You’ve probably heard many outright lies about Micro Four Thirds. It’s suffered attacks from certain quarters, sometimes from those openly in the pay of its competition. Here’s everything you need to know about the system and why it’s a great option for professional and amateur photographers alike.
Why Full Frame Is a Misnomer
Firstly, Micro Four Thirds is commonly called a crop frame system. That is sometimes said with a derogatory tone. I don’t agree with that term or that opinion.
So-called full frame cameras are also cropped when compared to medium format cameras. However, the photographic industry inevitably uses the 35mm format as the baseline for comparing different sensors. So, it is almost impossible to talk about the system without talking first about what we wrongly call full frame.
I believe it was Canon that first borrowed the term “full frame” to describe 35mm sensors. Though now in common usage, it’s a misnomer. It originally referred to the gate size in cinematography cameras. The gate is the part of the camera that held the film, and the term “full frame” was coined when the Academy ratio (as in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) was introduced in 1932. That ratio was 1.37:1. In other words, the 35mm 3:2 film was effectively cropped to a 4:3 ratio. Although it was superseded by widescreen in 1953, the full frame aspect ratio is still sometimes used in films such as Wes Anderson’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel” and “Asteroid City.”
So, the original full frame 4:3 aspect ratio is that is used by Micro Four Thirds, not 35mm sensors.
What Is the Difference Between Micro Four Thirds and 35mm Sensors?
The difference between the sensor in a Micro Four Thirds camera and that is a 35mm camera is size. The former has a diagonal width of 21.6mm (0.85”), and the latter is around double that at 43mm (1.7”). As with everything in photography, there are advantages and disadvantages to both these sizes.
The Obsolete Arguments Against Micro Four Thirds
Historically, many photography pundits have concentrated on three supposed disadvantages of the Micro Four Thirds format and ignored the advantages.
Firstly, is noise. With the newest sensor technology, it’s possible to shoot in very low light and have acceptable levels of noise with Micro Four Thirds. If you then consider the amazing AI-based noise reduction software that’s available, crisp, clean images are achievable at ISOs that were previously unrealistic, even for 35mm cameras.
Secondly, having more depth of field at any given focal length is an advantage in many circumstances. When that extra depth isn’t wanted, it can be circumvented by using different shooting methods, such as changing proximity and focal length, to achieve the desired effect. Furthermore, some extremely fast lenses are available for Micro Four Thirds that produce beautiful bokeh.
The third supposed disadvantage is built around a half-truth. Although equivalent f-stops will give more depth of field on a Micro Four Thirds camera, if you put it side-by-side with a 35mm camera, and set the ISO and aperture to be the same, the shutter speed will be identical. An f/1.4 lens is f/1.4 no matter which camera body it is mounted on.
So, Does That Sensor Size Difference Matter?
If you had asked me that a few years ago, then I would have answered yes. I shot professionally with Four Thirds DSLRs and then the mirrorless Micro Four Thirds systems. Very rarely, in extreme circumstances, I was hindered by the extra noise. Consequently, I debated with myself whether I should change to 35mm. Furthermore, for a few weeks, I owned a 35mm camera, but that's another story.
Yet, camera technology has improved so much over the last few years that any contemporary camera, including Micro Four Thirds, produces images in extreme lighting conditions that are more than good enough. That's the key term: more than good enough. In some areas, more expensive, far larger 35mm camera systems might perform better, but is that necessary when a smaller system does the job perfectly well?
Consequently, I still use Micro Four Thirds professionally. I am glad I didn’t change and am now reaping the benefits of the smaller cameras. I have some big, internationally known, household-name clients, and I shoot for national magazines. None of them complain about my work or the image quality. Plus, I have all the advantages of the smaller and lighter kit.
Never Listen to the Doom and Gloom Merchants
Not so long ago, the ill-informed doom and gloom merchants – some of whom were paid to promote other systems – tried to claim that Micro Four Thirds was failing. Keep an eye out for them in the article comments sections. As always, they were wrong.
Meanwhile, the booming sales of cameras like the OM System OM-1, the unprecedented demand for some lenses, the continuing popularity of cameras such as Panasonic’s GH Series, the use of the system in some DJI drones, and cinema cameras made by Black Magic all show that it’s a thriving and growing system. There are currently 56 companies listed as supporting the Micro Four Thirds format, far more than any other system.
