- Messages
- 9,151
- Name
- Trevor
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah!! I was gonna ask about that…
Want to get back in the game, compact FF?
- Thread starter insertusernamehere
- Start date
Ah!! I was gonna ask about that…
- Messages
- 7,407
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A7C variant with a G prime imo - if f/2.8ish is good enough for you.
- Messages
- 703
- Name
- Anthony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree on the ergonomics. I bought a small rig grip, which still keeps it a small form factor. I only shoot street photography and portraits with it, as my Z8 is my primary camera
- Messages
- 8,839
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- No
Loks more to me a focus /DOF issue than FF v MFT cameras. The meta data would be interesting to see. My betting is that the settings are differentFor those that are wondering, this is the comparison Toni (@ancient_mariner ) was referring to, one shot on a FF Nikon DSLR, one shot on a m4/3 Olympus. I can see more of a difference now than I did when I first did the comparison but I'm still not sure if it's the difference in FF vs m4/3 or simply because the framing/angle is ever so slightly different. However it proves to me there are times when the difference between FF and m4/3 is minimal, however I've had examples where the difference is much wider.
Screenshot 2025-05-02 at 14.18.07 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,319
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I can't speak for Toby's shots above but when I've compared FF and MFT I've used different settings as that's what you need to do if you're trying to get the same end result picture from two different formats.
- Messages
- 7,484
- Name
- Tommy
- Edit My Images
- No
I had an MFT set up for around 4 hours. At the time I was selling some gear that I wasn’t planning on using again and got got offered a trade for an Olympus OM-1 and a few of the higher end lenses which I thought might suit me as I was planning on buying a smaller set up for non work stuff.
Took it out to the back garden took some photos of my dogs and went and had a look at the images. Firstly A.F was shocking compared to my Sony gear and I.Q was honestly just awful compared to what I was used to. I immediately boxed it all up and took it to WEX and traded for the A7CII kit that I still have now.
You could say I didn’t give it enough of a chance to be fair, but I was honestly shocked at the huge differences.
Took it out to the back garden took some photos of my dogs and went and had a look at the images. Firstly A.F was shocking compared to my Sony gear and I.Q was honestly just awful compared to what I was used to. I immediately boxed it all up and took it to WEX and traded for the A7CII kit that I still have now.
You could say I didn’t give it enough of a chance to be fair, but I was honestly shocked at the huge differences.
- Messages
- 26,168
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Depth of field are the same, I took the different factors into consideration before shooting. The only thing I forgot to take into consideration is ISO, the base ISO of the Olympys was 200 and the base of the Nikon FF was 100. The water looks smooter in the full frame as it's a slower shutter speed to compensate for the lower ISO and smaller aperture.
- Messages
- 26,168
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
It depends on the scenario. I used to shoot the London Marathon for a charity and the difference between FF and m4/3 was VERY noticeable, so much so my wife said "why aren't those photos as good as your others". Then there are times I struggle to tell.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,319
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
This is getting OT I suppose but I have MFT mainly for the lenses now, 14mm f2.5, 45-150 and 100-400mm and also for the built in tiltable flash. The GX80 and 14mm + that flash is good for social shots across a table etc plus there's no very compact 28mm for FF.