Jump to content

Hi to all our members ... We  would just like to draw your attention to the latest post on the following link... Thank you for your attention .If you have already responded to my note  on Chatbox  about this please ignore this sticky note ... Thanks  folks ....

http://www.tipf.co.uk/forums/topic/46369-important~-the-forum-its-future-and-finances/

Clicker and Ryewolf   ADMIN TEAM 

Regretfully we have to once again ask members for  some financial support in order to  keep TIPF  running till December 2023. The more pledges we have to become  FRIEND OF THE FORUM  the less the individual cost will be so  if you want this Forum to continue  please follow the link below  and decide  if you are able to  support us . Thank you all for your support in the past ... it has been appreciated  a great deal ...

https://www.tipf.co.uk/forums/topic/57184-202223-forum-finances-update-important-notice/

 Clicker and Ryewolf  ...  Admin Team 

Hi TIPFers 

I AM HERE AGAIN WITH THE  BEGGING BOWL TO ENSURE THE FORUM CAN KEEP GOING ... Please follow  below if you want to  support the continuation  of this Forum and  this  small but friendly community. 

As always your support is  both vital and appreciated ...

 Clicker and Ryewolf ...

https://www.tipf.co.uk/forums/topic/57184-202223-forum-finances-update-4th-july-2023/

 

Full frame and M4/3


chorleyjeff

Recommended Posts

Never used micro 4/3 system so cannot really comment.  If I was satisfied with the prints I would stick with the format rather than go with a larger dslr.  But that comes from someone who has recently downsized from a dslr (not full frame) to a mirrorless setup which has completely bowled me over.  But I guess the flip side of that is, if you want to do and can, just do it? 

Link to comment

Off the top of my head....

* The m4/3 system has severely limited higher ISO performance due to its tiny size
* The smaller pixels limit the dynamic range of the sensor even at base ISO and it falls away faster as the gain is applied
* It s extremely difficult to get a narrow enough depth of field to satisfy those who shoot primarily portraits or for those who like significant background separation in general
* To get a truly wide angle you need a mega low focal length which comes with massive amounts of optical compromises - there is a crazy amount of software correction going on with these m4/3 lenses which knackers corner performance
 

Link to comment

Thanks for replies.

I use base ISO most of the time and look for good depth of field ,rarely shoot in semi darkness and having tried a 9-18 lens decided extreme wideangle is not for me. I understand I can print large from files made in good  light but my main area of concern is smoothness of tonality.

I asked the question because I went on a landscape photo tour before Easter and the. other three participants had full frame Canons with massive lenses but also used small compact cameras. Two of the people were relative newcomers to photography. And I have noticed that serious photographers tend to have expensive full frame  cameras. I was just wondering what I am missing apart from high ISO performance and whether the theoretically better tonality is discernable in an A3 print.

Jeff 

Link to comment

Why not? its all about cost. 

If I could afford to go FF I would simply for the quality and low light capability but to change camera and lens is to costly for me. I too print A2 and sell but I honestly feel the quality could be so much better.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, chorleyjeff said:

I was just wondering what I am missing apart from high ISO performance and whether the theoretically better tonality is discernable in an A3 print.

Basically - yes

The DR is a good two stops better meaning shadow and more importantly highlights hold better detail while the colour depth is also significantly higher giving richer colours and smoother tonal graduations. A modern m4/3 is good but no where near as good as a FF sensor.

Screen Shot 2018-04-03 at 19.44.18.png

Link to comment

Thanks for taking trouble to point out info. I should have been able to find it !

Tells me what I feared.

I guess it would be easier to get decent prints with FF.

Hmmm .  Bought M4/3 for lightweight lenses. Perhaps an A7 with a 24-105 lens wiould  be a tolerable weight  for hikes across the moors.

Jeff

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...