4/3rds gone?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Size is one small part of the equation...

Not sure if i see the others. Why do you prefer 4/3 over small APS if i may ask?

[deep]

Not sure if i see the others. Why do you prefer 4/3 over small APS if i may ask?

 

Pretty much all APS size cameras are a hang-over from film days in terms of lens mount, flange distance and even design. 4/3 started fresh and the benefits can be seen in terms of how well the lenses work on the sensor (low CA, across the frame sharpness are the obvious examples). The slightly smaller sensor size allows two main benefits in lens design. For a given cost/size, the lens can be smaller and can focus closer (amazingly close in many cases). At a given cost, the smaller amount of glass needed means the design can be to a higher standard - and this is clear in practice, it's not just theory.

 

There is a false idea that the body should be smaller because the sensor is smaller but that isn't really true. The tiny difference in sensor area is not that relevant and is offset by the hardware required for the Olympus anti-shake and dust-reduction systems (which work very well). Also, the viewfinder is either dim and tiny or needs to be a bit special, like on the E3, in which case it still needs to be big.

 

Now that the 4/3 sensors have very usable dynamic range and are really very clean up to 800ASA and quite usable up to 1600 ASA, it does not matter that much that other formats are improving. It's quite academic for most photography. What I mean is not to dispute one system being better in these areas than an other, just that pretty much all systems are now good enough so it is mostly a theoretical advantage. For those people who shoot the middle or high grade 4/3 zooms, the improved (for most!) depth of field and availability of faster zooms means the alleged advantages of those more sensitive sensors is further reduced.

 

The 4 to 3 ratio of 4/3 takes some getting used to but, in practice, is a better format for portrait or magazine work so less cropping is required, further reducing the sensor size difference. This is something which can be argued in all directions though!

 

The biggest advantage APS provides is for those who struggle with subject isolation - they generally have a larger range of prime lenses to choose from. Ironically, many of those lenses can also be used on 4/3. Subject isolation is not a real problem for 4/3 photographers who have moved past the slow, standard issue zoom lenses though.

 

Hope that explains things?

 

Don

[Simon Baker]

Well I LOVE my 4/3rd camera as it can capture images with an incredible amount of detail, ultra shallow depth of field and very low noise at ISO up to 400 ......... OK it's a 39mp 'blad H3DII , but its sensor is 4/3 after all, albeit a rather large one ( 48mm x 36mm ) !

 

BTW, I'm giving serious weight to buying an Olympus E5 to use with my range of "R" ROM lenses, I do not want to change the mounts as I would still like to use them with my R8 without having to change the mounts back and forth, I think for me at least the E5 will be a good solution. I don't often need ISO above 800 and I am sure the E5 will perform to a very high standard up to at least this point.

 

Simon

[lct]

...Hope that explains things?...

Yes i see what you mean i believe. Thank you for sharing but i'm not quite convinced i'm afraid.

- Lenses. Advantage of FT is the smaller size of telephoto lenses but otherwise FF as well as APS lenses work fine on APS bodies.

- Body size. Last APS bodies are similar if not smaller than FTs.

- Noise. The larger sensor size the better from this standpoint.

- 4:3 vs 3:2. Matter of tastes of course but it is easier to crop in larger than smaller format.

- Subject isolation. APS wins hands down here. To get the same FoV/DoF as an APS 35/1.4, for instance, one needs an FT 25/0.95 which is twice as expensive and the choice is extremely limited. And for slower references, FT users would need a 18/2 lens to compete with the 24/2.8 of the X1.

[deep]

Yes i see what you mean i believe. Thank you for sharing but i'm not quite convinced i'm afraid.

-

- Subject isolation. APS wins hands down here. To get the same FoV/DoF as an APS 35/1.4, for instance, one needs an FT 25/0.95 which is twice as expensive and the choice is extremely limited. And for slower references, FT users would need a 18/2 lens to compete with the 24/2.8 of the X1.

 

Not really hands down! A slight advantage depending on lens used.

 

The lens thing works both ways. Say I shoot a typical scene with a 4/3 lens set at f4. The APS camera would need to be stopped down to f5.6 or thereabouts to get more or less the same depth of field, resulting in a slower shutter speed or more compromise on ASA. Some can, some can't, sometimes it doesn't matter.

 

The thing is that in most situations, you want to control depth of field and you can do that with both formats quite well. It takes a good photographer to make an extremely shallow depth of field photograph work and most overdo it by miles!

 

Theory can help a good photograph but in this sort of debate a lot of people are so bogged in it that they can't see the whole picture, as it were, insisting their chosen format is the only way to go. Absolute rubbish! Give me a Leica S2 where that is better, 4/3 where that is better (even m4/3 has its place) and I would be quite happy. Actually, I use a range of formats from MF film to point and shoot digital. They all work, just 4/3 is working the best for me right now for my paid work and m4/3 is working best for my fun photography.

 

Don.

