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

woof woof said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dude, the thread is kinda dead so why not? have a bit of fun, relax, stop worrying about numbers for once. I'd really like to see someone do a similar shot on FF, ML or not, and compare for the craic. You have the means to do it, so why not give it a go? there's far too much moaning and groaning and c*ck waving on this forum without actual images for comparison. I put it out there, accept, or ignore.
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...


I'm actually not a huge fan of extreme shallow DOF, even when I shot FF I found myself stopping down a bit to bring some focus back! I said earlier too, i could get better 'bokeh' with my old 100-300 for similar subjects than I could with a fast prime - pity I sold it or I could do an interesting comparison. I'd like to see some examples for fun, people either give it a go, or don't. But I still like my leaf shot :D
 
Cagey75 said:
Dude, the thread is kinda dead so why not? have a bit of fun, relax, stop worrying about numbers for once. I'd really like to see someone do a similar shot on FF, ML or not, and compare for the craic. You have the means to do it, so why not give it a go? there's far too much moaning and groaning and c*ck waving on this forum without actual images for comparison. I put it out there, accept, or ignore.
Click to expand...

I've got about a gazillion leaf and flower shots but remembering what lens and aperture I used is beyond me.

This was taken with a Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 at f5 which may be close enough to f5.6 not to cause a complaint.

1-DSC00949.jpg

And I've never indulged in willie waving. I have what I have and don't really care what anyone else thinks.
 
Cagey75 said:
I'm actually not a huge fan of extreme shallow DOF, even when I shot FF I found myself stopping down a bit to bring some focus back! I said earlier too, i could get better 'bokeh' with my old 100-300 for similar subjects than I could with a fast prime - pity I sold it or I could do an interesting comparison. I'd like to see some examples for fun, people either give it a go, or don't. But I still like my leaf shot :D
Click to expand...

As leaves go, it's nice enough :) Needs a bit of frost on it to win a camera club comp though :D
 
A few more f5 with the same lens.

1-DSC09961.jpg

I think this must have been when I first got this lens and was testing it in the garden.

1-DSC00947.jpg

1-DSC01160.jpg
 
Last edited:
Now we're talking, IMAGES :)

HoppyUK said:
As leaves go, it's nice enough :) Needs a bit of frost on it to win a camera club comp though :D
Click to expand...


Don't you worry, if the frost that is promised this next week comes in I will have nothing BUT frosty leaves :D I do like a nice warm crispy Autumn leaf too though
 
Last edited:
I don't only shoot leaves, I sometimes shoot pancakes!

Same 15mm lens, this time at F2 - I think we all know close focusing helps a lot, I don't think I'd want any shallower here

Kto pancakes by K G, on Flickr
 
Some roses in my garden that despite being completely neglected come out every year.
Here when I bought the house twenty years ago and think they are a lot older than that.
Holly tree has plenty of berries again this year, winter food for the birds.
Roses.jpg
 
I’m on my iPad again and still struggling to embed images, but this link shows that m4/3 can definitely do shallow DoF with the right lens (in this case the Canon FD 85mm F1.8)

https://flic.kr/p/nrBWa4

Simon.
 
Something we often forget ... 'more fun to use' [7:27]


Also really makes me ponder, again, on an upgrade to the G9 from the 80
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Cropping increases depth-of-field still further - it's effectively a format change ;)
Click to expand...

eh?

If you crop the image you'll stand the chance of reducing the DoF, surely? But it depends what exactly you do.

For example. I have a full body A4 portrait shot and it looks as if whole head is in the DoF and I decide to crop a tight head shot from it...

If I crop the tight head shot out of the picture and keep the head the same size as it is in the original picture the DoF will be the same but if I crop the tight head shot and keep the picture A4 sized I'm magnifying a small section of the picture more and I may well notice that the ears are drifting out of the DoF. So cropping can decrease the DoF.

Crop any of those pictures I posted above and view the resultant crop at the same size and you'll see the DoF is razor thin. In fact you don't have to "crop" anything, just take a magnifying glass and look closer... it's all about magnification / how close you look as well as format / aperture / distance.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
eh?

