moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Pretty sure most here agree on all of the above...

jcboy3

No, the equivalence is for the image. To get an equivalent image between the two systems, you use the same shutter speed (for motion), an aperture set using the "crop factor" (the ratio of sensor diagonals, for depth of field), an ISO using the "crop factor" for image brightness, and a focal length set using the "crop factor" (for the same angle of view).

But that is applicable only if the full image of the corresponding sensors is used. With wildlife, it is common to crop significantly, and that changes the equivalence calculation, especially when focal lengths are not equivalent or the pixel density is not the same.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Very WELL stated !

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

When I go to choose a lens for my m43 camera, I use half the focal length I would on full frame. For equivalent depth of field, I use an aperture two stops wider on m43, if available within the limits of the lens, adjusting ISO and/or exposure time accordingly. (I've never been enamored of extremely shallow depth of field. I like SOME elements of my backgrounds discernible.) I'm not looking for the SAME image on m43 that I would get on full frame. I'm primarily concerned with the field of view. In much of my work, an increase in depth of field is highly desirable.

I've found full frame gear extremely limiting when it comes to:

> Traveling light without excess baggage charges (My camera, four lenses, two wireless mics, a flash, two video lights, cables, batteries, computer, and a small tripod all fit into a pack that slides under an airline seat.)

> Hiking long trails without "full frame fatigue"

> Achieving close macro magnification of 35mm slides and negatives without a bellows, or special adapter rings, and other crap accessories

> Keeping film I'm copying SHARP without using a ridiculously small aperture on my macro lens

> Achieving sufficient depth of field in low light to keep the part of a scene I want in focus, IN focus

> Making long video recordings without sensor overheating outdoors in bright sun in the summer

> Buying a decent long lens that doesn't cost more than a used car

...But I could list a bunch of things I can't do with m43 gear, too! And of course, for some things, some folks just need sheet film and a large format view camera. There is a use case for every camera sold, or it wouldn't be available...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Thanks! Not my first essay...

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Very well put. When I travel, having a greater depth of field is very important. Shooting down narrow, long, and busy European streets, I want low ISO, fast shutter, and as large a depth of field possible. Sometimes I am shooting at a wide open aperture (let's say f4) which means a "narrow" depth of field. But if I was shooting full frame, I would have to shoot at f8. This would mean that I would lose two stops of ISO, one stop ISO and one stop shutter speed, or two stops of shutter speed. This could spell disaster at evening or night with full frame. This could require a tripod and a fair amount of time for full frame. For me, I just raise the camera, turn on the Image Stabilization (6.5 stops or more), and shoot. ISO stays at 200 as long as possible, depth of field is still f4, no tripod to move about, and hopefully the shutter speed stays at 1 second or less. Can that be done with a full frame camera? Not that easily, especially without a tripod.

Barn Owl

Don't know how any serious photographer could make the mistake of not joining UHH. From my initial inquiry, I have received info from at least a dozen photographers and I consider it a gift to have all the discussions and specific exchanges. I would encourage any UHH, who receives so many knowledgeable responses to an inquiry, to copy the writings into a Word file for specific references. Thanks to all!

jcboy3

Depth of field is a red herring. You get two stops more light gathering with a FF sensor, and you lose two stops of light to get equivalent depth of field with a smaller aperture.

M43 does present a clear weight and size advantage, especially with the smaller bodies and smaller lenses that don't have equivalent FF lenses because of the smaller apertures and smaller image circle.

You can't actually take a "real" macro image of a 35mm slide with an m43 camera, because the slide is twice the size of the sensor, and because "real" macro is 1:1 or greater magnification.

Video has been an m43 advantage for a long time, but 8K video is not currently supported due to limits on sensor resolution. Which is one reason people have been clamoring for higher resolution sensors. But the 4:3 image format is actually a problem with 8K support because it implies a 44mp sensor. Although 8K can be produced with a 33mp 4:3 sensor with appropriate sampling. None of which is currently available in the m43 cameras. This is the reason Panasonic had to develop full frame.

Good wildlife lenses are expensive. There is nothing similar to the big primes in the m43 system. But there are now some excellent lenses like the 300mm f4 and 150-400 f4.5. And there are some decent lenses like the Panasonic 100-400 or Olympus 100-400. The Panasonic is expecially useful due to it's size.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

"real" macro isn't possible with most full frame macro lenses without adapter rings to go from 1:2 to 1:1. I had two 55mm Nikkors that had to be removed from the body, then mounted to an adapter or bellows unit, then mounted back to the body to copy slides. Annoying... especially when we were burning brick after brick of film on a daily basis.

I've never considered 1:1 to be some magic "entry point into the world of macro," as I'm not a scientist trying to say something is "actual size". I'm more concerned whether the lens gives me what I want when I use it.

With the 30mm Lumix Macro, I can copy a quarter of a 35mm slide. That's like a Micro Nikkor on a bellows at 2:1. DOF at f/5.6 is like f/11 on my old lenses. That handles film curvature at the edge of archival paper mounts.

