What is it with M43 folks?

[old-pr-pix]

What do you mean by exposure? The settings? As in, exposure time, ISO and f number? Sure, for determining those f/4 is the same regardless of sensor size...

My main point was that M43 allows someone to get into long telephoto photography relatively inexpensively. E.g. Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 for $550, add an E-M10III body for $450 and for $1000 you are good to go with a very effective, compact, lightweight kit. The lowest cost Canon solution - RP plus the RF600 f11 is $1700 (possible exception being a high zoom ratio P&S). Beside cost, equivalent exposure was all I was addressing. I have no argument with other aspects of "equivalence" calculations; however, most of the time I have no reason to care. M43 is plenty good enough for me, typically less expensive to purchase, and generally easier to tote around than my Canon gear.

 

[usern4cr]

My main point was that M43 allows someone to get into long telephoto photography relatively inexpensively. E.g. Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 for $550, add an E-M10III body for $450 and for $1000 you are good to go with a very effective, compact, lightweight kit. The lowest cost Canon solution - RP plus the RF600 f11 is $1700 (possible exception being a high zoom ratio P&S). Beside cost, equivalent exposure was all I was addressing. I have no argument with other aspects of "equivalence" calculations; however, most of the time I have no reason to care. M43 is plenty good enough for me, typically less expensive to purchase, and generally easier to tote around than my Canon gear.

I agree that M43 allows inexpensive entry into long telephoto photography in general. The forced 2x crop makes all lenses 2x longer in angle of view of the subject in focus (ignoring f#, DOF, OOF blur, strength/weakness of lighting ). Their superb IBIS + OIS combo has been the best for quite a while (IMHO) for handheld use. My EM1_II and lenses are super comfortable to hold in my right hand while I walk around (note: I don't have any other M43 body and can't comment on them). And the Olympus EM1_II and their pro lenses are the best (IMHO) in build quality when subject to really bad weather (yes, I'm told that the Canon pro DSLRs and lenses are too). I just wish they came out with the EM1_III a year or more earlier when I would have considered buying it as a 2nd body, and that they came out with a better EVF and better organized touch screen menu system and a few more pro lenses, and oh - they didn't go out of business!

 

[Czardoom]

My main point was that M43 allows someone to get into long telephoto photography relatively inexpensively. E.g. Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 for $550, add an E-M10III body for $450 and for $1000 you are good to go with a very effective, compact, lightweight kit. The lowest cost Canon solution - RP plus the RF600 f11 is $1700 (possible exception being a high zoom ratio P&S). Beside cost, equivalent exposure was all I was addressing. I have no argument with other aspects of "equivalence" calculations; however, most of the time I have no reason to care. M43 is plenty good enough for me, typically less expensive to purchase, and generally easier to tote around than my Canon gear.

Unfortunately, while you main point is completely obvious to any M4/3rds user - that no FF system can come close to portability and cost to M4/3rds - FF enthusiasts can't help but try and denigrate M4/3rds. FF snobbery is the reality on forums, YouTube reviews and the internet in general. Thus the demise of Olympus. It's not FF, therefore it must be crap.

I say let the FF enthusiasts haul around their lenses that are at least 3 times heavier and are considerably more expensive. We don't want them to feel bad when they know that there are better alternatives in terms of cost and weight. Let them pixel peep and be glad that their images have less noise. They have to have something to be happy about.

 

[Eric Potter]

Ok - you figure this out and let me know:
How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a M43 lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a M43 sensor?
How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a FF lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a FF sensor?
Are the two values the same?

The magnification factor of any lens regardless of dimensions is the magnification factor of that specific lens design.

The sensor does not come into it, the size of the projected image at the film plane is what it is.
There is no point comparing apples with elevators. It's a silly rabbit hole to go down.

If you can show me a full frame EF camera that can be adapted for m43 then I'll maybe consider your point... until then....

