dwe823

Is it worth moving to mirrorless full frame cameras versus the existing 4/3 and other formats that continue to improve?

stevebein

An interesting question. Actually the proper answer would be."what is your end result goal?" I shoot with an Olympus OMD E-M1 and have had prints made on metal up to 30x45". That is really pushing it ,but the gallery show opens tomorrow, Oct 22 at a picky gallery. Prints on paper, for me, did not hold up that large. So, for internet, prints up to 16x20 and some will hold larger, it is not necessary to go to the full frame, such as the Sony A7R high pixel camera. But, I am going there with the new A7R II since I want to be able to offer some 40x60 gallery images. The end result is what should guide you. I originally went to the Micro 4.3 Olympus after hearing a talk by two nat Geo photographers who used that system at times for Nat Geo assignments. One caveat, I do not think they are especially great in tracking fast motion, such as flying small birds. I guess I will find out, though my use of the Sony will be primarily landscapes.
Good luck with your quest. I hope my answer was helpful.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Anytime you increase your sensor size by 400% you will see BIG differences in image quality. Plus the low light performance increase is worth the upgrade in itself.
If you are fully satisfied with the M4/3's results then you likely will never realize nor need the improvements and advantages that full frame delivers.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You are the only one that can answer that question, based on your needs. While you have received good info, always remember that your shots will still look like exactly what they look now. So a larger sensor will not make you a better photographer per se. I do know good photographers, not snapshot shooters, who tried out the the A7II and A7RII and sold them for a number of reasons and still shoot with their EM1s. Everything is a compromise. You don't have to go too far, just look at the galleries on this forum. You will find terrible snapshots with FF cameras and fantastic photos taken with m4/3. And you will also find the opposite - it is the person behind the viewfinder that is most important. As it was said, you can most definitely benefit from a larger sensor. But that doesn't mean that you would enjoy the process. What do you shoot?

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

Other things being equal, and they generally are, a larger sensor has four main advantages over a smaller one: Increased resolution; increased dynamic range; better low light performance; shallower depth of field when required. The last two are particularly noticeable, especially when comparing micro4/3 with full frame, and are an immutable part of the physics involved. It's worth studying the studio comparisons on DPreview to see the effects of the first three factors.

However, another immutable part of the physics involved is that the micro4/3 lenses are half the size, often half the price for equivalent quality, and are about a quarter the weight! And the Olympus in-body stabilisation is amazing.

As ever, you pays yer money and takes yer choice...

dwe823

Thanks for all your responses...my goal is not large format prints -- only the best quality image on my computer monitor. Will FF result in visibly better quality for a given quality of glass (and for a given quality of the photographer)? I currently have an Olympus EPL-5 and Canon EOS 80D.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

In my experience, moving to the aps-c, a6300 from the 4/3 already provides great improvement in prints over 11x14. This is good for my usuall 20x30 before I have to resort to Perfect Resize. The 35mm size should do even better, maybe 40x60. Then, with Perfect Resize or another software, you can even go to a wall-size 9 feet x 6 feet.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

It's crazy-good and works with any lens you can put on the camera!
I miss having that.
Sold my EM-1 a while ago.

JPL

It is hard to say. I have a full frame mirrorless and there is not much difference in visual quality if I am viewing my pictures on computer screen compared to Aps-c or 1" formats or even my smartphone. But if you need to crop your pictures or print large then it is another story. It may also depend on how big your monitor is and the resolution it has.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I'd suggest that you go to a camera shop and try the sonys with your memory card - upload at home and that should provide the right answer. How much difference do you see between your 2 cameras? What lenses do you use for these cameras? There is a pretty good pro landscape photographer in England who is pretty fussy, liked the detail of the em1/12-40 more than the d810/24-70. When the original Sony a7r came out he tested it against the em1 as well. He found just a bit more detail in the Oly combo, but switched anyway, because he prints very big. I use a 5k iMac - not sure what you use, but you can also look at shots taken with both formats right here on uhh. Click on shots that have the download option. I have a feeling that you may see more of an improvement by improving your skills first. I say this because I know of photographers with m4/3 who's work/pp skills are so good, that I could never produce anything like those with the same gear. I can post some links for you, if interested so that you are aware what m4/3 is capable of

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

What lenses are you shooting with on your EPL-5?

Personally, I've not found a need to go to FF, but YMMV. Personally, I find the experience shooting with the EM1 far superior to that of shooting with EPM2...it fits better in my hands and there are a lot more customizable buttons and dials.

That said, when the EM1ii comes out later this year/early next year, I'm likely going to upgrade. Mostly for the larger 20mpx sensor/high-res/high-iso performance.

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

I started with the Canon 60D (aps-c) and found the low light shots had more noise than I liked. I purchased a 6D (full frame) and noticed immediately the improvement in resolution, depth of field and low light shots. Depending on what I want to shoot dictates which camera I use. If this is one of your goals then you have your answer. I probably would rent the camera you're considering and see if it meets your needs.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

A larger sensor has advantages. Of course, you should read reviews and comparisons, since more goes into a camera than a sensor. I tried compact cameras with smaller sensors and went back to my DSLRs.

Read comparisons and specs, and decide what features are important to you.
(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Mirrorless cameras, as you already know, are small, light and very practical. They are getting very close to their full potential and I am sure they will be an integral part of many photographers arsenal.
In my particular case I am not concerned about full frame with mirrorless cameras but that is me. I use a tiny Olympus Pen EP-5 and with good optics I can go 13x19 without issues and I have achieved very good enlargements using a kit lens. No issues whatsoever for images when I use the computer.
The Olympus EM-1, from all I have seen and read, is a superb camera under present technologies and the Mark II version promises to be even better as Clint mentioned in his post. I am not well aware yet of the performance of these new cameras for wildlife and action photography. Till now their AF system has offered nothing to write home about.
Be assured that between a cropped mirrorless sensor and a full frame file you will be hard pressed to find differences when you look at the files in your computer.

stevebein

It all comes down to what are your desires and goals. The top Micro 4/3 cameras are outstanding. They can make prints larger than most imagine, but things like dynamic range and very large prints, the ability to strongly crop and still be able to have a great useable image are factors to consider. Old film shooters are more likely to frame and crop in camera, the ability to create digital images and lose the expense and discomfort of carrying lots of film means you can take more images of a subject essentially for free ( additional free expenses, not the cost of the system) I think the best thing, if available and you want to check them out is rent what you think will meet your goals and then make a decision on that basis. Asking others is like getting a room of politicians together and you get 15 opinions out of a dozen or less people. Guidelines from those with experience should be informed guidelines, since each of us have different needs and they can be met with many systems. Most of our brands are so good that most will do most jobs very well. Some are better at specialized requirements than others. All have some sort of compromise. I am looking at the Sony A7R II. Its big down side is it is not an action camera to some extent and the array of lenses is less than other older brands. My issue to decide. The greater dynamic range means better shadow detail and I do a lot of landscape where that may be a factor. It is lighter than full frame DSL's and at that, for me is a great factor. So my needs may not match yours, or who knows. Some point and shoot mirrorless cameras turn out amazing images. Good luck in your quest. CAmeras are so good now that choices are harder, but the range of choices is very wide.