kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Not really seeing this question addressed in any of the comments so far, so I'll ask now.

"Crop" vs. FF, I get that. I'm aware of the differences and advantages of one over the other. What I do not understand – i.e., know nothing about – is what "Micro 4/3" IS and why one would want that over either of the other two formats. What is it good for, better for, NOT as good for, etc.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It’s a purposely built platform. Over 110 lenses are built to fit only Micro 4/3 system cameras from Panasonic Lumix, Olympus (now OM Systems), Black Magic Designs, and some bit players. The sensor is roughly one quarter of the area of full frame, and roughly half the area of APS-C.

All m43 cameras are mirrorless. (There was once a Four Thirds format SLR, but that’s obsolete.)

Advantages:

Greater depth of field for a given field of view (when that is needed) at the same distance and aperture

Much lighter weight lenses for a given field of view, leading to smaller, lighter kit weights

Generally awesome video capability (Lumix GH series)

Best in the business IBIS (OM Systems OM-1)

Dual lens and body stabilization (OM Systems and Lumix)

Less rolling shutter than all but a few full frame cameras (when using electronic shutter mode)

Best single point AF accuracy available (Lumix CDAF with DFD)

Special 50, 80, or 100 Megapixel “sensor shift” modes on some models (OM Systems and Lumix)

Those are just a few of many advantages.

Disadvantages:

Harder to achieve shallow depth of field when you want that

One or two stops less low light performance (more noise at high ISOs)

Maximum of 25 Megapixels (Lumix GH6) or 20 Megapixels (most other current m43 bodies)

Slow or finicky continuous AF on some Lumix models

As there is no perfect camera for all situations, those of us using m43 did so as a deliberate choice, for specific reasons. I can and have gone on for seven pages of single-spaced text about why I use m43, but now is not the time to repeat myself.


APS-C is a bastardized knock-off of 35mm camera technology, originally designed to accommodate poor yields of expensive full frame sensors, slow processors, limited storage and network bandwidth, and primarily to fit existing 35mm SLR lenses on new dSLRs.

Of the four major formats, I like Micro 4/3 and “full frame” about equally, but for very different applications. Panasonic makes both.

Fujifilm chose to make both APS-C and “medium format” digital (which is larger than full frame). They complement each other in a similar manner as m43 and full frame.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Went from Nikon to Oly m4/3. Kept the Nikons around for a few years, but eventually sold it all off because it never got used. I've had had the EMi,ii, iii, and X, now all sold or up for sale. My second OM1 body is supposed to arrive this afternoon.

Image quality? If I do my part right, I wouldn't hesitate to print 30 by 40--except for the cost and availability of wall space.

I'd say the quality of m4/3 exceeds the quality of 95% of photographers here on UHH. That's not a put-down, it's just an observation of the fact that the state of the art in gear is exceedingly high, and all of us are still learning. Or should be.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I’ve been an Olympus shooter for four years and have never felt the need to go backwards to a full frame. The resolution even at severe cropping is still excellent. Granted I’m not posting images on the side of a bus or building, are you? I can’t even imagine re adopting for full frame, never mind the expense of more lenses. Good luck with your dilemma!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Never stop learning to use what you have. “Camera hopping” is not likely to make one a better photographer.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Thank for that extensive reply. Very informative. Clearly, though, you are not a fan of APS-C.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have and enjoy using both DX and FX cameras. But Bill is correct. If it had been easier to make sensors, DX/APS-C sensors would nevef have been a thing at all. The crop sensor was all about makeability, never need or usability.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I can understand that. But why, then, are the D7200 and D500 so highly regarded (among DX bodies)? Sure, I'd like to have a D8xx-something, but it's also a financial issue, as well. At least, I've been populating my lenses with "FX" lenses with the sole exception of the 17-55 f2.8.

gwilliams6

Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony have all made great APS-C cameras (DSLR and mirrorless) that many pros and hobbyists love to use. Pros as well as hobbyist also love using their micro 4/3rd and medium format gear.

I have used all these formats and got great shots with them all as a pro. I shoot mainly fullframe now for all the reasons many have listed. But I will always love my Nikon, Canon, Sony APS-C gear as they made me a lot of money as a pro.

Just a few of the countless hundreds of thousands of professional APS-C shots I have made around the world over the years, great usability always. Don't knock APS-C folks. They still sell super well around the world for all levels of photographers. As reported today, Sony is about to drop a new high-end APS-C camera in their mirrorless lineup.

Click on download for better image quality.

Cheers and best to you.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Yes, and I agree fully. Probably 75-80% of my exposures are with my DX camera. It does a lot of what I need, and it is more fun to shoot. But it is still the result of a necessary detour by the manufacturer.

gwilliams6

We really dont know if every camera maker considered DX/APS-C a detour, or it was a plan from the beginning.

Cheers and best to you .

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Au contraire! I am a former user of both four Canon APS-C and two Nikon DX bodies, all of which worked fine for me. Their later offerings just don't meet my current needs. Lumix GH4 and GH5 Micro 4/3 cameras have done so in spades.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Oh, we know. The truth came out at Digital Imaging Marketing Association meetings in the early 2000s. DIMA was a subgroup of PMAI, the Photo Marketing Association International. I was a member of both from 1995 to 2011. (Once boasting over 200,000 photo industry members, and convention attendance of 45,000 or more, PMAI and DIMA are now defunct, like a lot of photo organizations).

Early sensor manufacturing was very difficult. Many of the technologies that would ultimately prove effective for Kodak, Sony, and Canon had not been developed yet. Sensor density was very low. The sensels (individual RGB filtered light sensitive sensor elements) had to be BIG by today's standards, and they were very hard to make without "stuck" sensels (individual cells that were either permanently black, colored, or white).

So the larger the die and the denser the "pixel pitch," the lower the chip yield was in manufacturing. It was so prohibitively expensive to make a full frame sensor that the major manufacturers did not even try to sell them until the very early 2000s. The demand was there, but not at the price points that would have been required to support mass production. So we got Nikon DX, APS-C Canon, APS-H, and finally, full frame and mainstream medium format.

Kodak's early DCS cameras had even smaller than DX sensors. They didn't have viewfinders to match the sensors, either, just a scribed line on the finder screen to indicate the position of the sensor and ultimate exposed area. That was around 1995, the sandbox days of digital.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

4/3 was a dslr format. Micro 4/3 is a mirrorless digital format.

You can use 4/3 lenses on u43 bodies with an adapter.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Well, that was the impression I got. Thank you.