[pico]

I have a Lumix G1 micro-4/3 and it is astoundingly disappointing. I've even used a Summilux 75mm on it and the camera cannot begin to perform adequately. For my use, the format is dead. It is just plain too small. Concerning real 4/3 - no big help.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...The thing is that in most situations, you want to control depth of field and you can do that with both formats quite well....

I don't deny this of course but why would i choose FT if i can do better with APS? You know what i mean. My only reason to prefer FT was size but when i see the last Samsung (or foresee the next Leica) i begin to wonder if an APS EVIL won't replace finally my old Digilux 1.

[deep]

I don't deny this of course but why would i choose FT if i can do better with APS? You know what i mean. My only reason to prefer FT was size but when i see the last Samsung (or foresee the next Leica) i begin to wonder if an APS EVIL won't replace finally my old Digilux 1.

 

Because of all the reasons I list above! But if a system has the lenses that work well for what you do (and you can afford them, rather than them being theoretically better) and you are happy with the other characteristics (colour, resolution, highlight control, ergonomics, price and so on) then there is no problem. However, saying another camera system that has other characteristics is worse than yours is a narrow view and, ultimately, of no real use to anyone.

 

There's a lot to be said for the all-electronic systems too (hate the term "EVIL", even as a joke there is already too much evil in this world). These are changing times indeed, no wonder people are finding it hard to be satisfied.

 

Don.

[lct]

...saying another camera system that has other characteristics is worse than yours is a narrow view and, ultimately, of no real use to anyone...

I agree but suggesting that the debate FT vs APS ends up to choose between small telephoto lenses and shallower DoF might be usefull for many.

[deep]

I agree but suggesting that the debate FT vs APS ends up to choose between small telephoto lenses and shallower DoF might be usefull for many.

 

To suggest that would be misleading and incomplete. Refer to my posts above. Anyhow, whatever, I don't care that much and have better things to do than argue about something that just isn't that important.

 

Don

[lct]

Two heads are better than one aren't they. Thanks to have helped me to update my point of view.

[nugat]

APS is not a standard.

APS lens must be bigger to achieve 4/3 performance level.

Even then, 4/3 is a better frame shape from optics POV (distance from center/efficiency use of the image circle).

Zuiko SHG prove the point--best glass in the world per mm and performance uniformity.

Other differences immaterial.

APS wins anyway, because "bad money drives out good" (Panasonic VHS vs Sony Betacam, now sides switched).

[lct]

...APS lens must be bigger to achieve 4/3 performance level...

Interesting indeed. Could you elaborate on this point?

[nugat]

Interesting indeed. Could you elaborate on this point?

 

Bigger image circle, lower ratio of mount dia/sensor dia.

I'll leave the elaboration to Erwin.

 

OlympusE1

[lct]

Bigger image circle, lower ratio of mount dia/sensor dia. I'll leave the elaboration to Erwin...

Less than convincing to say the least. Puts put a 90/2 lens on one Epson R-D1 to conclude that FF lenses on APS bodies give lesser results than 4/3 lenses on 4/3 cameras. Not serious at all IMHO. Due to the short base length of its rangefinder, the R-D1 cannot focus 90mm lenses with good hit rates at faster apertures than f/4. It is the same guy who said that the R-D1's IQ is "rather mediocre" in an article that i quoted there and has disappeared since then apparently.

[nugat]

Less than convincing to say the least. Puts put a 90/2 lens on one Epson R-D1 to conclude that FF lenses on APS bodies give lesser results than 4/3 lenses on 4/3 cameras. Not serious at all IMHO. Due to the short base length of its rangefinder, the R-D1 cannot focus 90mm lenses with good hit rates at faster apertures than f/4. It is the same guy who said that the R-D1's IQ is "rather mediocre" in an article that i quoted there and has disappeared since then apparently.

 

Unless I'm amiss...

If and when you care to come out of you web closet and sign your science with you real name, present a comprehensive body of writings in optics, subject yourself to scientific scrutiny, get under your name 5.87 million quotations/hits or so...

...until such time you remain another prolific opinionated anonymous poster like myself.

I am truly sorry if I do injustice to you real world standing in optoelectronics and will immediately correct above statements should they constitute any harm to your professional position in the field.

[lct]

I have no science at all i'm afraid. Only 5 years of experience of the R-D1 and M lenses and a bit more of Nikon APS bodies that's all. Largely enough to take a 'cron 90/2 and put it on an R-D1 though.

[nugat]

I have no science at all i'm afraid. Only 5 years of experience of the R-D1 and M lenses and a bit more of Nikon APS bodies that's all. Largely enough to take a 'cron 90/2 and put it on an R-D1 though.

 

Same here...Currently RD1, M8, MP, M6, CL, D700, LX3, EP1, GH1, GF1, several other dead analogue bodies, ca 20kg of glass...This really got out of hand.

That's why I am dreaming of settling down on one system, be it APS, 4/3 or whatever, as long as it's small, light , inobtrusive, and takes pictures.

[lct]

FF as well here (5D). I live well with different systems but i would like to have a small one with changeable lenses. FT or APS that's the question.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[nugat]

good question...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!