The world of 8K isn't ready for prime time. Give it 2-3 years and it probably will be. Currently, 8K, 12K, and 16K are production formats for high end filmmaking and network TV. Editing 8K on the right equipment is great, because it affords cropping to 4K with little loss of clarity on 4K monitors or 1080i TV.

But what Micro 4/3 offers on the GH6 is nearly 6K open gate (full frame 4:3 video recording), which can be used to produce both horizontal 16:9 and 9:16 vertical video from the same footage. THAT is a tremendous tool for YouTube and social media creators.

I don't really care whether m43 gets more resolution yet. I want Panasonic to put hybrid phase detect autofocus in their next GH camera, along with the other features of the S5 Mark IIX (sans the full frame format).

Forget video, though. The OP wanted to know about the OM-1 from OM Systems and whether it can work for wildlife. It can, but it isn't for everyone. Paired with the 150-400mm, it is a little beast.

gwilliams6

Actually EVERY single Fullframe macro lens I have owned from Nikon, Canon and Sony has done 1:1 without any additional adapter needed. There are even fullframe macro lenses that do 2:1 and beyond without any adapter rings. Sorry but I needed to correct you on that point.

Consequently, I have NEVER had any issue copying fullframe 35mm film or 35mm slides with these macro lenses on my fullframe cameras without need of a bellows. I have been doing that for decades.

Just some of the fullframe macro lenses for Sony, listed at B&H, and they do 1:1, 2:1 and up to 4.5:1 without any adapters, (except the new fullframe Sony 70-200mm f4 G II macro, that does 1:2, but will do 1:1 with adding the Sony 2X TC) .
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=E%20Mount%20Macro%20Lenses&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&ap=Y&gclid=CjwKCAjwxOymBhAFEiwAnodBLAgZSQIjOGkEIWTAd4FnmGkD_Z5Cdj5LDJ1rtxMoMVvafkBwhgTuHhoCTPgQAvD_BwE

Cheers and best to you.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I do not know where you are coming from with your statements. "There is nothing similar to the big primes in the m43 system."

My 300 f4 Pro IS lens has the same angle of view (4.1°) as the 600 f4 lenses of Sony, Nikon, and Canon.

My lens is less than 10" long, 2.7 pounds, and $2900 (present cost). And almost unbelievably sharp. It is capable of resolving an image on a 100mp 4/3rds sensor (which does not exist - yet). On just my E-M1 mkIII, it is 7.5 stops image stabilized.

On the Sony, Nikon, and Canon 600 f4 lenses, they are over 16" long (some over 18"), 6.5 pounds and up (better have a strong back and tripod), and $13,000 or more in cost. They are sharp but not really any more sharp than the OM 300 f4. And the image stabilization I believe only goes to 3.5 stops for the Sony, Nikon, and Canon.

Yes, you are in one way "right". 4/3rds does not have any lenses that have the same angle of view and aperture and is as big, as heavy, and/or as expensive. But the 4/3rds lenses are as sharp.

Yes, the depth of field is not the same. My depth of field is larger for the same image being shot at the same aperture. But for any birds in flight, so what. For any landscape shot, so what. And, for any interior or architectural shot, the "extra" depth of field is a blessing.

And, as I said, my 300 f4 Pro IS lens has the same angle of view as the Sony, Nikon, and Canon 600 f4. What Sony, Nikon, and Canon has a zoom with a sharp 300mm to 800 angle of view, f4.5, and with an internal 1.25X teleconverter, for only $7500 at this time? And capable of being handheld even with a 2X teleconverter. Canon does have a prime RF 800 f5.6 for $17,000, but at 6.9 pounds and 17" long, it is not exactly handholdable.

Yes, 4/3rds is not for everyone. But neither is 1", APS-C, full frame, or medium formats. And as far as which one has the best lenses, if you pay enough, you will get one of the best no matter what the format.

gwilliams6

1

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Okay... I stand corrected. I was always losing the PK rings for my 55mm Nikkors... They only went down to 1:2 by themselves.

gwilliams6

Please folks lets be accurate here. In fact the image stabilization on the latest Sony, Nikon and Canon fullframe cameras is up to 8-stops, IBIS+lens OSS. Just a fact. Please do better research.

It is ok to favor one or another format, but lets present facts, not fiction here, please. There is so much misinformation in UHH, and some in this thread too, sadly. I dont even know where to start to address all the misinformation here about all the formats.

Please dont be another UHHer spreading misinformation to pump up your fav format ,or to put down another format. Please do better research, and dont just spout out stuff that you THINK is true. Thanks

Cheers and best to you all.

jcboy3

A 300mm f4 lens is a 300mm f4 lens. There is no really fast 400, 500, 600, or 800mm lens. FF sensors are at 45 and 60mp, so the “equivalence” argument does not hold up.

The reality is, if you are willing to spend up to $20k on a camera/lens combo, FF has m43 beat for shooting from a tripod.