Furthermore, because Micro Four Thirds has been around for many more years than the latecomers to mirrorless cameras, they have a greater variety of lenses and a proven track record for reliability.
APS-C Versus Micro Four Thirds Cameras
For most amateur photographers, other cameras with smaller than 35mm sensors do a good enough job too. I even knew a wedding photographer who used a Canon APS-C camera.
However, although the image quality of contemporary APS-C sensors is good, those produced by the most common manufacturers haven’t had anything like the development seen in 35mm or professional Micro Four Thirds camera systems. Consequently, many of them lack the functionality that camera enthusiasts and professionals seek. This is a generalization, of course, and there are exceptions. For example, Fujifilm, Leica, and Pentax all produce super cameras with APS-C sensors, albeit aimed at different and particular specialisms.
However, none have the advanced features that you will find in professional-end Micro Four Thirds cameras. Also, unlike Micro Four Thirds, there's very little inter-brand compatibility.
Lenses Are Central to Photography
Do smaller sensors increase the focal length of a lens? It’s not strictly true that they do, although that is the effect you get.
With APS-C and similar-sized sensors such as Nikon’s DX, Canon’s EF-S and EF-M, and Sony’s DT and E mounts, the field of view is approximately ⅔ that of the 35mm camera. So, a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera gives you the same field of view as around 80mm lens on a 35mm camera. With Micro Four Thirds, the field of view would be about the same as a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera.
Consequently, my 150-400mm f/4.5 Micro Four Thirds lens has the same frame-filling capacity as an 800mm lens on a 35mm camera. However, it will be a lot lighter and smaller. If I activate its internal teleconverter, it has a 1000mm equivalent reach.
Comparing Like for Like
No two systems produce identical lenses, but we can get close. Let’s compare, for example, two professional telephoto prime lenses. In size and weight, the (I believe discontinued) Canon EF 300mm 1:4 L IS USM Lens and the OM System 300mm F4 IS PRO lenses are similar. They also both produce excellent quality images one would expect from professional lenses.
There are differences, however. The OM System has double the reach and provides four stops of lens image stabilization, six when working in conjunction with the camera’s IBIS. Meanwhile, the Canon gives two and doesn’t work with the IBIS. The OM System lens has 0.48x magnification, and the Canon has 0.24x. The OM System lens has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4 meters, the Canon is 10cm further away at 1.5 meters. Moreover, using these lenses, I find the extra depth of field afforded by the Micro Four Thirds lens an advantage as I can get an entire subject in focus without stopping down the aperture.
I am not saying the Canon lens is bad, it isn't. It was fabulous in its day. However, the OM System equivalent outperforms it in many areas.
I should emphasize that the Canon lens does not seem to be available now, but it is a reasonable comparator. As is the lighter, but plastic-bodied Nikon equivalent. Again, a superb lens but plastic construction and has some decentering issues.
What About Pixel Count?
It wasn’t that long ago when the Pixel Wars were a-raging and people were crying out for 10- or 12-megapixel cameras. Then Sony brought out the A900 and Nikon the D3X with their greater than 24-megapixel cameras. It wasn’t long before 36-megapixels and above were above them. Meanwhile, Micro Four Thirds has stuck with between twenty and twenty-five megapixels.
When you can get 50-megapixel cameras in smartphones, why did Micro Four Thirds stop in the twenties?
The answer to that had much to do with consumer demand. Research showed that camera users wanted greater dynamic range and noise control over a higher pixel count. That is achieved by having a lower pixel density on the sensor and, therefore fewer pixels.
Furthermore, 20-megapixels is more than enough for most people. Whitewall will print a 63” (160 cm) x 47.2” (120 cm) from my files. I could also use software to upscale to a much higher resolution if I needed it; as of yet, I haven't. My camera also has a trick up its sleeve where it uses sensor-shift technology to create up to 80-megapixel composite images. As fabulous as that feature is, I’ve never used it. It’s not something I need. However, that feature does have an advantage over sensors with a higher resolution.
