SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

So CD, if a guy, since there are plenty of them, that went from 43 to FF, why did they move to FF in the first place? What were they looking for? THEN, what was it that they did NOT find at FF that they either found there was MORE of at 43 or there just was not enough MORE of at FF that they would move BACK to 43? Was it IQ, was it weight or was it cost etc?
There is obviously something lacking in 43 that causes people to go LOOKING elsewhere?
What is that? It certainly is not just that they needed to spend money(GAS)???
SS

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Why are people moving from canon? How about nikons?

Since those of us who follow the different formats, believe it or not, we actually read the reasons. For many it is the weight. Those who become m4/3 users, who were former FF users, and try out the Sony FF offerings say that Sony is clunky and slow compared to the EM1 or gh5.

I’m going to point out that I’m only talking about good photographers here.

On the other hand, I’ve seen many users reply to your threads, who use both canon/Nikon FF and m4/3 who express their opinions, but conveniently, you have always ignored those posters. So that tells me that you are extremely biased. Why does it matter to some of you what other people use? I’m guessing that you haven’t even held a m4/3 camera.

Let’s try to give the op helpful suggestions. Unless of course you want to pay for the gear that you want him to use.

kbatschke Loc: Chicagoland-west

While I understand many of the posters to this thread supporting their 43 systems. It seems to me the OP is looking for things that only a larger sensor can provide. Could Kodak 110 film give the same image quality as 35mm? Of course not. Just as micro 43 cannot match cropping and low light capabilities of FF or APSc sensors. 43 is excellent for light weight and many uses but will not achieve the OP’s stated objectives. Please don’t make this a Sony vs Oly debate. To the OP, you will see a noticeable improvement in low light noise performance between APS-c and FF (I have both and have compared). I can only imagine the difference from micro 4/3 to FF will be even more dramatic.
Happy hunting!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I'm a Lumix GH4 user. IF I were to switch to full frame, it would be the A7RIII. But I have zero interest in that. The kit is too large and heavy, once you add the lenses to the body.

The Micro 4/3 format has been a boon to my work! I can put a small kit under an airline seat and travel to cover a job in video and stills. As a trainer, I produce multiple media, and the GH4 has allowed me to do that most efficiently. I will add a GH5 at some point, as my twins are budding filmmakers.

Have you tried any of the super-fast lenses from Panasonic-Leica or Olympus or Voigtlander? They produce reasonably shallow depth of field. So does a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ART lens when used on a MetaBones SpeedBooster... If you haven't, I'd rent some and play, before switching to full frame.

One of the most ridiculous assumptions people make about cameras is that low noise somehow makes a better photograph. Remember 35mm Tri-X film? HP5? All that sort of stuff is grainy as heck! It was many times "grainier" or "noisier" than Micro 4/3. Yet some of the world's best photographers made some of the most iconic images of the last 60 years with it.

So often, people in this forum try to "count the number of angels on the head of a pin" by comparing this camera/format/lens with that one. MORE important than any gear is the person behind it. You will achieve far better images by improving your knowledge and experience than you will with better gear!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

He is using an f4 zoom, which is an amazing lens, but it isn’t the lens if you are looking for shallow depth of field. The good news is that m4/3 offers f0.95 and f1.2 prime lenses. That should provide what the OP is looking for, since these lenses perform fantastic wide open. Also, for real estate photography, you want lots of dof. So m4/3 can perform just fine.

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/visionaries/tracie_maglosky - I’ll post this again. Do you produce better work with your FF gear than this pro?

If the op goes to FF and purchases another f4 zoom, I’m guessing for real estate shots, do you really think that he will be happy? How is that zoom going to provide shallow DOF? Truth be told, I don’t understand why anyone would want shallow DOF is RE shots, but that is fine.

I saw a new thread today, someone with a D850 claiming that he can’t get the sharpness with his gear, compared to some of the pictures he sees on uhh.

In both cases, the op should try to make some adjustments before blaming the gear.