If you crop the image you'll stand the chance of reducing the DoF, surely? But it depends what exactly you do.

For example. I have a full body A4 portrait shot and it looks as if whole head is in the DoF and I decide to crop a tight head shot from it...

If I crop the tight head shot out of the picture and keep the head the same size as it is in the original picture the DoF will be the same but if I crop the tight head shot and keep the picture A4 sized I'm magnifying a small section of the picture more and I may well notice that the ears are drifting out of the DoF. So cropping can decrease the DoF.

Crop any of those pictures I posted above and view the resultant crop at the same size and you'll see the DoF is razor thin. In fact you don't have to "crop" anything, just take a magnifying glass and look closer... it's all about magnification / how close you look as well as format / aperture / distance.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I didn't explain that very clearly. Cropping can both increase or decrease DoF, depending on what it's being compared to.

In your example of taking a full body shot printed to A4, then cropping just the head from it and also printing that to A4, DoF will be reduced. However, compared to switching to a longer lens (or moving closer) and printing out the same head shot without cropping, DoF will be increased in the cropped version.
 
Just clarifying what you said about Keith's picture. Cropping from a picture results in either the same DoF if the cropped part remains the same size as it was in the original picture or less DoF if you print the crop the same size as the whole original picture. Keith's picture as reproduced here will show less DoF than the whole picture would but how much less we can't tell as we don't know how much it was cropped, we'd need to see them both.
 
Last edited:
Well here we go again, with the click-bait extraordinaire Tony the try-hard -


Be warned, he stops his spewing not far in for some adverts ...
 
Wish i had never seen that, all my m4/3 gear has stopped working now.

He is getting to be like Thom Hogan, make enough predictions and some will be right.
 
Went to watch my grandson play football at the weekend, took along my Olly EM1.2 + 40-150mm f/2.8, and the pictures I took are superb, even if I say so myself.

I appreciate IF I had a 3x more expensive FF camera, AND a 5x more expensive FF lens, AND a monopod to rest them on, AND a humungous backpack to put them in, AND the strength to lug it all around, THEN I might have been able to print some of those images at A1, but as I didn't need to the EM1.2 did an amazing job thanks very much. :D
 
Well all mounts will be doomed in the end but that doesn't mean you will not get years of use out of what you have now I look forward to the omd mkII upgrade even if it was only a 5 year life cycle that's a lot of fun to have with a new m4/3 camera .

I really enjoy using this little system over my FF gear and It's hard to tell the difference in IQ if the same shot is taken in good light up to around 400 iso .

Rob.
 
mikew said:
Wish i had never seen that, all my m4/3 gear has stopped working now.

He is getting to be like Thom Hogan, make enough predictions and some will be right.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the video yet but they all follow the same structure, they're incentivised to make the video appear outrageous, a good clickbait title, a picture showing something a bit silly and the more views/subscriber/money they'll be rewarded with thanks to it.
 
Idiots like Tony really ought to get their facts straight, Micro Four Thirds is not a sensor size the sensor size is four thirds, the sensor was first used on DSLR's and they were not sold on price, they were sold on innovation! Sony last released an A mount lens in 2015, but the real question is what is missing from the A Mount range that Sony need to release. Got that far in the vid and could not be bothered to listen to his drivel anymore!
 
He's been at it a long time, he's pushing it harder lately because it gets a reaction. In a recent video comparing all ML systems he started it, even his missus challenged him on it saying it looks like Panasonic aren't dropping it any time soon with the announcement of the new WA lens. He kicked off on his usual equivalence BS, the video got a tonne of backlash so he goes and makes this one to stir it even more. It's sad that people actually look up to tools like this, newcomers in particular, they search photography reviews and this idiot appears. They sub, watch some of their earlier vids and think these guys know what they're talking about. End of the day they are given, or they rent, all of the gear they review - they spend about a week with a new camera or lens and suddenly they have guides out on it. He has been challenged in the past by other youtube photographers for talking nonsense, even Jared Polin [who I despise too] has had videos about how wrong Tony is on certain topics.