Cameras with huge pixel counts sound great in theory, but they are limited by the performance of the lenses. Having a high-megapixel camera is no advantage when the lens can’t resolve images with that amount of detail. Phone cameras with 50-megapixel counts have no better resolution than 30-megapixel cameras because of the limited resolution performance of the lenses.
For the same reason, if you have a collection of older DSLR lenses designed for lower-resolution cameras, you won’t be able to notice that great a difference in fine detail buying a higher-resolution camera. Of course, camera manufacturers are producing new lenses for you to buy to get around this issue.
But this is where a camera that combines several 20-megapixel images has an edge. The OM System Hi Res mode captures information between the original 20 MP photosites. That gives a result that would have been from an 80 MP smaller pixel sensor but with the light-gathering advantage of a 20 MP sensor with larger photosites.
Should You Buy a Micro Four Thirds Camera?
I’m not suggesting that you should immediately dump your 35mm camera and buy a Micro Four Thirds one. There’s probably not much wrong with the camera you have, and you enjoy using it.
However, if you are struggling to lug that heavy gear around, or need something lighter for traveling, or want something that will fit in your coat pocket, or desire a longer reach from your lenses, or require something that you can take anywhere with you without looking like a member of the paparazzi, or you hanker after some of the computational technological advances that are not in your camera, or would like to be inspired by something new, then Micro Four Thirds has come of age and is now an exceedingly good option.
Yes, there are still arguments for using 35mm cameras, not least because there is peer pressure in the industry to do so. However, there are also good reasons to break free from the norm and embrace Micro Four Thirds. Since doing so, I haven't looked back.
TBF, "half-frame" was equally boneheaded. There's nothing about 135 film that restricts its use to only a 24mmx36mm frame or makes a 24mmx18mm frame "half". Indeed, lots of panorama cameras use a much wider frame on that kind of film. Are they "super-frame" cameras?
The only time I say "full-frame", as in "full-frame MODE", is in the context of a 35mm-format camera when distinguishing use of the entire sensor from use of just a part of it with APS Crop Mode. Other than that, I use "full-frame" only to describe an image that hasn't been cropped in post.
My head will explode the first time I hear someone describe an image made with a 35mm-format camera that's been cropped in post as a "cropped full-frame image".
Well, J Cramer. A 35mm (full frame) camera's lens, out of necessity, must have a larger objective lens to collect more light because of the inverse square law. The drop-off in light intensity, because of the greater lens size and flange distance, means that a dimmer image would otherwise be hitting the sensor. Thus the same amount of light can be collected by the sensor on a smaller Micro Four Thirds lens. Thanks anyway for signing up just to comment on this article.
Face it....if you can't take a nice shot with today's cameras, it isn't the camera's fault. But, we like what we like. I'm a FF guy and if I had the budget, I'd be a Fuji guy...medium format.
I sell my photos and earn my living from it. But Ive noticed my fullframe gear is holding me back. I like the idea of Medium format as well but Imagine how big is the equivalent lens and trying to shoot flying birds with it. Something smaller and lighter with more reach is much better for me. That is why I am changing.
Can't argue your point. I do very little flying bird photography, so that bit of need isn't a priority for me. About the fastest thing that I normally photograph is my 3 year old granddaughter. :-)
yes, but also in my studio as well. two of the guys who come here to work use m43 cameras. They get great results. so I am tempted.
I stopped arguing about equipment some time ago. As I've said, we each like what we like and frankly, with today's cameras, it isn't the fault of the camera if a photographer can't take a nice image. M4/3 or Phase One. If the person behind the camera isn't capable, it ain't the camera's fault.
Nice Polar Bear photo.
Thank you! Magnificent creatures.
You make some good points and some points I do not agree with. Camera system choice comes down to personal choice and the type of photography you are doing, as well as the light you use to take your pictures.
I used M43 for a good while and it was indeed a good step forward from the Nikon D300 system I had been using. IBIS made a lot of things possible that I could not achieve with my previous system. 35mm format was very expensive back then too.
I would agree that the image quality obtainable from a M43 camera with good lenses is more than good enough for most usage. I have even had sombody make a poster form a hand held ISO1600 shot made in a dark old Italian monument, using the old 16MP EM5. Long lenses are far more practical on M43.
But things change, competitors catch up and even overtake a once revolutionary system.