Yes, there is less noise with a FF camera, and that may indeed where the op will end up with, but before he sells his only gear, he should try to use the right lens for the job. Renting a fast prime for a couple of days is an inexpensive way to prevent wasting a lot of money down the road.

This is no different than if someone was using a 20x zoom on a larger sensor and not getting the sharpness of a fast prime.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

gwilliams6

Use what you like and feel free to champion it, but tell the truth. No top Sony A9, A7RIII or A7III is clunky or slow, get real buddy. The A9 (20fps with full AF-C), A7RIII and A7III (10fps both mechanical and silent shutter with full AF-C). All three of the top Sonys can make 60 exposure and 60 focus calculations per second. The A9 and A7III have 93% focus spot coverage (edge to edge of the frame) with 695 focus spots, the highest count and widest frame coverage of ANY camera. They can track all subjects from corner to corner of the frame better . They are leading the field in responsiveness, yet you call them clunky and slow. They are the exact opposite , as fast and responsive and more as ANY DSLR or other mirrorless camera on the market. Don't take my word for that, read the real-world reviews of folks actually using them. Have you ever actually used the latest Sony's, I think NOT.

There are excellent micro 4/3 cameras out there, and for some they are truly the best solution for weight, size and performance. But all micro 4/3, no matter how well they work and how great their lens lineup is , will pale in ultimate resolution, low noise and high ISO vs the fullframe 42 megapixel Sony A7RIII that he is looking to get, hands down. It is simply the laws of physics, and no amount of testimonials can change that fact.

I am NOT dissing any of the excellent micro 4/3 or APS-C size sensor cameras. I have an APS-C sensor size Sony A6500 and it has great autofocus, 11 fps,, IBIS and great 4k (downsampled from 6K).

Again please use what you like and what you need and be happy. Just try to stay with the facts here.

Cheers

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

td, my question was quite serious. I don't read 43 sites/blogs/forums.
I fully understand that ANY camera will do 90% of all photography, either amateur or professional.
BUT it looked too me like the OP is delving into that other 10%.
He HAS a 43 system now and he feels there is something that it is coming up short on with the 43. CD indicated that if he moved to a Sony FF he would waste his money and move back! I asked WHY the switchers to Sony were moving back? You say it's because the Sony is heavy and clunky. Well with a sensor probably more than double the size, yes it will be heavier but that doesn't inherently make it clunky, to me, but I've never used one.
In my mind I can't see how DoF, low light and possibly noise could not improve if those are the specific gains the OP is after? If so then a switch to FF would get the OP benefits NOT available with 43.
For me it's just looking for more familiarity with 43 vs ML and small sensors vs big sensors.
My question was also to get answers for the OP since it seems to be what he was seeking. I'm willing to bet the OP has NO idea what cameras I use!!!
Thanks td.
SS

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Using an m4/3 f4 zoom is not the lens to get shallow depth of field, anymore than using an ultra wide angle lens for BIF.

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

I think this all started when, at one of my first photography classes, I noticed that other students with APS-C and FF cameras were (not always, but often) producing images that seemed more 3 dimensional, for a lack of a better way to describe it, than mine. We were all relative beginners, but some of their subjects seemed to leap off the screen while my images always seemed flat. While larger sensor images would make me feel like I was there, mine just looked like a picture. I’m not sure if this makes sense to you seasoned photographers, but is the best way I can describe it. As I had stated earlier, I suppose there’s a possibility this is psychological, but when I see an incredible image on one of the forums I belong to, almost without exception, the amazing images were taken with a larger sensor.
I know I have a great deal to learn about photography, which is why I enjoy it so much, but I’m concerned that I’ll be limited in the long run with this format if I ever want to sell my work or work on a more professional level. So, the question becomes, do I invest in better glass for this format, or cut my losses and start fresh with something I’ll be able to grow with?

I love my EM1MII, and it will be difficult to give it up, but I’m looking at the long term, and trying to decide which is the best option for me.

