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

Raymond Lin said:
I don't shoot at f/9. When i shoot at that aperture i have everything in focus on purpose. f/11

Cn8dYOc.jpg
Click to expand...

This image doesn't prove a thing then , ok. Because I can get as much DOF at half the aperture :p

Btw, TN also put out a controversial video saying shooting RAW is pointless pretty much, and nobody needs to shoot anything but Jpeg. Is he right on this too? I think he's just a troll tbh, he thrives on click bait, he knows it'll spark debate, it's clever, this is why he gets the hits. I never said he was thick, just wrong on that point he keeps forcing onto the naive.

Thing is, it doesn't matter who makes these statements because fact is fact. Ray keeps battering on about DOF even after we agree with him on that score, it's like he's arguing with himself now ... the only part I disagree with is the light gathering capabilities - and I'm sticking with my view on that. Argument is null and void. Ray you have proven nothing, and we're never going to agree on that one factor let's face it.
 
Cagey75 said:
This image doesn't prove a thing then , ok. Because I can get as much DOF at half the aperture :p

Btw, TN also put out a controversial video saying shooting RAW is pointless pretty much, and nobody needs to shoot anything but Jpeg. Is he right on this too? I think he's just a troll tbh, he thrives on click bait, he knows it'll spark debate, it's clever, this is why he gets the hits. I never said he was thick, just wrong on that point he keeps forcing onto the naive.

Thing is, it doesn't matter who makes these statements because fact is fact. Ray keeps battering on about DOF even after we agree with him on that score, it's like he's arguing with himself now ... the only part I disagree with is the light gathering capabilities - and I'm sticking with my view on that. Argument is null and void. Ray you have proven nothing, and we're never going to agree on that one factor let's face it.
Click to expand...

I have proven that a F/2.8 lens on m4/3 is not an equivalent lens as F/2.8 on FF.

Which you agree. That's ALL I have been trying to say, everything else people are trying to move the goal post / subject.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I have proven that a F/2.8 lens on m4/3 is not an equivalent lens as F/2.8 on FF.

Which you agree. That's ALL I have been trying to say, everything else people are trying to move the goal post / subject.
Click to expand...


No, you haven't [the circle continues] - either we have crossed wires or you're just been obnoxiously stubborn for the sake of it. You know full well, unless you're skim reading, that the argument is over light gathering capabilities, I mean I've said it about 50 times at this stage. We've agreed ages back that DOF is shallower on FF so not even sure why you keep insisting on something we both actually do agree on!
 
Raymond Lin said:
I have proven that a F/2.8 lens on m4/3 is not an equivalent lens as F/2.8 on FF.
Click to expand...
No, it is an exact equivalent on what the F number indicates.
 
Cagey75 said:
No, you haven't [the circle continues] - either we have crossed wires or you're just been obnoxiously stubborn for the sake of it. You know full well, unless you're skim reading, that the argument is over light gathering capabilities, I mean I've said it about 50 times at this stage. We've agreed ages back that DOF is shallower on FF so not even sure why you keep insisting on something we both actually do agree on!
Click to expand...
It is quite simple the F number indicates the diameter of the aperture in relation to the focal length. The lenses are identical in that respect.
 
Cagey75 said:
No, you haven't [the circle continues] - either we have crossed wires or you're just been obnoxiously stubborn for the sake of it. You know full well, unless you're skim reading, that the argument is over light gathering capabilities, I mean I've said it about 50 times at this stage. We've agreed ages back that DOF is shallower on FF so not even sure why you keep insisting on something we both actually do agree on!
Click to expand...

If you agree that DOF is not the same then then lens itself is not the same.

Bearair said:
No, it is an exact equivalent on what the F number indicates.
Click to expand...

Wrong as per post 171.
 
I will tell you why m4/3 is doomed, from my perspective.

To get the same look, a A7II with 35/2.8. I would need to get this lens.

https://www.jessops.com/p/olympus/m...wENiSsY5NCpFcJ03VceUZMfzeB6lXBHxoC9eEQAvD_BwE

It is HUGE (relatively) !!!!! and also double the cost of the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. What you end up is a bigger set up than the Sony too. So I wouldn't go to m4/3 to save weight and size. That is my go to focal length. There is no point at all shooting m4/3 if I have to stick that on the end of it, I might as well stick a 35/1.4 on the Sony. Like TN says, the cost too brings both much closer. So when you remove both cost and size….where is the attraction to m4/3?

That's my perspective. The sooner people knows that to get fast glass it will be big and fast glass costs more. You simply can't cheat physics.
 