I wanted a one lens solution for hiking. I was down to the Z7 (or 5 or 6) with the 24-200 or the OM1 III with 12-100. They weigh the same, but a full frame sensor at base ISO has better dynamic range and noticeably better tonal and colour transitions.A 35mm sensor will pick up delicate colour changes better. The technical image quality of my Z7 is noticeably superior to my M43 shots. Noise reduction software and sharpening software have downsides too.
It was a cheap old obsolete D700 that awoke me to the fact that the colour and tonal transitons in 35mm were better at base ISO, compared to my EM5. Remember that 35mm can use the same noise reduction tools to.
I do a lot of architectural photography using shift lenses. These are only available and usable on the 35mm or larger MF format. With my 24,35 and 35mm shift lenses, I have never had depth of field problems, compared to M43.
For my photography, I cannot see any advantage in returning to M43.
I'm considering the OM-1 mft. I like the idea of in-camera stacking with an 80mb image result. Currently, I use A Sony A1 (after having the A9, Sony RX 10 iv, Nikon D90, Contax previously). Don't want larger files. (Using a 2022 hp x360, 32" Asus monitor and Capture One Pro.)
Just know that the Mega-pixel mode in ALL of the cameras doesn't do well with motion, even after messing with it in post.
You may be better off using the OM1's 50mp (hand-held') mode rather the 80mp hi-res which is pretty much as useless for the majority of photographers as in all other cameras that offer it.
I have used micro 4/3 since day one for video. I have full frame cameras for sports and journalism though. Back to the 4/3 for a moment. Toss a D850 and a 24 to 70 onto a gimbal and let me know how you feel at the end of the day. My OM and Panasonic bodies sit well on a gimbal.
Is it really that hard to type "35mm format"?
"35mm format" can mean many different things. Not only in half-frame 35mm cameras (which I mentioned further above), but also in cinema cameras, 35mm has a completely different meaning: 22*16mm is the standard Academy 35mm format, 25*14mm is Super 35mm, while 36*24mm is the 35mm photography format.
Since "Super 35mm"/"s35" is still a commonly used terminology in digital cinematography and for hybrid mirrorless cameras, but actually refers to what is APS-C in photography, settling on "35mm format" as the standard terminology would create more problems than it solves.
On top of that, "35mm" doesn't really make sense as a terminology for digital cameras/sensors, since it refers to the width of analog 35mm film including perforations, not the film image. Today's 36*24mm sensors actually don't contain anything that measures 35mm...
Indeed. Feel free to use "24x36" as a more accurate descriptor. I'll understand. But, a lot of others won't.
While we're at it, let's stop describing lenses as having focal lengths in millimeters and instead cite the Angle of View so that we can more easily compare lenses designed for sensors and film with different sizes and aspect ratios.
Or we use 135 format which is what Kodak called the film in the single use cartridges.
"it is almost impossible to talk about the system without talking first about what we wrongly call full frame"
I've been making this point for many years. As one who shot film for over a decade before digital became practical, I know perfectly well that "full-frame" is a phrase that had a very specific, and different, meaning before the digital camera makers bastardized it. A "full-frame" image, until the age of digital, meant one that included all of the capture area of a piece of film, without cropping, regardless of how big that piece of film was. Black borders on prints were intended as proof that the print was a "full-frame" representation of the captured image. Then the marketers had their way with the phrase, and the naive and gullible swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Also, as a professional linguist in my previous career, the illogic of current usage makes me want to slap the marketers silly. Nobody calls medium-format "fuller-frame" or 8x10 "mega-frame" or 20x24 Polaroid "super-ultra-frame". The choice to dub 35mm format sensors as the "fullest" frame there is was made for purely selfish reasons by...the manufacturers and purveyors of 35mm sensors.
That is what I've asked. If we call it full frame, the what do we call medium and large format? "Fuller than full?" "Extra full?" If you fill a bucket with water to the brim, it is full. You can't put more water in it.
This is the digital world. About 99.9% of us have accepted the FF designation for cameras like the Z9 or A1 is how it is. In our free society, we have the choice to call a sensor size whatever we choose to call it. But I know that if I say I shoot with a FF camera that the vast majority here and on most other places will know what I'm talking about. It may not be correct, but like all language, it has evolved to mean that a Canon R5 is FF.
