum game - whatever system suits your needs is the best for you (and I own a lightweight Fuji system), but absurd claims like the title of this thread are not supportable with facts,

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Of course, if you have f0.95 canikon lenses, you can’t reproduce those results. But let’s be fair, if you were using f0.95 or f1.2 primes, you wouldn’t be asking about smaller sized sensor systems.


https://www.imaging-resource.com/articles/beyond-the-kit-the-best-olympus-lenses

I’m not sure if you are directing your last sentence, but if you are, I could care less what people use. They are not using my money. All I care about is the end result.

But you may want to visit mu-43.com and see what results people are getting in low light shooting. I personally on;y ever shot at night once. It is a non issue for me.

Also, depending on what you shoot, 2 stops can easily be taken care of with IBIS.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

The Fox News Of Photo Videos. “Click now, before “they” make me take it down!”

He’s got some helpful advice at times, and a cute wife. But his prognostications are mostly click bait.

Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.

Andy

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The point of my last sentence is to essentially agree with you and the other M43 supporters that whatever system works for you and provides the results you desire if fine - no need to constantly try to defend it and “prove” that it’s the performance equivalent of the next larger format - it isn’t. The fact is that it’s all a compromise. With imagers, like loudspeakers and other things, size DOES matter in terms of performance, BUT there IS a compromise in weight, size and price, and wherever you choose to live on that continuum is your choice; but don’t attempt to prove the unprovable. You can’t economically produce an equivalent M43 lens that is 2 stops faster than the equivalent FL FF, and that is what you’ll need to make up for the 2 stop low light/high ISO advantage of FF, and that is a fact, not an opinion.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Well expressed.

Andy

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I



Do you know what I care about? That maybe I could, one day, take a picture that is anywhere close to those 2 artists, whose links I posted earlier. Nothing else matters to me.