And beyond that point, as I've already said... even if you were to allow for sensor crop etc.. the sensor designs, pixel pitch, microlens designs etc are so different that there really is no useful comparison other than to see who can pee the highest under lab conditions (spolier, it's always going to be FF)

If it works for you enjoy it. All the best.

 

[usern4cr]

The magnification factor of any lens regardless of dimensions is the magnification factor of that specific lens design.

The sensor does not come into it, the size of the projected image at the film plane is what it is.
There is no point comparing apples with elevators. It's a silly rabbit hole to go down.

If you can show me a full frame EF camera that can be adapted for m43 then I'll maybe consider your point... until then....

And beyond that point, as I've already said... even if you were to allow for sensor crop etc.. the sensor designs, pixel pitch, microlens designs etc are so different that there really is no useful comparison other than to see who can pee the highest under lab conditions (spolier, it's always going to be FF)

If it works for you enjoy it. All the best.

OK, since you won't do it, I'll do it for you.

Q: How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a M43 lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a M43 sensor?
A: A M43 sensor is 18mm wide. Since we know a 1:1 (1x) magnification is a true "macro", and a true macro by definition will place the same size subject width onto the sensor width(18mm), then the subject width would be 18mm. Now a .24x magnification is less magnification, so the image on the sensor would correspond to a bigger subject width, so subject width = sensor width / magnification. So the subject width = 18mm / 0.24 = 75mm

Q: How wide (in mm) is the physical subject filling the view in landscape orientation for a FF lens at its claimed 0.24x max magnification and a FF sensor?
A: The FF sensor is 36mm wide, so subject width = 36mm / 0.24 = 150mm

So the picture taken with the M43 setup is of an object half as big as the picture taken with the FF setup.
Now if you want to claim these 2 pictures are the same, then you go ahead. But show the two pictures to ordinary people and ask them if they're the same. They'll say "No" since the subject content of each is different. So they're not equivalent.

When I talk about one system taking an "equivalent" picture as a different system, I mean that the content of the picture in one is the same as the content in the other. Otherwise there is no use in calling any two pictures "equivalent" at all. A single photo printed to two sizes of 4x6" and 8x12" will be "equivalent" photos to me. If you ask an ordinary person if they are a photo of the same thing, they will say "Yes". That's why they're equivalent.

Ok, if you want to define "equivalent" some other way, then go ahead.

 

[Joules]

Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 for $550, add an E-M10III body for $450 and for $1000 you are good to go [...]
The lowest cost Canon solution - RP plus the RF600 f11 is $1700 (possible exception being a high zoom ratio P&S).

I don't disagree with you. I have said multiple times I don't mean to say that M43 is bad.

But you don't have to buy a Canon P&S to get the reach of the body and lens combination you named. You can also get a SL3 for 550 $ and an EF 70-300 IS USM II for 460 $ on Amazon currently. That's virtually the same pixel density, resulting in the same reach given identical focal lengths and apertures. Also at 1010 $.

This does not really matter in the context of our previous discussion, as that was more geared towards FF and M43, and there you definitely can't get this much reach at or below 1000 $ - yet.

Regardless, my point is just this: when comparing apples to apples, M43 has no noteable technical advantage in terms of size and weight for long tele lenses. But the ecosystem has the advantage of being built around the idea of small and light and its users value these ideas enough to support the release of slow zooms and primes that simply have no equivalent in bigger formats.

It does not matter that a 300 mm 4.0 prime on M43 delivers the same images as a 600 mm 8.0 one in FF would, if that's the sweet spot of what a user is going for and there simply is no 600mm 8.0 available to buy for FF. Or a 300 4.0 is available, but a 60+ MP FF camera is outside of that user's budget. A 2X TC makes for a great argument, but in practice, it has more side effects beyond just the desired ones

So for the millionth time: there is nothing wrong with M43. I just want to provide some perspective when it seems like users are perceiving getting values from M43 that aren't actually there. Like getting the IQ (noise, detail, DOF) of a 600mm 4.0 FF lens at a fraction the size or weight when using a 300mm 4.0 on M43. Or having less noise to deal with in software when shooting with slow equivalent M43 zooms compared to f/11 primes on FF. Those simply are values M43 isn't providing, and the people promoting them anyway run the risk of deceiving others.