That may be, but it's worth noting that the common usage is the result of efforts by certain commercial interests, and it does injustice to other formats while misleading naive consumers.
It's all relative.
I think people forget they also own a pair of legs. When we really want something bladly we both embrace it and also make excuses for its shortcomings.
At the end of the day, large format, full frame, super 35, MFT, story trumps all of it.
Never, ever, have I felt the need or obligation to justify or defend the type of equipment that I use.
I have been involved in photography for 47 years -- the last 17 digital. I have shot professionally and as an amateur. I switched to MFT when the format was introduced.
Let me give my thoughts on this article and the whole M4/3 debate.
To me, this article reminds me of a little kid sitting in corner crying because the bigger kids mob him, calling him shorty. "I am not short": "I am a big boy". "You are laying".
I'm sorry Ivor Rackham. That was literally what this article sounded like to me.
I am not going to discuss each point written here, but just give my thought on where M4/3 fits in the landscape of photography.
First off. I am a Nikon shooter and my most used camera today is the 21MP Z 50 followed by the beautiful 21MP Z fc. I also have a 24MP Z 5, I use if I want to create "great" art (that is tripod work).
When the first M4/3 arrived on the scene, they were truly innovative, technical advanced, and a lot smaller than most "advanced" DSLRs at the time.
In a time, where the digital market consisted of point and shoot type cameras, mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras without a viewfinder and old style DSLR cameras, these new smaller DSLR like MILC cameras was a godsent for people that didn't like to carry around a big DSLR.
You could get a full fletch camera system and not break your back.
Fast forward to today, and the world is a different place.
All the major manufactures have now gone MILC and now offers many of the capability's that made M4/3 special. Small size, IBIS and video features etc. Lens construction has also given way too many new lighter lenses, so you also don't have to break your back, if you use another system than M4/3.
Time has, so to speak, court up to M4/3 and in some instances, technology has surpassed it with high resolution sensors with 6K or even 8K video. Tech you simple cannot get from a M4/3 sensor.
The M4/3 system are beginning to show its age and its limitation in the small sensor.
You might say you don't need 8K video or a 50MP sensor, and that 20MP is enough for you, but the truth is, that even if I find my 21MP good enough for me, I know it is not the best I can get.
I believe a lot of people are unsure about the fact: Is M4/3 still relevant today? I also think that is being reflected in this article; a defence for the M4/3 system and a defence for having bought into the system.
As more and more new MILC are announced, from all the manufactures, all with new and better tech, the benefit of the M4/3 system you so desperately are trying to convey, is slowly subsiding. It also is not helping, that we don't see any news from OM-System.
They say it is difficult to predict the future, so I am not going to, but I hope the M4/3 system survives for all the people use it and that have grown fond of the system, but as a photography system, I am having doubts it will be able to evolve enough to fight of the competition.
Your opinion in the starting comment says far more about you than the article.
I am not defending the system, I am celebrating its resurgence, that sales are up, and why MFT is now a superb option for people who don't want to carry enormous and unwieldy systems around.
I am sorry, but I disagree. I had the exact same feeling. I used to shoot Olympus (OM-4) in the manual focus film days, and absolutely loved the camera and its spot metering functionality. So, I do really like the look and feel of the new OM-System. BUT there are some claims in this article that are highly debatable. E.g, APS-C sensors from the big brands are not up to standard with their so-called full frame sensors (I recognize the marketing in that word, but it makes sense and originates in the succes of Leica creating cameras using cinematic films) I shoot with a 5DIV and yes it is heavy and larger than the OM-1, but I recently used the R10 mirrorless APS-C consumer camera. It is light and has excellent tracking AF with eye AF for both humans and animals, and picture quality higher rated than the OM-1 on DPReview.
Thank you for signing up to comment, Jens.
As I try to point out, the image quality is so good on all contemporary cameras that they are all good enough from that perspective. As a previous article from another writer recently pointed out, in everyday use, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a photo taken with an MFT, APS-C, 35mm, and medium format camera. (https://fstoppers.com/gear/full-frame-cult-getting-tiring-640847)
There are superb photographers using Micro Four Thirds, people like Andy Rouse (wildlife photographer, https://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?g=1), Peter Baumgarten (landscapes https://www.creativeislandphoto.com/portfolio.html), Gavin Hoey (video, training, and studio portraits https://www.gavtrain.com/), John Nassari (high-end weddings https://johnnassari.co.uk/), and a host of others. I make my living from my photography and shoot for some household name businesses, plus large distribution magazines, and none of my clients complain.
