M4/3 is "doomed" unless ....

[Cagey75]

Temper temper.

To quote David Banner: "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry" - dim wits, thankfully, do not make me so, lucky for you

 

[GreenNinja67]

Temper temper.

It's ok Bear, he'll beat himself up in a while.

 

[Cobra]

To quote David Banner: "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry" - dim wits, thankfully, do not make me so, lucky for you

I don't often go green but 1 insult and 1 threat in a short space space of time, = green snake ..
Have a day off and think about what you did.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I had the em5 for a bit, great little camera [bar the ergos, for me personally] - I bought it as a tester for M43, always planning to upgrade it if I decided I liked the system - I was still shooting Fuji at the time. It's not just about seeking tech beyond our needs, it is just nice to get even minor upgrades. I almost bought a mkII, because it had a MUCH better evf and better IBIS. Those things alone are worth it IMO

It is not like catching a bus. where if you are five minutes late it can be a long walk home.
With cameras you can always wait till the next model comes out before buying last years model at a much better price.
most of the time i live mostly well out of step with the latest anything.

 

[the black fox]

Think it would be best if this thread was locked in all honesty oh hissy one . It’s going to go nowhere .

 

[Donnie]

Agreed.

 

[GyRob]

I do think the size of the OMD mkII is small enough I really like it and its IQ is very good too at the lower ISO range ,I'm hoping a mkIII will give a stop better in noise and if they can improve a AF a little they will have cracked it for me .
Rob.

 

[jakeblu]

Ah good old equivalence rabbit hole

F2.8 is f2.8 as far as exposure is concerned but for DoF field it's equivalent to f5.6 on FF.

But that's not the end of it... A FF sensor is capable of gathering 4x more light than m43 sensor. This gives it better performance especially in low light. So basically a FF sensor is about 2 stops better performance than a m43 sensor.

So what that means is one could get the same performance i.e. image quality out of a FF sensor by sticking a f5.6 lens on it as they would out of a m43 sensor by sticking f2.8 lens on it, all else being equal.

To compare like of like i.e. similar/same performance you'll need compare m43+12-40/2.8 with FF+24-80/5.6. Using a faster lens on FF would give it an advantage over m43 (possibly at cost of physical size)
Such a lens doesn't exist on FF as far as I know but I am not talking any specifics here, just plain old equivalence discussion

This started off because of the comparison photo between the Sony GM f/2.8 lens to show how massive the size difference is but my point was the more sensible comparison is surely with the Sony 24-70mm f/4 because that's closest in performance to the m43 lens and then the size difference basically goes away?

2.8 is 2.8. I understand the DOF and better noise capabilities, but the sony 2.8 wont allow more light on the ff sensor than 12-40 will on M43. Therefore I think the lenses are equivalent

 

[nandbytes]

2.8 is 2.8. I understand the DOF and better noise capabilities, but the sony 2.8 wont allow more light on the ff sensor than 12-40 will on M43. Therefore I think the lenses are equivalent

F2.8 is f2.8, no one questions that. It's the physical characteristic of the lens just like focal length. But we don't compare 12-40mm on m43 to 12-40mm on FF do we. Because the end result is not equivalent. We like to make like for like in terms of end result and capability.

Similarly f2.8 on a m43 sensor is only as capable as f5.6 on a FF sensor in what it can produce. It'll never be equal to the capabilities and performance of f2.8 on FF sensor which would give it 2 stops advantage. So that doesnt make it a like for like comparison.

 

[Cobra]

Think it would be best if this thread was locked in all honesty oh hissy one . It’s going to go nowhere .

Agreed.

I'm not really in favour of locking threads I don't like stifling debate, unless it get really nasty, that is.
Lets see what happens when Keith returns, and I hope I don't have to send anyone else on holiday either...

 

[jakeblu]

F2.8 is f2.8, no one questions that. It's the physical characteristic of the lens just like focal length. But we don't compare 12-40mm on m43 to 12-40mm on FF do we. Because the end result is not equivalent. We like to make like for like in terms of end result and capability.

Similarly f2.8 on a m43 sensor is only as capable as f5.6 on a FF sensor in what it can produce. It'll never be equal to the capabilities and performance of f2.8 on FF sensor which would give it 2 stops advantage. So that doesnt make it a like for like comparison.