 

[Joules]

We don't want them to feel bad when they know that there are better alternatives in terms of cost and weight. Let them pixel peep and be glad that their images have less noise. They have to have something to be happy about.

Can we just please acknowledge that different people value different aspects of the shooting experience?

As you say, trading some IQ for lower size and weight as a perfectly reasonable compromise. And if you can get more joy out of it when the gear in use is so tiny, that's what should matter the most. The reverse is just as true.

What better means is entirely subjective when we talk about about the whole experience. What's the point of calling out the behavior of folks who push the thought of their gear being better onto others, when you're just going to do the same?

 

[old-pr-pix]

I don't disagree with you. I have said multiple times I don't mean to say that M43 is bad.

But you don't have to buy a Canon P&S to get the reach of the body and lens combination you named. You can also get a SL3 for 550 $ and an EF 70-300 IS USM II for 460 $ on Amazon currently. That's virtually the same pixel density, resulting in the same reach given identical focal lengths and apertures. Also at 1010 $.
...

Thanks for suggesting the SL-3 w/70-300 M2. (I should have thought of it since I happen to own that combo - well SL-2 & Mark I lens version.) Of course there is also the even cheaper 75-300 for $180. Doesn't get to the full 600 mm eq. but close enough to crop the rest of the way.

Just for fun, here are the various kits mentioned thanks to camerasize.com. Weights are: M43-920 g, APSC-1161 g, FF-1415 g.

 

[Joules]

Of course there is also the even cheaper 75-300 for $180.

If you are talking about the EF lens, yes, it exists. But it is a terrible deal, primarily due to actually bad IQ. I would go with the EF-S 55-250mm any day for light, cheap Tele on Canon EF-S.

Just for fun, here are the various kits mentioned thanks to camerasize.com. Weights are: M43-920 g, APSC-1161 g, FF-1415 g.
View attachment 194047

Good point of reference. The Canon APS-C setup provides a bit more range on the wide end, so there the weight at least gets you something. The FF combination is of course achieving it's reach through the physical properties of the lens rather than the pixel density, and it shows as a clear disadvantage in size and weight. Honestly, that's one of the things I'm most interested in seeing how Canon will handle it going forward.

On the one hand, they kind of restarted the MP wars with the 90D and M6 II. But if they can't transfer that density to affordable R bodies, the use of TCs and huge lenses remains the only option for reach. And it will make it much harder to excite even the current APS-C users to switch.

 

[Eric Potter]

Now if you want to claim these 2 pictures are the same, then you go ahead. But show the two pictures to ordinary people and ask them if they're the same. They'll say "No" since the subject content of each is different. So they're not equivalent.

When I talk about one system taking an "equivalent" picture as a different system, I mean that the content of the picture in one is the same as the content in the other. Otherwise there is no use in calling any two pictures "equivalent" at all. A single photo printed to two sizes of 4x6" and 8x12" will be "equivalent" photos to me. If you ask an ordinary person if they are a photo of the same thing, they will say "Yes". That's why they're equivalent.

Ok, if you want to define "equivalent" some other way, then go ahead.

Ok thanks. So you did fancy the rabbit hole then?

So what lens and which bodies are we talking about here? Are you sitting with a calculator or are you talking about something that exists that can actually take pictures that people could compare?

You are then into the realms of lens designs, of coatings, of circles of confusion and the effect on how much of a subject depth is rendered in focus...

You are then talking about the very best m43 sensor scraping 1300 iso on DXO vs the very best Canon FF soldiering well beyond 3200.. what time of day are you taking your image? Is it a sports image? Bird in flight? Okay you could go down the dual-iso M43 sensor as used in the GH5s.. but then you are cutting your resolution in half.