The R10 is a fine camera, but it only has 15 fps compared with 120, it doesn't have IBIS, The R10 has 4K (UHD) - 3840 x 2160 video resolution, while the OM-1 has a larger 4K (DCI) - 4096 x 2160 - video resolution. On top of that, the OM-1 has all the computational photography features like Live Time, Live Composite, Live ND filters, and so on. If it works for you, though, that's great. As I said, I'm not demanding everyone should swap, but for me, and clearly, for a lot of others judging by the booming sales of the OM-1, there were some compelling arguments to do so.
Thanks again for signing up to comment.
You are welcome. I think you missed my point regarding the R10. It is in no way comparable to the OM-1 (features, build quality, ...), but the sensor is not crippled compared to its full frame equivalents, just smaller and the same goes for Nikon and Sony. And AF is very impressive.
Larger sensors ultimately give you more light, more options (e.g., lower DOF), but it comes with a price: size and costs. In my view the size advantage of the OM system is not big enough. But the OM-1 is a very nice camera!
I personally feel like discussions about which cameras are the best or take the best pictures are kind of irrelevant. I think a good photographer can take great images with any camera and that the trick is really knowing your gear, its capabilities, and its limitations. I've seen great photos taken with by a National Geographic photographer using only an iphone. If a National Geographic photographer can take great photos with an iphone, I believe that is is likely their technical skill and knowlede of the phone's capabilities helped make the project successful. I think it's the camera operator, not the hardware that is most important in geting good results. I've never used a M43 camera but as I get older, smaller cameras appeal to me more than ever.
Yes, exactly. Thanks.
First , I think OM systems and Olympus make wonderful equipment, it feels solid and well made and is technologically advanced. But like you sad , there are pros and cons to every system. And it depends on what you photograph, it is going to be hard to find a RF lens with is affordable and just as portable as the Olympus 300 F4 ( that would be a 600 f8 RF lens) but on the other side where are you going to find an equal to the RF 85 f1.2, there's no Olympus 42 F0.6 lens. The added depth of field on a m4/3 can be an advantage, but you can close the aperture on a "ff" lens to get equal depth of field ( and raise the ISO to compensate)
So just shoot what suits you and appreciate the pros of other systems, I'm not saying my "ff" is best at everything, it just suits my photography best.
Exactly my point, Ruud. Thanks.
"Research showed that camera users wanted greater dynamic range and noise control over a higher pixel count. That is achieved by having a lower pixel density on the sensor and, therefore fewer pixels."
No, lower pixel density does not mean lower noise. That's a myth from decades ago that people need to stop repeating.
You are correct. This myth has been disproven time and again and again, yet some people insist on believing what they want to believe, despite reality showing something very different.
I wish that people would acknowledge that the disadvantages of their system of choice are real disadvantages that come from the compromises that are made in design. While I prefer full frame and APS-C at this time, I will fully acknowledge that some things such about each of them, and I will not pretend that the things that suck don't really matter. They do matter. Everything matters.
Whatever system someone loves, it has very real disadvantages that make it not as good in given areas. Why can't people just admit that?
You are mistaken in what you are saying. The signal-to-noise ratio increases with the photosite size because a larger photosite can collect more photons in proportion to the amount of electronic noise it produces. Larger photosites result in fewer pixels over a given area, therefore, a lower pixel density, and so less noise compared to light signals. However, the quantity of noise does not increase in direct proportion to the size of the photosite. If you double the number of pixels, you don't get double the noise. So, an MFT sensor wont have four times the amount of noise as a 35mm sensor with the same number of pixels.
Noise is directly related to dynamic range.
At the press release I attended for the OM-1, this was the reason why OMDS decided to limit the number of pixels on the sensor. Market research showed there was a demand for higher sensor performance over pixel count. So that is what they decided to produce.