But all that is a product of the sensor, not the lens. I wasn't comparing to a 12-40 on full frame but rather the 24-70 f2, which should be the same regarding light reaching the sensor. What the sensor can do with it is a different matter.

 

[Baloo]

F2.8 is f2.8, no one questions that. It's the physical characteristic of the lens just like focal length. But we don't compare 12-40mm on m43 to 12-40mm on FF do we. Because the end result is not equivalent. We like to make like for like in terms of end result and capability.

Similarly f2.8 on a m43 sensor is only as capable as f5.6 on a FF sensor in what it can produce. It'll never be equal to the capabilities and performance of f2.8 on FF sensor which would give it 2 stops advantage. So that doesnt make it a like for like comparison.

I am really not nik picking but trying to understand, are you saying that in order to get the same exposure from a f8 on MFT as exposure on a FF, the ff lens would be set to F4?

 

[nandbytes]

But all that is a product of the sensor, not the lens. I wasn't comparing to a 12-40 on full frame but rather the 24-70 f2, which should be the same regarding light reaching the sensor. What the sensor can do with it is a different matter.

Indeed yes. Also comparing 12-40mm on m43 to 24-70mm on FF is also product of the sensor. Because the 12-40mm is 12-40mm regardless of the sensor it's put on. Just like aperture, the focal length is also a physical characteristic of the lens independent of the sensor.
But then why do we compare different focal lengths? Because we want make a like for like comparison in terms of the end result i.e. field of view which is dependent on the sensor and not the lens alone.

Similarly to make a like for like comparisons for aperture you need to equalise them in terms of the end result i.e. in terms of DoF and overall IQ of the setup.

I don't think I can explain it any better tbh. If I am not able to make sense to you then we will just keep going on circles... Rather but no any further down this rabbit hole

 

[nandbytes]

I am really not nik picking but trying to understand, are you saying that in order to get the same exposure from a f8 on MFT as exposure on a FF, the ff lens would be set to F4?

No worries happy to discuss this as long as it remains civil
No that's not what I am saying.
What I am saying is if you shoot a scene at ISO100, f2.8 and 1/S shutter speed on m43.
To get the exact same result on FF (i.e. inc dynamic range, tonal range, noise etc) you would shoot at ISO400, f5.6 and 1/S shutter speed.

Now if your FF is lens is capable of shooting faster than F5.6 that's an advantage in its favour but the m43 lens in question cant shoot any faster.

Basically a small f2.8 zoom on m43 is capable of producing results that will be on par with a f5.6 zoom on FF. So comparing f2.8 zoom on m43 to f2.8 zoom on FF is not like for like (in this case for size) since the FF setup is capable of better results.

 

[simonbarker]

The difference in focal length and depth of field is easy to understand but what I'm not clear on is the rest, between the f/2.8 m43 and ff lenses, wide open the photo would (roughly) have the same exposure level between them yes? The difference would be that the ff sensor is capturing a lot more light so has an advantage when it comes to noise (so in practical terms almost like 2 stops difference on the ISO setting)? Yes, no, maybe?

 

[woof woof]

One advantage of MFT, and sorry if this has already been mentioned, is the 4:3 format, I quite like it. I find 3:2 ok for landscape but I find it a bit tall and narrow for portrait and I do prefer 4:3, for portrait. Yes you can crop a 3:2 shot but I do like not having to.

On the crop thing... I do think that applying the crop factor works well for focal length and depth calculations but although the facts and figures may say that MFT is 2 stops behind FF in reality I often feel that it isn't that much.

I have both FF and MFT. For me FF wins for quality if I want to go looking for the differences and also wins for using old manual lenses but MFT wins when I want compact and lightweight kit with sportscar performance at a reasonable price and for when a larger camera and lens is a little too intrusive and draws too much attention. Something like a GX80 or GX9 with a 17mm f1.8 prime is a joy to use.

I've taken some of my favorite pictures with MFT and if I didn't have that system a percentage of them almost certainly wouldn't have been taken as smaller kit doesn't have the quality and performance mix and larger kit may have been a bit too unwieldy or attention grabbing to use.

 

[Baloo]

No worries happy to discuss this as long as it remains civil
No that's not what I am saying.
What I am saying is if you shoot a scene at ISO100, f2.8 and 1/S shutter speed on m43.
To get the exact same result on FF (i.e. inc dynamic range, tonal range, noise etc) you would shoot at ISO400, f5.6 and 1/S shutter speed.