Last edited:
mikew said:
I dont drink can you give me the equivalent to going to the pub
Click to expand...
Stay at home with a bottle of whisky, music blaring and talk sh!t on a forum, although that is only a subjective equivalent!;)
 
Raymond Lin said:
On some instances, like you can't do for example, recreate the same look as a 85/1.2. There isn't such m4/3 lens.
Click to expand...
Then it is not a objective equivalent then is it, if in some instances you can!
 
Raymond Lin said:
I will tell you why m4/3 is doomed, from my perspective.

To get the same look, a A7II with 35/2.8. I would need to get this lens.

https://www.jessops.com/p/olympus/m...wENiSsY5NCpFcJ03VceUZMfzeB6lXBHxoC9eEQAvD_BwE

It is HUGE (relatively) !!!!! and also double the cost of the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. What you end up is a bigger set up than the Sony too. So I wouldn't go to m4/3 to save weight and size. That is my go to focal length. There is no point at all shooting m4/3 if I have to stick that on the end of it, I might as well stick a 35/1.4 on the Sony. Like TN says, the cost too brings both much closer. So when you remove both cost and size….where is the attraction to m4/3?

That's my perspective. The sooner people knows that to get fast glass it will be big and fast glass costs more. You simply can't cheat physics.
Click to expand...

You could get the quite compact Voigtlander 17mm f0.95 if you're happy to MF or you could get the Olympus 17mm f1.8 which will not give you the equivalent of f2.8 FF DoF but will be quite adequate for many uses :D

And why remove cost and size? These are real world things to think about. I can't see MFT dying anytime soon and I hope it doesn't as it can give good image quality and depending upon your lens choice can offer real bulk and weight savings over even mirrorless FF.
 
Last edited:
mikew said:
I dont drink can you give me the equivalent to going to the pub
Click to expand...
Bearair said:
Stay at home with a bottle of whisky, music blaring and talk sh!t on a forum, although that is only a subjective equivalent!;)
Click to expand...

Pretty much :D I didn't go to the pub, I just went down to the local shop for bread and milk, my ever exciting life :D

simonbarker said:
I feel bad for the moderators.
Click to expand...

Why? they've not had to do a thing here this evening, maybe they're at the pub! AT least there nobody gives a rat's bunghole about FF equivalence
 
Bearair said:
Note the caveat!
Click to expand...

Not really a caveat, you can calculate and measure all aspects of equivalence, but the one regarding the loss of sharpness varies according to which lenses you're comparing. If you use the same lens on both formats at a typical resolution level (say 24-lpmm on full-frame vs 48-lpmm on M4/3) then % MTF contrast will drop by around 20%, maybe a little less with the best lenses, or a little more with a cooking lens.

Since that probably doesn't mean much to most people, I simply described it as a 'noticeable and significant' reduction in sharpness.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I will tell you why m4/3 is doomed, from my perspective.

To get the same look, a A7II with 35/2.8. I would need to get this lens.

https://www.jessops.com/p/olympus/m...wENiSsY5NCpFcJ03VceUZMfzeB6lXBHxoC9eEQAvD_BwE

It is HUGE (relatively) !!!!! and also double the cost of the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. What you end up is a bigger set up than the Sony too. So I wouldn't go to m4/3 to save weight and size. That is my go to focal length. There is no point at all shooting m4/3 if I have to stick that on the end of it, I might as well stick a 35/1.4 on the Sony. Like TN says, the cost too brings both much closer. So when you remove both cost and size….where is the attraction to m4/3?

That's my perspective. The sooner people knows that to get fast glass it will be big and fast glass costs more. You simply can't cheat physics.
Click to expand...


Why don't you shoot MF? your FF sensor is tiny in comparison :p
 
If you take a shot at 1000 second at f4 iso 100 on FF and that gave the right exposure then you would set the same on M4/3 regardless of the lens you use as long as the FOV is the same the only difference would be less DOF on FF or you can say More DOF with the M4/3 .

Rob.
 
Like I said earlier, not everyone needs nor wants extreme shallow DOF, some prefer that extra depth without having to stop down as much. I gave my pros and cons for both earlier too. I've shot all formats bar MF and I learned to adapt to them each time without any real fuss, I never had to get the calculator out.

End of the day, the numbers only matter if they affect your images, once we know the limitations we work within them. If you're happy with your end image, doesn't matter what gear was used.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not really a caveat, you can calculate and measure all aspects of equivalence, but the one regarding the loss of sharpness varies according to which lenses you're comparing. If you use the same lens on both formats at a typical resolution level (say 24-lpmm on full-frame vs 48-lpmm on M4/3) then % MTF contrast will drop by around 20%, maybe a little less with the best lenses, or a little more with a cooking lens.