This is also the reason why High Res mode also gives greater performance than stuffing more pixels onto a sensor. Each photosite collects light eight different times, whereas a single frame 50 mp or 80 mp camera would collect that once. Therefore there is eight times the amount of light.
How does that High Res mode even work for handheld telephoto images, or with moving subjects - which account for over 95% of all of our photography? I just don't understand how such a thing could work unless it is a stationary scene and unless the camera is held in a stable position, which, unfortunately, hardly ever happens in real world photography.
Handheld high res, which allows for a 50 mp image, employs image stabilization as well as sensor shift. When you are photographing a moving subject, it will, of course, need a fast shutter in those circumstances. Most of my photography is landscape or long-exposure seascapes, and it's not something I use because I neither need nor want that big an image. But, next time I go out, I'll give it a go with some live subjects and let you know.
I am particularly interested in how it works at very long focal lengths, such as 500mm, 600mm, etc., when handheld and there is nothing to rest your hand on. Like basically I am thinking of the most difficult, most challenging conditions for such a feature, and wondering how it fares in those conditions.
I'll give it a try with my 150-400 and let you know. It won't be for a few days though. Busy doing other things.
No Ivor, you are mistaken in what you are saying because you are focusing on just one source of noise, and one of the least significant. Do not blindly believe what you are told by a company marketing person at a press event - there are several articles here on Fstoppers, as well as PetaPixel and DPreview, that do a great job of explaining and demonstrating why it's a myth.
If you don't want to actually understand it, I've got several 5 megapixel 43rds size sensor cameras that I'll happily sell to you, because those must have super low noise due to their large photosites, right?
Of course older sensors will produce more noise because the heat control of modern sensors circuitry is better.
I'm referring primarily to Johnson–Nyquist noise, which is the electromagnetic radiation resulting from heat energy generated by the electronic circuitry and its quantity in relation to the signal generated by the photons activating the photosensitive diode.
There is also photo shot noise that you can see in brighter areas of the image. This isn't heat-generated, but nonetheless still proportional to the light signal. Therefore a larger photosite will collect more photons and the generated signal will drown out that too.
That's why a lower pixel density, when comparing two contemporary sensors using the same technology, will outperform those with smaller photosites. More photons are collected and there is proportionally less electromagnetic interference.
What you are referring to (I presume because you haven't actually said what you mean) is solely about noise in low-light situations.
Also, your assumption that it was the marketing person is incorrect.
It's irrelevant anyway because, as I point out, the noise control and dynamic range are more than good enough.
And yet, if you downsample an a7RIV file to 33MP, it essentially matches the noise from an a7IV.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13...
Ivor, you're making all sorts of incorrect assumptions without actually looking at the end results of even bothering to test them for yourself. There are literally dozens of articles including on this very site that you are writing for that correctly explain it. Just please take a few minutes to look into it. Jacques just provided a good example. Google it. Ask other Fstoppers writers. Stop spreading the myth.
"That's why a lower pixel density, when comparing two contemporary sensors using the same technology, will outperform those with smaller photosites. More photons are collected and there is proportionally less electromagnetic interference."
Is not at all true, and honestly is just utterly ridiculous. Think about it for a second: a scene at EV 15, photographed with a lens set to f/2, onto a 24x36mm sensor, how many photons are collected? Does changing the pixel density change the number of photons? Think of it this way: a 10x10' area covered with 4 large square buckets, and a 10x10' area covered with 32 smaller square buckets, sitting out in the rain... which one is collecting more rain? Is it the size of the buckets that matter, or the area they cover, and the amount of rain?
Full frame is a specialty format, to my mind. As a former long term full framer for stills and footage, I just don't see what the advantage is beyond the need for otherworldly shallow depth of field. I own two GH5S that I use for footage and I'm always struck by how amazing that footage looks and the ease of use on a stabilizer with a pancake lens is amazing. That said, I'm using APS-C for stills which seems to me, the perfect sensor size for stills. As for HDR exposure bracketing, how does that not negate the need for the (maybe) few stops of range from full frame?
Thank you, Chris.
Thank you. This is really interesting and well balanced looking at both sides. I read your other article about the telephoto lens. That is over my budget if I buy now (I am swapping systems) but I hear the 300 mm and the 100-400 mm are also great lenses.