I really appreciate all of the feedback to my post, and it’s nice to know there are so many here who are so dedicated to this art form to take the time to offer their advice. Your responses have given me a lot to think about.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

My wife's comments were than my photos were always "dull" with my E-M5. And initially, with my E-M1mrII, they were "dull" according to her. So I finally went into settings and set my JPEG setting to "Vivid". All of a sudden, my photos were turning out great by her standards, that I was finally shooting pictures like other photographers shot. It has always been my philosophy to alter my shots the least possible and always try for SOOC images. Having said that, that is not what people and photographers really want. They want the saturated "memory" they "remember", not that unsaturated accurate capture that you place in front of them. Back in the film days, that is why Fuji produced Velvia. Both Kodak and Fuji were told by the pros that they wanted even more "neutral" colors which both Kodak and Fuji did. But Fuji was puzzled by the fact photographers should not be able to see the differences. So they tested with sets of prints that changed in the saturation levels. That is when when they discovered the pros loved the "neutral" colors of Velvia, the most saturated film of it's time. So be aware it may not be the FF or APS-C difference you are seeing. It could be just post processing.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Rent some better, much faster glass, first. On Micro 4/3, you need f/1.4 to get the same DOF as f/2.8 on full frame, AT the same angle of view and distance (25mm vs 50mm, for example).

And work on your lighting. Dimensions in photography are usually defined with light direction, ratio, and diffusion or specularity.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I’m not sure if what you’re seeing is the difference in sensor size or different in-camera settings or raw conversion and post pricessing differences. BUT, if M43 is “good enough” for you, then it is certainly substantially smaller and lighter (but not necessarily cheaper). If, on the other hand, maximum performance in terms of lower noise, better high ISO low light performance, dynamic range or ultimate resolution (actual resolution is not only determined by MPixels, but by noise as well) is your goal, there is no substitution for sensor size, period, and even the advocates of smaller formats understand that - you can’t change laws of physics with testimonials, as has already been stated. The truth is that all other things being equal, DR and noise and high ISO performance is on average best with MF, a stop worse with FF, Another stop worse with APS and another stop worse with M43. A good FF body will outperform a good M43 by about 2 stops on average, and you can trade that advantage for 4x higher shutter speed, 2 stops greater DOF or 1/4 the ISO, and that can be a huge advantage. There’s no free lunch - you can have either max performance or max convienience and low weight/smaller size, but not both. If M43 produces acceptable results and is lighter and more convenient, then be happy with the advances in sensor design that make this possible and carry on, but if max performance is your goal and you can deal with the size and weight, then FF (or MF if you can afford it and work mostly in a studio), is definitely worth it as the majority of pros already know.

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

FWIW ...

While switching from an m4/3 camera body to a Full Frame Sony could have some merits, I think you need to understand that for what you have specified it may be a matter of the lens(es) you are using ...

I think that if you are using almost any of the off-the-shelf Zoom lenses that they will have more depth of field than you currently want in some circumstances & possibly not enough in some others due to limited aperture control on some auto-this-and-auto-that lenses ...

You could try a vintage Prime lens ...

Just to illustrate that it isn't the m4/3 camera body which you have, I've included a couple of pictures which I took in the past few months which may-or-may-not approach what you hope to achieve (each was taken with older m4/3 camera bodies) ...

... The picture of the Lilac blossoms was taken with a 50mm Zuiko attached to a 7-element Vivitar Macro 2x teleconverter (probably f5.6 ... effectively f11) ...

... The sunrise was shot with a very plebeian pre-set 200mm SPIRATONE lens attached to a 7-element Vivitar Macro 2x teleconverter (f16 ... effectively f32) ...

That is, choosing different lenses may yield the depth of field control which you want.

But as tdekaney indicated, you probably want MORE depth of field for interior shots ...

... So, YOU really have to get a better grasp of what different focal length lenses will do with different size sensors ...

... Also, it may-or-may-not be a matter of understanding lighting.

Regardless, cropping a full frame image probably defeats the purpose of changing formats.

BTW. A (reasonably good) tripod will probably be better for non-action photography than a faster lens.

(Download)


(Download)