kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

FF or 4/3, they are 300mm. And they are both 600mm.
4/3 say it is equivalent to FF 600mm.
Crop the FF 300mm from a FF camera by 1/2 and you have 600mm.

So don't FF cameras have better image resolution than smaller sensors?

And the Nikon 300mm is half, half the weight, half the price, and a little smaller than the Oly 300mm.

Does make sense?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

It depends, the variables are sensor size and resolution. Exercise for the student. How much does the resolution decrease with your 50% FF crop and how does that compare to the native resolution of the M43 sensor?

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

With either system, the quality you get or don't, is dependant on the ability of the user.

User ID

No. Thaz reverse logic. Kenarchi is quite correct. The simple fact is that there’s no mumbo jumbo about all the usual UHH “consider this, consider that, what about the multiple variables .... “. None of that going on. Verrrrry simple. The Zuiko is a conventional design and the Nikkor is a diffraction optic. Huuuuge difference.

While it’s a different concept than a cat lens, there’s a similar outcome, a very light and compact tele. Not fully as much weight and bulk reduction as a cat, but verrrry noticeable. PLUS ! you also get a functioning iris. It’s a real game changer.

And !!! If you order in the next fifteen minutes and mention “UHH Special” we’ll send you a SECOND Nikkor 300mm for exactly the same price as your first one ! Yes, you heard right, you get TWO for the price of TWO !!! Don’t miss out. Order NOW ! (Ginsu knives not included. Offer void where prohibited.)

User ID

It’s modern gear. The user has a major effect on quality ? Sure, if the user works reeeally diligently to screw it up then the results will suffer.

But if you just put it on a tripod and use ultra sooper auto mode, you get a really high quality image. Most usually a rather worthless photograph, but great image quality. And often as not, you can even ditch the tripod.

BebuLamar

If you use the lenses on an M4/3 camera the Olympus will deliver sharper images.

rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

Not correct.

If we call both cameras 20MP, then the cropped part of the Nikon image is half the size of the sensor, or 10 MP. If you want to print that, you have only half the pixels of the Oly version. On the Oly image, you can crop in closer and still retain a lot of pixels - crop by half as you did with the Nikon and you still have 10 MP. Crop the already cropped Nikon image by another half (to simulate what you did with the oly) and you have lost some serious resolution.

Also, mega pixels are mega pixels. Size does not matter in that case. Both cameras will have about the same resolution (assuming careful focus, camera handling, and the same glass quality of the lenses). The FF advantage is in noise control and depth of field (less for a given f-stop than the cropped sensor). That DOF difference might be against you when using FF if you are shooting landscape, but an advantage in portrait work.

Canisdirus

Just get the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6.
It's sharper...it's cheaper...it's a brighter lens (important).
The Oly is a 300 f/4 ...but it is in practice...an f/8 lens. You will struggle in low light. You will also struggle to seperate the subject if the background is close to the subject. Want f/8 on the Nikon...just dial it in. But you can't dial in f/5.6 on the Oly...it does not exist.
It's not good when several zoom lenses end up being sharper than than the Oly prime.

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

Not if you consider spatial resolution. It is the crux of DXOMark's rating system. Even a theoretically perfect lens on a M4/3 will not be as "sharp" as the same lens on a larger sensor.

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-sharpness-spatial-resolution/

I first realized this when I switched from a D300s to a D700 - both were 12 mp cameras, one was DX the other FX. There was no question that the FX camera was sharper with my lenses, not to mention considerably cleaner (less noise due to larger pixel sites and less dense sensor), and overall image quality was a big, noticeable step up. The next big step was when I went from a 12 mp FX camera to a 36 mp FX.

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

You need to qualify some of your statements.

Depth of field is less, not more, for a smaller sensor, at the same distance, aperture and focal length.

Spatial resolution will make the image from the larger sensor, even if the image is cropped to a lower pixel count.

All the sensor resolution in the world will not help a printed image from a smaller sensor - which has to be magnified considerably more than the same image from a larger sensor.

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-sharpness-spatial-resolution/

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

First thing first, the Zuiko 300 mm lens for micro fourth thirds is a great optic. I do not own one but I have seen many photographs made with this lens and they are superb in quality. Theoretically the Nikon and Olympus lenses are about the same but indeed with Olympus or Panasonic cameras the Zuiko 300 mm lens behaves like a 600 mm tele. I should say the field of view is that of a 600 mm lens. The lens is super expensive by the way.

When you crop from the Nikon 300 mm lens to imitate a 600 mm one you end up with half the resolution. For small prints no issues but for enlargements you will not be very happy. I know nothing about spatial resolution, I simply trust my eyes. I do not print murals from my full frame camera or my micro fourth thirds but enlargements like 13x19 inches are gorgeous and full of details when printed from my Olympus bodies. I have seen enlargements from Joe Edelman, Olympus visionary, that can easily fill a whole wall in any home made with Olympus 20 Mp. cameras and the resolution of details is simply amazing.

By the way, DxO stated that the 85 mm f1.4 lens was simply a bad lens for portraits. Just ask professionals using it for their opinion.

rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

You are not magnifying anything. The size of the final print is determined by the information captured on the sensor. 20 MP contains much more info than our older 6 MP sensors. The sensor is just an analog to digital converter in a sense. I will concede that a better lens will produce a sharper image, but the Oly 300 is no toy.

Also, I believe that smaller sensors have greater DOF for a given aperture. Think of how it is nearly impossible to get a blurred background on a cell phone (tiny sensor) and how small an aperture you need to get great DOF on say an 8X10 view camera - some of those lenses had an F64 setting to get better DOF.
Remember, this is not film. Yes, with film a bigger negative could be enlarged more than a small one. My 20 mp olympus has no problem printing a 30 X 40 metal print with stunning sharpness.

User ID

That is waaaaaaaaaay off. Not half size, not 10MP. It’s quarter size and 5MP. You do recall this is about FF and m4/3 ???

Not meaning to single you out. Yours just happens to be the most recent posting of that idea. Nothing personal. Bogus math is a disease around here and apparently contagious in the extreme. UHH is pretty much the “Phlat Urph Photo Phorum”.

User ID

More UHH funny math. But I’m crying while I’m laffing.

Canisdirus

Everything he said is correct.