What print size are you talking that you are going to show your ordinary person? 6x4? 15x10? A1? Billboard?

I'll reiterate. In BOLD to help you. IF YOU CAN GET RESULTS YOU ARE HAPPY WITH FROM YOUR CHOSEN SYSTEM I AM HAPPY FOR YOU. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS COMPARABLE. FOR MANY MANY REASONS. IT'S VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALL THINGS TO BE EQUAL IN THE REAL WORLD UNLESS YOU ARE COMPARING THE LATEST OLYMPUS WITH A 1DS MKII...

I live in the real world. Not down a rabbit hole.

Best wishes, we're done here.

 

[usern4cr]

FYI: Here's a just published interesting video about the latest Olympus lens release, comparing it to Canon, Sony etc:

 

[Eric Potter]

Great.

Another factor to consider is that Olympus have went bust and FF cameras are now cheaper than an EM1. They can release all the lenses they want, and you can talk about equivalence (in strictly theoretical terms) all you want. Health to you use the kit you are happy with.

 

[YuengLinger]

I have an OLY. It deserves the bashings and the thrashings. Horrendous EVF, insipid menus, terrible ergonomics, etc. Internet influencer opinions of OLY didn't kill OLY. OLY killed itself.

I'm not sure of all the factors that led Olympus to sell off its camera division, but I think influencers were no big factor. (Notice recently how quick the People are to BASH free speech?)

If influencers and BASHERS could kill a camera company, wouldn't Canon be long forgotten by now?

 

[Joules]

If influencers and BASHERS could kill a camera company, wouldn't Canon be long forgotten by now?

Oh, they'd be DOOMED, for sure!

 

[Czardoom]

Great.

Another factor to consider is that Olympus have went bust and FF cameras are now cheaper than an EM1. They can release all the lenses they want, and you can talk about equivalence (in strictly theoretical terms) all you want. Health to you use the kit you are happy with.

We understand that you have the usual forum opinion that FF is automatically better than any crop camera. In the opinion of others, a crop camera may be preferable to an FF camera even if the price is the same or the FF camera costs less. An Olympus EM-1 Mark II may cost more than a Canon RP, but in my opinion (having owned both) they are not comparable. The Olympus has 2 card slots, IBIS, pro level weather sealing, in camera focus stacking and other features that the Canon does not have. It also has better Dynamic Range based on the photons to photos website. To get a comparable FF Canon camera, with 2 card slots, IBIS, good weather sealling (but still inferior to the the Olympus), focus bracketing (not stacking in-camera) you need to get an R6, which costs $1,000 dollars more.

As you say, If a person gets results they are happy with, we should all be happy for them. If you are happy with FF, I have no argument with that. If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons.

 

[YuengLinger]

We understand that you have the usual forum opinion that FF is automatically better than any crop camera. In the opinion of others, a crop camera may be preferable to an FF camera even if the price is the same or the FF camera costs less. An Olympus EM-1 Mark II may cost more than a Canon RP, but in my opinion (having owned both) they are not comparable. The Olympus has 2 card slots, IBIS, pro level weather sealing, in camera focus stacking and other features that the Canon does not have. It also has better Dynamic Range based on the photons to photos website. To get a comparable FF Canon camera, with 2 card slots, IBIS, good weather sealling (but still inferior to the the Olympus), focus bracketing (not stacking in-camera) you need to get an R6, which costs $1,000 dollars more.

As you say, If a person gets results they are happy with, we should all be happy for them. If you are happy with FF, I have no argument with that. If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons.

I think we can believe, rightly so, that FF sensors are generally capable of producing files that result in better image quality and more cropping flexibility, and at the same time we can envy the compactness of Olympus gear. Who wants to pay more to lug around heavy gear? Nobody if there aren't visible benefits!

