It's a topic of constant debate amongst photographers: Is a full frame camera "better" than a smaller format?
As someone who has shot all sorts of interchangeable lens systems, from Micro Four Thirds to APS-C to full frame to medium format, I've seen the whole gamut of lenses and sensors for these systems, and after all of that, I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
Fortunately, there's someone who does, and explains it pretty well. Landscape and travel photographer Joe Howard of WaterfallJoe talks about his switch from full frame Nikon systems to OM System mirrorless cameras. In light of the release of the new OM-3, it's a good time to take a look at the pros and cons of going from a full-frame system to something smaller.
It's no secret that I've been a big fan of Micro Four Thirds, ever since Panasonic launched the svelte GF1. It's almost 10 years ago to the day I first wrote about how the format is a viable one for photojournalism. I've since ping-ponged back and forth. My original argument was that Panasonic packed a lot more video features into its GH series cameras. But since then Canon and Nikon caught up. Also since then, Sony became a real player in the industry. I went from loving Micro Four Thirds to declaring that you'd have to pull my full-frame DSLRs our of my cold, dead hands. Funny how that worked out.
These days I run a mix of Canon M-series APS-C cameras for personal work and full-frame R-series cameras for photojournalism. I couldn't really answer why, other than inertia.
But Howard offers a host of reasons why Micro Four Thirds has worked out for him, and would be a good choice, especially for landscape and travel photographers.
He makes the usual points about size, weight and cost savings that the smaller format system is known for, but one of the things that I didn't think about (that is a prominent physical control on the OM-3) is the computational photography modes built right into the camera. There's nothing more I hate than having to buy and carry all manner of ND filters for my lenses, or bother with a square filter system that takes a long time to set up. If I had the option for a live ND filter in the camera, I'd save a bunch of money and hassle on filters alone. That, coupled with the amazing image stabilization the system is known for (even on my bargain basement E-M10 series camera) and indeed that's a potent combination that can also even free you from carrying a tripod.
There's a lot to chew on in the video from Howard above. Take a look, and offer your thoughts on smaller format cameras in the comments below.
I get that m43 could be an option for my landscape photography. Somewhat smaller camera but much smaller lenses. But I also shoot concerts and events in low light and like the image quality my fullframe camera gives me. I don’t mind carrying filters. Got a ND filter in the size that fits the largest lens and use step up rings for the smaller lenses. I wouldn’t want to get rid my tripod, it makes me more precise in my compositions. So in short, just for my landscape photography I’m not buying into another system. And with a good backpack it’s no problem carrying my gear ( yet)
As someone who has been on FF Canon for loooongest time i understand what you want to convey. Still i am daily shocked and amazed how m43 cameras always suprise me and make photos that look stunning. Concerts and bar music included. Just feels like magic.
And actually it is one of the myths again that m43 can not do low light photography :) I am using my m43 gear more often on concerts and events than my ff gear … but one should try first before doing an decissions or assumptions
but still when i compare image quality on DP review and compare OM OM-1 or OM3 there's a clear difference at iso 6400 or 12800 (when in print or compare mode, the best mode for real world comparisons) Also when I look at concert photos on Flickr m43 photos have more noise or lesser detail when there's clearly a lot of noise reduction at work.
I still think highly of OM cameras and certainly in landscape and studio settings the results can be wonderful and it's easy to carry around, but I still think that in certain scenarios like very low light full frame gives better results. It's still just physics.
Having used both systems, the argument about physics is true - pound for pound I can get more in low light out of a full-frame sensor. BUT - there's the lens equation - on the M43 system I can use something like a 75mm f/1.8 and use a lower ISO for functionally the same result as a much larger and heavier full-frame setup. In the end, it's a bit of a wash to me. I think I'm having some regrets not shooting M43 anymore.
Agreed that the ff setup is much heavier and larger , a 70-200 2.8 is much larger, heavier than a 35-100mm f1.4.
Just did a little research and compared ef lenses to m43. Let’s say I shoot with a 24-70 f2.8 , m43 could shoot a 12-40 f1.4 lens equivalent, but they don’t exist. The closest I could find was a 12-40 f2.8. The EF 24-70 f4 would still be heavier and bigger though , but still at an advantage in low light
f/2.8 lets in the same amount of light no matter the format. The only real differences would be in depth of field and noise performance of a smaller format sensor. Panasonic makes a 12-35 f/2.8 that's a 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent and it's significantly smaller, lighter and cheaper (~$800). It's up to the photographer to determine if the shallower depth of field and the different noise performance is worth the extra cost and weight/size of full frame.
The point I meant was that when using a F5.6 lens on a full frame would render about the same levels of noise at the required higher ISO than the smaller sensor at F2.8 (with lower ISO) depth of field would would also be about the same.
And indeed the full frame set-up would be bigger and heavier, and up to the photographer to make that choice.
I've shot concerts that were so dark that I was at iso 12800 at F2.8 (1/120) or ISO 6400 at f2.8 with 1/60 was very glad I was shooting full frame.
But when doing landscapes and carrying a heavy bag, m43 wouldn't be that bad of an option.
I have come to the conclusion that in fact, image stabilization does not actually replace tripods. It’s an awesome feature and you often can’t use a tripod, but for landscapes I would definitely use the tripod.
Love my micro four thirds system. I keep buying into larger systems and inevitably I sell them a few years later. So far I have tried canon and Leica full frame and Fuji medium format. Even Leica monochrome. And I still prefer micro four thirds. I use Panasonic for video and OM Systems for photography.
The smaller system is full of incredible advantages. The biggest being an increase in depth of field. I love the computational photography. The high resolution mode increases dynamic range as well as resolution and reduces noise. Yes I still use a tripod occasionally for one and ten minutes exposures or when photographing groups. Occasionally still use an nd filter too. But way less than I used too.
Yes I use them for bands at night too. Too many have been upsold and bought into a fallacy of advantages that can be made up for with good technique.
This smaller system makes my life easier. Simple. I get more great photos from it. Less throw aways. Easier to use.
I can’t say enough how much I love it. Been using it since the first E1 from Olympus. And the EPL-1.
“Yes I use them for bands at night too. Too many have been upsold and bought into a fallacy of advantages that can be made up for with good technique.“ So the results will be even better when you combine full frame with good technique. Gear never compensates for bad technique.
By the way, I’m not a full frame snob, I can see the advantages of a m43 system, the tool should fit the job.
Lack of any decent power zoom lenses made me send back my M43 camera. In fact there is a severe shortage of PZ lenses in any format so I prefer camcorders and bridge cameras for video.
I always tell folks to frame up like a still photographer and let the action happen within the frame. No need to zoom most of the time! That said there are a few decent options on the Canon side to add a power zoom as well.