Since that probably doesn't mean much to most people, I simply described it as a 'noticeable and significant' reduction in sharpness.
Click to expand...
What is the mathematical formula for not really and maybe a little less! All I am saying is that for Tony to say it is an equivalence based solely on F number is false (because of the other variables), along with his other incorrect statements I pointed out!
 
Raymond Lin said:
I will tell you why m4/3 is doomed, from my perspective.

To get the same look, a A7II with 35/2.8. I would need to get this lens.

https://www.jessops.com/p/olympus/m...wENiSsY5NCpFcJ03VceUZMfzeB6lXBHxoC9eEQAvD_BwE

It is HUGE (relatively) !!!!! and also double the cost of the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. What you end up is a bigger set up than the Sony too. So I wouldn't go to m4/3 to save weight and size. That is my go to focal length. There is no point at all shooting m4/3 if I have to stick that on the end of it, I might as well stick a 35/1.4 on the Sony. Like TN says, the cost too brings both much closer. So when you remove both cost and size….where is the attraction to m4/3?

That's my perspective. The sooner people knows that to get fast glass it will be big and fast glass costs more. You simply can't cheat physics.
Click to expand...

But you and Tony are comparing FF with MFT when the direct competition to MFT is either top end Compact Cameras or APC. If you want to talk about doomed then DSLR's come top of the list.
 
I have a Nikon D810 and various lenses but have major neck issues so I wanted a smaller camera to take out and about/holidays that fitted into my bag, had decent af, wasn’t too expensive but still gave me decent photos.

I ended up with the OM-D E-M5 Mark II plus 12-40mm Pro lens, love the camera and lens, I now take it most places with me giving me the chance to take photos that I might otherwise not have got!

I have to be honest I did read a lot of threads here to get an idea of what I could get that met my needs, got to trial the camera at a local camera shop and then made my decision!

Is the M4/3 doomed? I certainly hope not as it’s a great system that for me and many others fits our needs
 
tracybradbury said:
I have a Nikon D810 and various lenses but have major neck issues so I wanted a smaller camera to take out and about/holidays that fitted into my bag, had decent af, wasn’t too expensive but still gave me decent photos.

I ended up with the OM-D E-M5 Mark II plus 12-40mm Pro lens, love the camera and lens, I now take it most places with me giving me the chance to take photos that I might otherwise not have got!

I have to be honest I did read a lot of threads here to get an idea of what I could get that met my needs, got to trial the camera at a local camera shop and then made my decision!

Is the M4/3 doomed? I certainly hope not as it’s a great system that for me and many others fits our needs
Click to expand...

I wish I had gotten this lens much sooner, it is truly excellent. I don't ever remember feeling that about the big hefty Nikon 24-70, it was just another lens - where the little Olympus feels special. Nice combination that, I almost bought the em5 mkII as I had the mk1, but got a better deal on the G80 at the time
 
Think it’s time I had a drink to , to sum it up ,is mft doomed maybe in ten years time , who cares no one in reality , does your big thing work better than Fred’s little thing no one knows and what’s more no one cares time for this b******t to be put to bed
 
I just told my G7 its doomed:(, actually I really like it apart from my little pinkie sticks out the bottom making me look like a posh member of the mad hatters tea party!;)
 
the black fox said:
Think it’s time I had a drink to , to sum it up ,is mft doomed maybe in ten years time , who cares no one in reality , does your big thing work better than Fred’s little thing no one knows and what’s more no one cares time for this b******t to be put to bed
Click to expand...

Poor Fred :D
 
Bearair said:
I just told my G7 its doomed:(, actually I really like it apart from my little pinkie sticks out the bottom making me look like a posh member of the mad hatters tea party!;)
Click to expand...

You can get a grip for the G7 I think? you can for the G80 at least. I had one, sorry I sold it, when you stick a heavier lens on there it's nice to have, but that's rare enough for me. I know there's third party ones for about £45, might get one at some point
 
Cagey75 said:
Poor Fred :D
Click to expand...
Yep but it’s seems we now got little willy involved to . And what with flickr going up and the price of fuel plus my car needs two new tyres I think that as the mft system is now dead i’m Gonna dig a big hole in the garden and bury it all tomorrow , goodbye fair world
 
Cagey75 said:
You can get a grip for the G7 I think? you can for the G80 at least. I had one, sorry I sold it, when you stick a heavier lens on there it's nice to have, but that's rare enough for me. I know there's third party ones for about £45, might get one at some point
Click to expand...
Never thought of that! Good thinking!:)
 
There is no Lumix Grip for the G7. They do grips for the G80, G9, GH3/GH4 and GH5/GH5S. I have one on my GH3 and it makes balancing larger lenses much more pleasant, but it's hardly a light travel option.
 