I've read several times in this thread that Olympus is finished. Is that true? I thought that the photography line had been sold, not closed? Meanwhile, Olympus, after learning so much about producing tiny cameras, has gone all in on endoscopic equipment!

 

[Czardoom]

Can we just please acknowledge that different people value different aspects of the shooting experience?

As you say, trading some IQ for lower size and weight as a perfectly reasonable compromise. And if you can get more joy out of it when the gear in use is so tiny, that's what should matter the most. The reverse is just as true.

What better means is entirely subjective when we talk about about the whole experience. What's the point of calling out the behavior of folks who push the thought of their gear being better onto others, when you're just going to do the same?

Yes, absolutely - everyone has different wants, needs and values when it comes to their photography. If everyone had that rather obvious opinion, then Olympus, and other crop camera users wouldn't have to deal with the constant bashing and - at times - contrived comparisons that those who prefer FF cameras are constantly making. That was my point, made rather sarcastically.

I am not saying that Olympus is "better" in any overall generic use of the term. If you read what I wrote..." there are better alternatives in terms of cost and weight," I think you will see that I am not pushing the thought that my gear is better than anyone else's, but merely stating two areas that can be "better" if you are buying Olympus. When it comes to low light performance, narrower DOF, less noise, than FF is clearly better in those respects. Just trying to state facts, as best I can, not trying to push the thought that any one system is "better" than any other.

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm imagining how Olympus decided to get into the endoscopy game so deeply. Maybe one night at a karoke bar in Japan, some Olympus and Canon employees were getting drunk, hurling boasts and insults at each other, and one of the Canon guys said, " Why don't you just take your tiny camera and shove it up your ______!"

And Olympus did!

 

[Czardoom]

I think we can believe, rightly so, that FF sensors are generally capable of producing files that result in better image quality and more cropping flexibility, and at the same time we can envy the compactness of Olympus gear. Who wants to pay more to lug around heavy gear? Nobody if there aren't visible benefits!

I've read several times in this thread that Olympus is finished. Is that true? I thought that the photography line had been sold, not closed? Meanwhile, Olympus, after learning so much about producing tiny cameras, has gone all in on endoscopic equipment!

Well, at the moment it is still unknown exactly what the future holds. As of now, the Olympus Imaging division has been sold. Olympus will retain a small percentage of a new company that will be formed with JIP. Here is an article on the sale:

https://petapixel.com/2020/09/30/ol...-imaging-business-to-jip-shares-more-details/

I think most Olympus owners are rather pessimistic about the future, as JIP is not a camera or imaging company. What little we know about them is that they are the company that Sony sold their VAIO laptop business to a few years back. From what little I have read about that, they ended up making a rather inferior, cheaply made product, that still hoped to take advantage of the VAIO brand name. JIP's goal is to take failing companies and somehow turn them into profit making ones. With the shrinking camera market, and the long term economic effects of Covid, this seems like an unachievable task.

 

[old-pr-pix]

I've read several times in this thread that Olympus is finished. Is that true? I thought that the photography line had been sold, not closed? Meanwhile, Olympus, after learning so much about producing tiny cameras, has gone all in on endoscopic equipment!

Olympus sold 95% of their camera business to JIP and retained 5%. The new organization - OM Digital Solutions Corporation - has promised to focus on high-end cameras and lenses and to continue to sell the OMD line under the Olympus name. It is endeavoring to retain key technical staff and production facilities. However, It appears there are major shake-ups in marketing/sales and contracted pros. It is rumored a big part of the move was to avoid Japanese regulations/customs surrounding employee benefits and life-time employment expectations. Down-sizing can be difficult there. Some say JIP is only known for stripping assets and selling pieces or creating cheap products. Others think the Richo/Pentax model is more realistic - the brand continues w/modest development but solid products still available. Only time and the market will tell!

Of course, there are still Panasonic and numerous other M43 providers to pick from. And today's gear will likely function for years to come.