Now if your FF is lens is capable of shooting faster than F5.6 that's an advantage in its favour but the m43 lens in question cant shoot any faster.

Basically a small f2.8 zoom on m43 is capable of producing results that will be on par with a f5.6 zoom on FF. So comparing f2.8 zoom on m43 to f2.8 zoom on FF is not like for like (in this case for size) since the FF setup is capable of better results.

Ok, to me we can talk about equivalence when we are comparing DOF and Angle of View, but equivalence when we get to IQ, Dynamic range etc cannot be compared as optical quality and sensor performance introduce variables that make an equivalence false.
Hypothetically you are correct but only if all other variables are removed which is not the case.

 

[jakeblu]

No worries happy to discuss this as long as it remains civil

Have I not been civil?

The difference in focal length and depth of field is easy to understand but what I'm not clear on is the rest, between the f/2.8 m43 and ff lenses, wide open the photo would (roughly) have the same exposure level between them yes? The difference would be that the ff sensor is capturing a lot more light so has an advantage when it comes to noise (so in practical terms almost like 2 stops difference on the ISO setting)? Yes, no, maybe?

The noise advantage and the DOF is clearly easy to understand, the rest is just hypothetical.

 

[ian-83]

I think Olympus and Panasonic listen to customer and their "pros" feedback. They probably invest quite heavily in R&D and try to work out where the market is going and what consumers want.
Anything a company produces is because they see a demand for it. Not everyone wants one of the f1.2 pro primes but then I doubt Olympus thought all customers will buy one.
The reason the G9 and E-M1.2 are bigger is because what people said they wanted.
What annoys me is when one person doesn't like something a camera company does the world is ending. Just go find an alternative that suits you better or stick with what you have if it isn't broken or does limit you in anyway.

 

[the black fox]

I think Olympus and Panasonic listen to customer and their "pros" feedback. They probably invest quite heavily in R&D and try to work out where the market is going and what consumers want.
Anything a company produces is because they see a demand for it. Not everyone wants one of the f1.2 pro primes but then I doubt Olympus thought all customers will buy one.
The reason the G9 and E-M1.2 are bigger is because what people said they wanted.
What annoys me is when one person doesn't like something a camera company does the world is ending. Just go find an alternative that suits you better or stick with what you have if it isn't broken or does limit you in anyway.

Probably the most sensible post for a couple of pages Ian

 

[stickytape]

Jumping in here - I curren;ty have a swathe of equipment and systems;

Panasonic G system and some nice glass (12-35 2.8 and the 35-100 2.8 X, Leica 25 1.4) and the Canon M50 with M15-45, M22mm, M55-200 and EF 200 2.8 and 100-400 L. I am very very happy with the G system, love the portability and the "sharpness" that I seem to get with it. The adapter to use my canon lens on is great too! I think I willl end up taking the Panasonic kit to our NY trip next month; I don't see myself getting anything else really, I have top notch interchangeable lens kits, top notch bridge (Sony RX10 3 and Canon G3X) and top notch compact (Leica X1 and Sony HX90v). AllI see. is thinning this down, as photography is only a hobby! One question, anyone here have a Panny GH4 I can quiz on?

 

[Cagey75]

I don't often go green but 1 insult and 1 threat in a short space space of time, = green snake ..
Have a day off and think about what you did.

FYI, it was actually meant to be humorous, I never quote anyone! maybe some smilies and not the dim wit part eh? enjoyed my evening of actual chores all the same thanks

As for the thread, I think it served as more good than bad, but I don't care if it's locked.

 

[Cagey75]

I'm not really in favour of locking threads I don't like stifling debate, unless it get really nasty, that is.
Lets see what happens when Keith returns, and I hope I don't have to send anyone else on holiday either...

If the others want it left open then fine, I didn't think it would turn into an argy-bargy, I don't like being called a liar and the 'temper, temper' post was goading IMO - and I reacted to that in what I imagined was more in jest - but will watch the phrases

ps: at least you knew it was the Hulk! and it was from the 80's series too

 

[Cagey75]

F2.8 is f2.8, no one questions that. It's the physical characteristic of the lens just like focal length. But we don't compare 12-40mm on m43 to 12-40mm on FF do we. Because the end result is not equivalent. We like to make like for like in terms of end result and capability.