It's easy say ignore, but sadly their 1M+ following are easily influenced.
 
Cagey75 said:
It's easy say ignore, but sadly their 1M+ following are easily influenced.
Click to expand...

It is easy to ignore, I watched it last night and forgot about it but you watched it and posted it :p

So clearly you found it difficult to ignore LOL

I personally thinks he made some valid points, and he did say he loves the GH5 and uses them all the time, it's just the mount has no future past a few years if something drastically changes.

The example when he put up a A7III with that zoom which is the same size as the m4/3 body with the similar lens is telling.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
It is easy to ignore, I watched it last night and forgot about it but you watched it and posted it :p

So clearly you found it difficult to ignore LOL

I personally thinks he made some valid points, and he did say he loves the GH5 and uses them all the time, it's just the mount has no future past a few years if something drastically changes.

The example when he put up a A7III with that zoom which is the same size as the m4/3 body with the similar lens is telling.
Click to expand...

But you watched it in the first place, he hooked you in :p I watched it because I made this thread recently and it's relative, I knew what he would spew before I even clicked

He uses the extreme comparisons every time, I have a G80 with the 12-40 2.8 attached, it is way smaller and lighter than any equivalent combination I had for FF in the past and I find the IQ more than good enough. What he's forgetting here is that most M43 users, outside of any form of pro, are much more likely to use one of the smaller bodies with one of the tiny kit lenses.

Here's a quick example, we can all be selective - What I used in the past, vs what I'm using atm Vs the more likely combination the average M43 user will have in their bag

m43compareNikonFF.jpg

I chose that combination because I'm not overly concerned about size, it's the overall weight of the gear in the bag that matters not one example. I could downsize even more if I felt the need.
 
Last edited:
Are you looking at it with TRUE equivalent ?

i.e. using a F/1.4 zoom vs a F/2.8 zoom on FF or are you looking at a F/2.8 zoom on m4/3 vs a f/2.8 zoom on FF?

The latter is NOT the same, and that was a BIG point he was making.

If you side stepped that point then you don't really have a point, at all. Zilch, nothing, nada.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Are you looking at it with TRUE equivalent ?

i.e. using a F/1.4 zoom vs a F/2.8 zoom on FF or are you looking at a F/2.8 zoom on m4/3 vs a f/2.8 zoom on FF?

The latter is NOT the same, and that was a BIG point he was making.

If you side stepped that point then you don't really have a point, at all. Zilch, nothing, nada.
Click to expand...

I knew the equivalence police would arrive - but he's been wrong on the equivalence thing for ages, that's one of the many things he gets pulled up on. DOF doesn't matter to me, so the only equivalence worth considering is light gathering and focal length, a 1.4 is a 1.4 no matter the system, as it is purpose built. I don't know why so many ignore this fact. I'll get the same exposure at 2.8 with this lens as I would with the Nikon @2.8, I just would, you can't argue with results. The big difference is with ISO performance, not aperture [unless you do really care about shallower DOF, then you're not going to choose M43 to begin with!] You can ass kiss Tony till the cows come home and it won't change this fact, so it is you who seems to know Zilch, nadda and other silly words that = nothing

Besides this, or whatever you choose to believe, this has nothing to do with doom merchants nay saying a system, most who choose M43 know all this equivalence nonsense before they jump on board. I don't know why people insist on shoving numbers into every other discussion on it, we're talking about M43 here not FF - I have zero interest in FF so I'm not sure why you're even trying to convince me, seems meaningless and as if you're trying to argue for the sake of being right. If I was to drop M43 I'd go APSC, nobody makes equivalence between those because they don't care.

I shot some images yesterday at 2.8 with the above lens, if the DOF had been any shallower in some of them barely anything would have been in focus, why would I want that? What I do know is that I could keep the ISO down because I shot at 2.8, even if we go by what you say - a FF lens at 5.6 in the same lighting would have struggled

Boring example: [I just upped this now to use as such]
For the birds by K G, on Flickr

Actually - edit - I goofed up there, this was at f/4.5, a FF lens at f/9 would definitely have struggled - I chose the wrong example but I'm not upping more right now :D I remember stopping down to get more in focus!
 