Bet there's a grip for all FF camera's!;)
 
Cagey75 said:
Many other youtubers have challenged him in the past, so someone's wrong. He doesn't know more than any of us just because he's 'famous' btw ... and I'd love to challenge him directly, he is wrong on the light gathering equiv side. Go back and check the article I posted earlier. I'll go by that over some well known vlogger or some bloke on the forums - no offence, but I mean anyone who's wrongly trying to convince us that 2.8 M43 should be compared to 5.6 FF for anything but DOF
Click to expand...

TN is correct on the light gathering equivalence. It's in the article you referenced and quoted earlier, at the bottom of this page under Total Light
https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

There really shouldn't be any argument on the physics of equivalence - facts is facts. Though there's plenty of room for opinion based on their significance, that's a very different thing.

FWIW, I think TN has a point. The camera market has been contracting for several years. As smartphones move relentlessly upwards, they're eating sales of 'proper' cameras at an alarming rate - starting, logically enough, with the smaller sensor formats first. That's happening now, in a big way - small sensor compacts dead, Nikon 1-series with 1" sensor dead, M4/3 innovations stalled and sales flagging. No wonder the major brands are pushing larger sensor formats as hard as they can.

There will always be a gap in the market for those things that M4/3 does well - plenty of evidence for that in this thread - but as the saying goes, is there a market in the gap?
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
TN is correct on the light gathering equivalence. It's in the article you referenced and quoted earlier, at the bottom of this page under Total Light
https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

There really shouldn't be any argument on the physics of equivalence - facts is facts. Though there's plenty of room for opinion based on their significance, that's a very different thing.

FWIW, I think TN has a point. The camera market has been contracting for several years. As smartphones move relentlessly upwards, they're eating sales of 'proper' cameras at an alarming rate - starting, logically enough, with the smaller sensor formats first. That's happening now, in a big way - small sensor compacts dead, Nikon 1-series with 1" sensor dead, M4/3 innovations stalled and sales flagging. No wonder the major brands are pushing larger sensor formats as hard as they can.

There will always be a gap in the market for those things that M4/3 does well - plenty of evidence for that in this thread - but as the saying goes, is there a market in the gap?
Click to expand...

He's talking about ISO, not aperture which is what we've been discussing. TN doesn't mention any such thing because he doesn't even understand what he's saying, he simply makes blanket statements such as "2.8 would be 5.6 on FF" he doesn't back it up with any reasoning. A it like Ray, who simply heard this on youtube and went with it because it suits him to think it. He's not right, what you're pointing me to isn't even what we're talking about, and I don't know why you still care tbh

It's this simple, if I'm using a 2.8 lens on my M43 camera, it is 2.8 on that camera ... I don't need to know it's equivalent unless I plan to use that lens on a FF camera, which is impossible.

Read page 2 also

While there certainly was some snobbery about the size of 35mm film vs a large format or medium format film, the size differences there are many times what we are talking about between full frame and smaller format interchangeable lens cameras of today. The ‘normal’ lens on 645 medium format camera is 75mm. On 35mm it’s 50mm, on APS-C it’s 30-35mm, and on 4/3 it’s 25mm. Why don’t we make 645 medium format the ‘reference’. Then ‘full frame’ would have a crop factor too? The whole point is, the use of 35mm as the ‘master format’ is arbitrary, and the use of crop factors to denote equivalent lenses is a modern invention that has little use except to help jog the memories of those used to one format and transitioning to another.

FF is actually also a crop format when it's compared to proper large formats, it's funny when you think that for some, FF is the be-all end all and constantly have to push this whole comparison thing - not even using the E word anymore

Another interesting snippet from the article

While a full frame sensor of the same sensor technology will still generally have a little better dynamic range, this has much more to do with the individual sensor than the size any more. For instance, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 has better dynamic range than ANY Canon DSLR ever made, while the APS-C Nikon D5200 is within 1/3 stop of matching the dynamic range of the Nikon D600.

This I am very surprised by if true. And before anyone gets too excited either way, this article is from 2013, but still surprising
 
Last edited:
2.8 on FF is like 5.6 on m4/3 is self explanatory as 1+1=2.

I really thought it would be insulting to you intelligence by telling you! But if you want to know, it has already been said that he has OTHER supporting videos which you need to watch.
 
Raymond Lin said:
2.8 on FF is like 5.6 on m4/3 is self explanatory as 1+1=2.

I really thought it would be insulting to you intelligence by telling you! But if you want to know, it has already been said that he has OTHER supporting videos which you need to watch.
Click to expand...

Did it take you all night to come up with that math Ray? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top