Similarly f2.8 on a m43 sensor is only as capable as f5.6 on a FF sensor in what it can produce. It'll never be equal to the capabilities and performance of f2.8 on FF sensor which would give it 2 stops advantage. So that doesnt make it a like for like comparison.

This just went up today, Sony A9 Vs G85/80 - it's video, but that shouldn't matter, he shows direct comparison between a 50mm @ 2.8 on the A9 Vs 25mm @ 1.4 on the G80 - The Panasonic is twice as bright, and also has a slightly blurrier backdrop ... Honestly, I think people push the whole equivalence thing way too much, and often it's people who've never even touched an M43 camera that hype it the most. Not picking at you, just happened to use your post as you're the last to have made the comparison between apertures

 

[nandbytes]

This just went up today, Sony A9 Vs G85/80 - it's video, but that shouldn't matter, he shows direct comparison between a 50mm @ 2.8 on the A9 Vs 25mm @ 1.4 on the G80 - The Panasonic is twice as bright, and also has a slightly blurrier backdrop ... Honestly, I think people push the whole equivalence thing way too much, and often it's people who've never even touched an M43 camera that hype it the most. Not picking at you, just happened to use your post as you're the last to have made the comparison between apertures

I own a m43 camera

 

[Cagey75]

I own a m43 camera

Which one? Surely you can do the comparison yourself in that case and see? For one, you should notice immediately that when it comes to exposure, never mind DOF, 2.8 is 2.8 no matter ... a very quick test will show you this.

 

[woof woof]

This just went up today, Sony A9 Vs G85/80 - it's video, but that shouldn't matter, he shows direct comparison between a 50mm @ 2.8 on the A9 Vs 25mm @ 1.4 on the G80 - The Panasonic is twice as bright, and also has a slightly blurrier backdrop ... Honestly, I think people push the whole equivalence thing way too much, and often it's people who've never even touched an M43 camera that hype it the most. Not picking at you, just happened to use your post as you're the last to have made the comparison between apertures

You're going to get slight differences in blur and lighting and other things that are down to the lenses. Another way to do it is to compare cameras using the same lens as this will help to eliminate differences in lenses leading to conclusions about the cameras or formats.

 

[seadog99]

I must admit I do feel I am up a bit of a dead end alley at the minute with m43

I have a GX80 with 12-35, 35-100 f2.8s, 100-300 and a couple of primes. Been with m43 since a GF1 and I love the size/portability. Happy with the quality in full light but not the low light performance/noise.

Have looked at the FF options, lenses too big/heavy and expensive. Looked at the APS-C options, poor lens lineup after being spoilt by the m43 line, lack of IBIS on the small Fuji’s after using it for so long.

I have resigned myself to tread water and see what comes up from Olympus/Panasonic and Sony promising more APS-C lenses.

I think m43 will always have a place, well it will in my camera bag.

 

[nandbytes]

Which one? Surely you can do the comparison yourself in that case and see? For one, you should notice immediately that when it comes to exposure, never mind DOF, 2.8 is 2.8 no matter ... a very quick test will show you this.

LX100

I never said otherwise. see below...

F2.8 is f2.8, no one questions that. It's the physical characteristic of the lens just like focal length. But we don't compare 12-40mm on m43 to 12-40mm on FF do we. Because the end result is not equivalent. We like to make like for like in terms of end result and capability.

Similarly f2.8 on a m43 sensor is only as capable as f5.6 on a FF sensor in what it can produce. It'll never be equal to the capabilities and performance of f2.8 on FF sensor which would give it 2 stops advantage. So that doesnt make it a like for like comparison.

I have explained everything above as clearly as possible. If you still don't get my point there probably isn't much else I can say to make you understand.

 

[Cagey75]

LX100

I never said otherwise. see below...


I have explained everything above as clearly as possible. If you still don't get my point there probably isn't much else I can say to make you understand.

You don't have to explain anything, only convince yourself if needed. I don't need convincing in any way, I know the equivilancy thing only matters when it comes to DOF. I just chose your post as an example, which I said, so don't stress on it.

You're going to get slight differences in blur and lighting and other things that are down to the lenses. Another way to do it is to compare cameras using the same lens as this will help to eliminate differences in lenses leading to conclusions about the cameras or formats.