Last edited:
What do you mean he is wrong about the DOF?

It doesn't matter that it doesn't MATTER to you? that is not the argument, that is a different argument. I could argue that photographs itself don't matter to me and everyone here are idiots for taking photos....

No one is disputing you can't get nice bokeh on a m4/3, that is NOT the argument, so don't twist it that way, his argument is that a F/2.8 lens on m4/3 is not the same as f/2.8 on a different format like the Sony A7III.

Unless you think they are exactly the same in EVERY SINGLE way?
 
Raymond Lin said:
What do you mean he is wrong about the DOF?

It doesn't matter that it doesn't MATTER to you? that is not the argument, that is a different argument. I could argue that photographs itself don't matter to me and everyone here are idiots for taking photos....

No one is disputing you can't get nice bokeh on a m4/3, that is NOT the argument, so don't twist it that way, his argument is that a F/2.8 lens on m4/3 is not the same as f/2.8 on a different format like the Sony A7III.

Unless you think they are exactly the same in EVERY SINGLE way?
Click to expand...

I said he's wrong about aperture equivalence [in terms of light gathering], not DOF - he's right on that - but my words often get twisted ;) I simply added that 'I' don't care about that aspect of it. I do care about the light gathering, and whichever way is correct, once I'm getting sufficient light to keep the ISO down [which is a weakness of smaller sensors] then that's all that matters right? It just gets annoying any time we mention an M43 lens that has a max aperture of 2.8 or whatever, someone immediately jumps on it to state that would only be 5.6 on FF! I know from my own experience this is not the case. I also know I can get shallow DOF when I desire by focusing closer, which is one of the strengths of this lens - it can get right in there, it's incredible


The Fallacy of Aperture Equivalence
While crop factor has a use simply to compare focal lengths between formats and such, the constant comparison of a smaller format lens to its full frame ‘equivalent’ aperture is largely unevenly applied and misunderstood. It’s often used to show that a smaller format is inferior or not capable of the same things as a larger format. In some cases, this usage is correct, but it is also nearly never used the other way.

I’ve heard many times “Yeah, your 75mm f/1.8 is crap – it’s like a 150mm f/3.6.” No, it’s not, it’s a 75mm lens with an f/1.8 aperture and a field of view that is the same as a 150mm lens on full frame.

What IS true is that the 75mm f/1.8 is not capable of the same ultra shallow depth of field as, say, something like the Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 on full frame. However, this is essentially the ONLY way that it is inferior.

https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

That's page 2, worth reading though the whole article, but that cut above gets the point across better than I can, I can't word today :D
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
What do you mean he is wrong about the DOF?

It doesn't matter that it doesn't MATTER to you? that is not the argument, that is a different argument. I could argue that photographs itself don't matter to me and everyone here are idiots for taking photos....

No one is disputing you can't get nice bokeh on a m4/3, that is NOT the argument, so don't twist it that way, his argument is that a F/2.8 lens on m4/3 is not the same as f/2.8 on a different format like the Sony A7III.

Unless you think they are exactly the same in EVERY SINGLE way?
Click to expand...
Raymond are you arguing because it’s important in any way , or are you just trying to put Keith’s back up by spouting b******t so he fires back and gets another forum holiday .. I also use MFT. It’s because I like it ,it works for me ,it’s cheap to own and use , and it’s lightweight ..any other spurious comments go right over my head and most likely every other MFT owner who like us will be laughing at your b******t
 
Raymond Lin said:
The point is that it is not 100% the same is it?

/end.
Click to expand...
No the F number is exactly the same, Focal Length divided by Aperture diameter, does not matter what sensor you use it on. Fn= FL/D. How does that formula change?
An F2.8 is an F2.8 is an F2.8!
 