Now I'm thinking I should wait instead and get this one. But I also like the idea of the extra speed you get with the same reach as my fullframe 300mm from the 40-150. 300 mm f4 isn't fast enough on fullframe for what I shoot.
Funny, I read some of the stupid comments and remembered this in the article:
"Not so long ago, the ill-informed doom and gloom merchants – some of whom were paid to promote other systems – tried to claim that Micro Four Thirds was failing. Keep an eye out for them in the article comments sections. As always, they were wrong."
Ha ha, you've noticed them too. Thanks for the nice comment on my article and for signing up for Fstoppers.
All those lenses are superb. If the 150-400mm f/4 lens is in a league of its own. I use a lot of different cameras of different systems, and this is honestly the best lens I've put my hands on. It's lightness, engineering, and ergonomics are superb. The image quality and its features are also astoundingly good. If you are swapping systems and decide to choose the OM System, and if you need a long lens with amazing image stabilization, then you won't go far wrong.
However, the other lenses are great too. I have a friend with the 300mm, and he gets some great shots. If you currently use a 35mm system, then the OM System Micro Four Thirds will give you twice the effective reach.
There are three 40-150 lenses, two of which have the PRO designation and a fixed aperture. The f/2.8 pro is compatible with the teleconverters. The f/4 PRO version is smaller.
Think about what you want to shoot. If you are currently shooting telephoto and your current lens has enough reach, then halving the focal length will give you approximately (not identically) the same field of view. If you are currently finding you have to stop down to get the entire subject in focus, then you won't have to do that so much, if at all, with the OM System equivalent.
Most good camera shops will allow you to call in and get your hands on the cameras. Take your current setup along and ask to compare.
If you have any questions, please feel free to get in contact to ask me.
I actually came SO CLOSE to buying an Olympus 4/3 camera, because I think the sensor would be good enough for one of the niches that I shoot. I had decided to buy one, used of course. It's whatever one is now going for about $500 or $600 on the used marked. Ivor had recommended a few models to me, and I chose the one that was in that $500 range.
I walked into a local camera store that specializes in used gear and told them what I wanted. No problem - they had that model used for the price I was expecting to pay.
Then I told them what I would need in a lens. Oddly, they didn't have any lenses that would do what I need. So I postponed the camera purchase until I could further research what lens to get. Spent the better part of two weeks trying to find a MFT lens that would do what I want, but couldn't find any. Even joined a MFT discussion forum and asked on there. All of the longtime MFT users there told me there was no such lens made in the MFT mount and that for what I was going to shoot I would be better off with FF or APS-C. That was a bummer because I had really wanted to add an Olympus MFT to my kit.
I ended up getting a Sony APS-C body instead, because there was exactly the lens I need in the Sony mount. I hate the Sonny menu but will eventually figure it out. It just frustrated me that MTF didn't have any native mount lenses that would have met my needs, because I would rather have had MTF than the Sony APS-C. But now that I have gone with Sony as my 2nd system, I will stick it out with them for a while. Already shooting Canon, and now Sony, I won't have the resources to add the MTF system to my kit for at least another year or two.
Maybe that used $500 Olympus body will be down to $250 by the time I am ready to dabble into the MFT world. And maybe Tamron or Sigma or Laowa will be making some highly specialized niche lenses for the MTF mount by that time (lenses that Olympus will not make). One can only hope.
Which focal length and aperture combination were you looking for? Between the Leica made for Panasonic and the OM System M.Zuiko, which have been around for the longest time, plus all the other third-party lenses, I believe there is a wider range of lenses than for any other mount, (I'm happy to stand corrected if I am wrong). Plus you can adapt most other system lenses to it. However, you do lose the size advantage if you do that. Sony has the widest range of 35mm-system lenses, but I am not sure about APS-C.
A friend of mine has Sony and recently discovered that none of the lenses he owns are compatible with teleconverters, so be careful when choosing.
MFT lenses are hard to find in the second-hand market because the demand outweighs the supply. MPB et al have a few, mostly the standard lenses and not many of the pro models. Three or four years ago, there were many more, but I noticed that changed after the OM-1 was released. Those that appear now hold their value. Consequently, I would only buy new lenses because of the extended warranty and the knowledge of its history