One thing people seem to overlook is that lenses specifically created for M43 are smaller for good reason, the light is concentrated down to suit that smaller sensor, they are purpose built, they don't require huge glass elements to take more light in. A 2.8 M43 lens is tailored to give that amount of light, it will give the same amount of light a FF sensor gets from a FF specific lens. Nothing actually gets 'cropped' in the process. It is not simply akin to cropping down a full frame image, otherwise cropping a FF image would see the dof changed. Sticking a full frame lens on the smaller sensor will make a difference, because then you are only making use of the more central part of the lens, and often with better results (if sharpness is your priority) because you're omitting the softer corners. Then we're cropping, but with native lenses there's really no such thing. I said earlier, I can get pleasant broken with my 15mm M43 lens when I want it, I don't need to worry about it's equivilancy, I'm sure a 30mm ff lens stopped down will also give pleasant enough bokeh but who cares? Unless the images are going to be directly compared for some reason, then nobody should.

But, this isn't an equivilancy thread, I don't know why it ever even came up, it seems to do so every time m43 gets a mention as if it has to be shot down and put in it's corner right away.

 

[Cagey75]

I must admit I do feel I am up a bit of a dead end alley at the minute with m43

I have a GX80 with 12-35, 35-100 f2.8s, 100-300 and a couple of primes. Been with m43 since a GF1 and I love the size/portability. Happy with the quality in full light but not the low light performance/noise.

Have looked at the FF options, lenses too big/heavy and expensive. Looked at the APS-C options, poor lens lineup after being spoilt by the m43 line, lack of IBIS on the small Fuji’s after using it for so long.

I have resigned myself to tread water and see what comes up from Olympus/Panasonic and Sony promising more APS-C lenses.

I think m43 will always have a place, well it will in my camera bag.

That's a nice bunch of lenses, wouldn't mind having those myself. As for low light, I don't know whether or not it's because I just got used to it, or learned to handle exposures with M43 better through use over time, but I find my G80 handles low light decent enough. The IBIS helps heaps in my case, because I mostly shoot stills, literally. But even when I take pics of the kids in the house in the evening, and have to push to 1600 or 3200, the images are absolutely fine. I'd not go beyond that with any camera unless I was shooting a gig in really terrible lighting anyway. And then, even with FF you're going to get some grain, not so much, but it'll be there. APSC ML is generally not much better when it comes to ISO performance, unless you go for the very latest Fuji or Sony offerings, like the A6500 or X-T2/3, and even then you're compromising just for slightly better ISO.

You pay for that slightly better performance in weight, and cost. Take the Fuji XF 40-150 2.8 Vs your Panasonic 35-100 2.8, the Fuji is up to £500 more and triple the weight, and that's just APSC! A Nikon 70-200 2.8 is almost 5x the weight and over double the money. And some say there's not that much difference in weight these days

 

[HoppyUK]

<snip>

But, this isn't an equivilancy thread, I don't know why it ever even came up, it seems to do so every time m43 gets a mention as if it has to be shot down and put in it's corner right away.

Of course equivalence comes up whenever M4/3 is mentioned - it's fundamental, unavoidable and explains everything.

M4/3 sensor has one quarter the image area of full-frame, a factor of 4x or two stops. Everything swings on that, from the smaller/lighter cameras and lenses, to the equivalent focal length crop factor, the depth-of-field difference, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance, and reduced sharpness.

All those things are mostly physics that cannot be changed and while technology continues to improve the end result, that same technology also applies to larger sensor formats so the difference remains constant.

Where M4/3 scores is in size and weight reduction. Everything else is a downside where image quality is concerned. IMHO the problem for M4/3 is in the relentless march of the smartphone further and further upmarket. They are eroding 'proper' camera sales in a way that nobody dreamed of just a few years ago and the pace of development is scarily rapid. M4/3, being the smallest of the enthusiast interchangeable-lens camera formats, will get hit first and hardest.

That doesn't mean the advantages of M4/3 will disappear, and they make a great choice for some specialist areas like a light-weight outfit for wildlife, but sooner or later smartphones will erode the more popular end where manufacturers make most of their money.

 

[Cagey75]

Of course equivalence comes up whenever M4/3 is mentioned - it's fundamental, unavoidable and explains everything.

M4/3 sensor has one quarter the image area of full-frame, a factor of 4x or two stops. Everything swings on that, from the smaller/lighter cameras and lenses, to the equivalent focal length crop factor, the depth-of-field difference, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance, and reduced sharpness.