It's not bs.

equiv helps me in two ways. Firstly it helps me get the best out of the system because I grew up with film and 35mm and equiv helps me to understand what's going on and why more easily and secondly because I understand what's going on I can if I wish to get the same sort of look I'd get from ff at f4 to f11 or so which is probably my most used aperture range from mft at f2 to f5 or so.

I really don't know why people get so excited and upset about all this. It's there and you can embrace it or ignore it.
 
the black fox said:
Raymond are you arguing because it’s important in any way , or are you just trying to put Keith’s back up by spouting b******t so he fires back and gets another forum holiday .. I also use MFT. It’s because I like it ,it works for me ,it’s cheap to own and use , and it’s lightweight ..any other spurious comments go right over my head and most likely every other MFT owner who like us will be laughing at your b******t
Click to expand...

I’m NOT talking about whether a piece of gear works for you, that is not the conversation.

The argument here is a simple one.

Is a f/2.8 lens on m4/3 exactly the same in physics as one for FF? That includes all aspect such as DOF.

It’s a simple yes or no question.

I’m saying it is NO. Am I wrong?

I’m not trying to put anyone back up and I have not swore, you seem upset with a simple question? Are you feeling okay?

Bearair said:
No the F number is exactly the same, Focal Length divided by Aperture diameter, does not matter what sensor you use it on. Fn= FL/D. How does that formula change?
An F2.8 is an F2.8 is an F2.8!
Click to expand...

The not the argument here isn’t is it?

A photo taken with a 85/1.2 on FF will need a 42.5 mm lens on a 0.6 aperture lens, No?

I mean we can compare. I’ll take a photo with my 85L at 1.2 and you try to make the same look with your equivalent 85mm lens on m4/3. I’m happy to shoot at 1.4 if it makes things easier, I’m sure your 42mm/1.4 lens will have the same look? :p

Are you up for the experiment?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I’m NOT talking about whether a piece of gear works for you, that is not the conversation.

The argument here is a simple one.

Is a f/2.8 lens on m4/3 exactly the same in physics as one for FF? That includes all aspect such as DOF.

It’s a simple yes or no question.

I’m saying it is NO. Am I wrong?

I’m not trying to put anyone back up and I have not swore, you seem upset with a simple question? Are you feeling okay?



The not the argument here isn’t is it?

A photo taken with a 85/1.2 on FF will need a 42.5 mm lens on a 0.6 aperture lens, No?

I mean we can compare. I’ll take a photo with my 85L at 1.2 and you try to make the same look with your equivalent 85mm lens on m4/3.

Are you up for the experiment?
Click to expand...

Certainly not, I do not exist in some other universe where a mathematical formula suddenly changes!

All the F number on a lens tells you is the diameter of the aperture to length ratio, that is it!
 
Bearair said:
Certainly not, I do not exist in some other universe where a mathematical formula suddenly changes!

All the F number on a lens tells you is the diameter of the aperture to length ratio, that is it!
Click to expand...

But if that's the only difference then the look of the image should be exactly the same?

Then what are we waiting for?

I am happy to shoot at 85/2.8 if you like.
 
Bearair said:
No the F number is exactly the same, Focal Length divided by Aperture diameter, does not matter what sensor you use it on. Fn= FL/D. How does that formula change?
An F2.8 is an F2.8 is an F2.8!
Click to expand...


This! Which is why the lenses can be smaller, the focal length is already halved, therefor they can produce much smaller diameter apertures purpose built for smaller sensors.

Raymond Lin said:
The not the argument here isn’t is it?
Click to expand...

But it is, you were trying to convince me that a 2.8 lens on M43 is direct equiv to 5.6 on FF, that is all I am contesting here. We all know you get shallower DOF with the equiv FF lens, but that's about it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
But if that's the only difference then the look of the image should be exactly the same?

Then what are we waiting for?

I am happy to shoot at 85/2.8 if you like.
Click to expand...
Nope, it should not be the same because F2.8 only tells you the Ratio of the focal length to Diameter, it tells you nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top