All those things are mostly physics that cannot be changed and while technology continues to improve the end result, that same technology also applies to larger sensor formats so the difference remains constant.

Where M4/3 scores is in size and weight reduction. Everything else is a downside where image quality is concerned. IMHO the problem for M4/3 is in the relentless march of the smartphone further and further upmarket. They are eroding 'proper' camera sales in a way that nobody dreamed of just a few years ago and the pace of development is scarily rapid. M4/3, being the smallest of the enthusiast interchangeable-lens camera formats, will get hit first and hardest.

That doesn't mean the advantages of M4/3 will disappear, and they make a great choice for some specialist areas like a light-weight outfit for wildlife, but sooner or later it will erode the more popular end where manufacturers make most of their money.

Why doesn't it matter so dramatically whenever APSC is mentioned? I mean why don't FF hoardes near break their necks tripping over one another to get "equivalence" pokes in when Canon 1.6x is mentioned? There's not the huge gap in IQ that many imagine, I know, I've used all 3 formats. You really have to pixel peep. Low light and DOF, they are the only differences anyone notices - ok, DR in some cases, but M43 DR is better than many would give it credit for. I've posted examples on here in the past, images that were near completely blown out recovered very nicely.

But, everything else you said there is precisely what the thread was about, the fact that many think M43's days could be numbered, if not this or next year, but in the coming years. Unless the main players do some major spicing up soon.

As for phones, I think even if and when camera phones actually catch up, which is still a long way off, they're not even remotely close right now no matter the hype - I'd still opt for even the most ancient dslr styled camera over them, if just for ergonomics alone

 

[HoppyUK]

Why doesn't it matter so dramatically whenever APSC is mentioned? I mean why don't FF hoardes near break their necks tripping over one another to get "equivalence" pokes in when Canon 1.6x is mentioned? There's not the huge gap in IQ that many imagine, I know, I've used all 3 formats. You really have to pixel peep. Low light and DOF, they are the only differences anyone notices - ok, DR in some cases, but M43 DR is better than many would give it credit for. I've posted examples on here in the past, images that were near completely blown out recovered very nicely.

But, everything else you said there is precisely what the thread was about, the fact that many think M43's days could be numbered, if not this or next year, but in the coming years. Unless the main players do some major spicing up soon.

As for phones, I think even if and when camera phones actually catch up, which is still a long way off, they're not even remotely close right now no matter the hype - I'd still opt for even the most ancient dslr styled camera over them, if just for ergonomics alone

Equivalence does get mentioned in relation APS-C, but the difference to full frame is only a bit over one stop, not two stops as with M4/3, but what you say about the kind of image quality from M4/3 is absolutely true. It's more than 'good enough' for very high quality images, but unfortunately photographers have always been obsessed with ultimate image quality, sharpness/detail in particular, and sheer gadget appeal - GAS basically.

Good enough isn't good enough, and better is best. So when the best comes all wrapped up in the coolest new gadget package, ie full-frame mirrorless, it's going to get our full attention. By the same token, M4/3 is at the opposite end of the perceived quality scale, and hasn't had an injection of appealing new tech for years. So it's going to get passed over. None of this has got anything to do with really good photography, but it's what drives equipment sales

 

[Cagey75]

Equivalence does get mentioned in relation APS-C, but the difference to full frame is only a bit over one stop, not two stops as with M4/3, but what you say about the kind of image quality from M4/3 is absolutely true. It's more than 'good enough' for very high quality images, but unfortunately photographers have always been obsessed with ultimate image quality, sharpness/detail in particular, and sheer gadget appeal - GAS basically.

Good enough isn't good enough, and better is best. So when the best comes all wrapped up in the coolest new gadget package, ie full-frame mirrorless, it's going to get our full attention. By the same token, M4/3 is at the opposite end of the perceived quality scale, and hasn't had an injection of appealing new tech for years. So it's going to get passed over. None of this has got anything to do with really good photography, but it's what drives equipment sales

I do hear ya. Hence the worry for some of us, if I'm to stick with, and I am more than happy enough to do so as it's well good enough for my needs - I'd like to know the system isn't going to be abandoned anytime very soon. There may already be a tonne of cameras and glass available for it, but it needs some keepy uppy too, not just pro grade lenses, they need to look after the little man. The ones who made the system become what it is, the kit lens package buyer, the Sunday shooter, the enthusiast on a budget, the amateur videographer, the stealthy street shooter, the light-weight traveler ...etc ... etc ... the people who adore M43 for it's petit-ness

 

[Cagey75]

Ok, nothing amazing here, I am a sucker for Autumn leaves, sue me!! But this was shot with a 15mm f/1.7 lens on M43 -

Golden October by K G, on Flickr

Could the DOF have been shallower? yes ... did I want it to be? No ... hence why it was stopped down to 2.8, The image is also cropped in quite a bit. I wanted to include the tree the leaf actually blew from in the backdrop.

Feel free to show me a similar image from a FF 30mm @ 5.6, let's play the DOF challenge for fun of course - preferably just snap shots from the last few days or purposely shot for this thread. I'm genuinely curious here, not looking for debate, just want to see some DOF differences. The 'bokeh' is 'busy' here, I realise that, could have smoothed it more by opening up, this was shot at the end of a hedge, with another smaller tree further back to the right of it. I stopped down because I wanted to include the presence of the tree.

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

FYI, it was actually meant to be humorous, I never quote anyone! maybe some smilies and not the dim wit part eh? enjoyed my evening of actual chores all the same thanks

As for the thread, I think it served as more good than bad, but I don't care if it's locked.

Yo,welcome back.popcorn running short

 

[Cagey75]

Yo,welcome back.popcorn running short

Nobody loves me like you dooooooo

 

[woof woof]

Could the DOF have been shallower? yes ... did I want it to be? No ... hence why it was stopped down to 2.8, The image is also cropped in quite a bit. I wanted to include the tree the leaf actually blew from in the backdrop.

Feel free to show me a similar image from a FF 30mm @ 5.6, let's play the DOF challenge for fun of course - preferably just snap shots from the last few days or purposely shot for this thread. I'm genuinely curious here, not looking for debate, just want to see some DOF differences. The 'bokeh' is 'busy' here, I realise that, could have smoothed it more by opening up, this was shot at the end of a hedge, with another smaller tree further back to the right of it. I stopped down because I wanted to include the presence of the tree.

The bokeh is surely more down to the lens and the scene than the format. I have... quite a few... 35mm / equivalent lenses and they all render ever so slightly differently but IMO 35mm equivalent or wider lenses aren't the ones to go for if you're specifically looking for nice bokeh.

Back when I first got into MFT I did a lot of side by side comparisons both on screen and with prints with my 5D often shooting the same shot just seconds apart. I did the same when I got my A7 for A7 v MFT v 5D. My conclusions back then were that no one I showed pictures too had any real idea what I was talking about. My conclusions for myself were that MFT is good enough at all but the extremes of ISO and pixel peeping, Generally, IMO, FF files look better when you pixel peep and they're generally sharper too assuming you've used good lenses on the cameras you're comparing. None of that takes away from my opinion that MFT is good enough most of the time and easily so.

I don't really see the point in posting example bokeh shots here or anywhere else really unless someone thinks that you can't get nice bokeh from MFT but that's maybe a subject for another thread.

 

[HoppyUK]

Ok, nothing amazing here, I am a sucker for Autumn leaves, sue me!! But this was shot with a 15mm f/1.7 lens on M43 -

Golden October by K G, on Flickr

Could the DOF have been shallower? yes ... did I want it to be? No ... hence why it was stopped down to 2.8, The image is also cropped in quite a bit. I wanted to include the tree the leaf actually blew from in the backdrop.

Feel free to show me a similar image from a FF 30mm @ 5.6, let's play the DOF challenge for fun of course - preferably just snap shots from the last few days or purposely shot for this thread. I'm genuinely curious here, not looking for debate, just want to see some DOF differences. The 'bokeh' is 'busy' here, I realise that, could have smoothed it more by opening up, this was shot at the end of a hedge, with another smaller tree further back to the right of it. I stopped down because I wanted to include the presence of the tree.

Cropping increases depth-of-field still further - it's effectively a format change

The increased DoF from smaller formats is another factor that weighs against M4/3 now, given that the shallow DoF look with blown out-of-focus backgrounds is currently so fashionable. It's no surprise that both Canon and Nikon's new mirrorless cameras have been launched alongside some very fast new lenses that have had the forums drooling. M4/3 has no answer for that.

Edit: after a decades of almost continual growth (and spectacular growth during the early years of digital) the camera market has lost two-thirds of its sales (to smartphones) in a few short years. There are going to be consequences.