What is it with M43 folks?

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,231
3,449
Irving, Texas
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.
Got to be pretty insecure to think you need to defend an inanimate object you like from the opinions of others. I have an Oly. My opinion is that it sucks. So what. Who cares?
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,739
603
Davidson, NC
Deeply is the only way to get into endoscopy.

As for "equivalence," anything you say (without six web pages of explanation) is going to be misleading. For us old guys who used to shoot 35mm film, it is handy to think of what will give me the same field of view I used to get on my old camera. Whether an f/4 lens is really an f/10.8 lens or what, is not particularly meaningful. (And yes, I must have read dozens of web pages on the subject.)

I've never used a M43 camera, but the sensor I guess is cavernous compared to the so-called 1" sensor in my travel camera, which itself was a big advance over the S cameras I had and more so over my iPhones. I have taken good pictures with all of them. In real life, I can no longer find any use for my Rebels. And having taken 3200 pictures in Europe last fall with my G5X II, I find it now languishes at home, since so am I. My 6D2 and array of lenses are helping me stay sane around home, and then I rented a couple TS-Es to boot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Czardoom

EOS 90D
Jan 27, 2020
135
315
Got to be pretty insecure to think you need to defend an inanimate object you like from the opinions of others. I have an Oly. My opinion is that it sucks. So what. Who cares?
Ah, typical forum dweller. Feeling that over-riding need to insult someone. Nope, I'm not insecure. I guess you have decided what is OK and what is not OK for a forum discussion. This thread, in case you missed it, is entitled "What is it with M43 folks." I have tried to contribute my honest opinion and my honest assessment. So have you. But I won't insult you. OK?
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,231
3,449
Irving, Texas
Ah, typical forum dweller. Feeling that over-riding need to insult someone. Nope, I'm not insecure. I guess you have decided what is OK and what is not OK for a forum discussion. This thread, in case you missed it, is entitled "What is it with M43 folks." I have tried to contribute my honest opinion and my honest assessment. So have you. But I won't insult you. OK?
Yeah, obviously throwing around terms in your posts like "typical forum dweller" "ff snobbery" "usual forum opinion" etc... those are meant to be French kisses, not insults to other "forum dwellers". Got it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF and stevelee

Eric Potter

I'm New Here
Nov 8, 2020
13
4
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.
Hi.

I shoot both M43 (although Panasonic not Olympus) and m43.

I cannot rate my 4 lumix cameras highly enough for video, especially for the money. My FZ2000 is designed with video users in mind... ND filters, great IQ in video mode, 10 bit internal etc etc. And it's 1" sensor is even smaller than m43.

The cheapest Lumix I have is a G7. And I make a living from it (although in tandem with other better m43s) It cost me £250 and shoots good 4K which compresses to superlative 1080 for output. It's brilliant as a B or even A camera (I use it on my wiral or gimbal)

Unfortunately despite trying very hard to love them for stills, there is visible luma noise even at base settings. The out of camera jpegs are not usable in my opinion, and the RAWs need a lot of work. Thats my experience and my opinion.

I went back to Canon for stills because of this. My stills are purely hobby, where as video is my work.

So it's not clear cut. Both systems have their benefits. And I appreciate the benefits emphatically. This is why I said if you are happy with what you shoot with, thats all that kind of matters.

But I will stand my ground on the desperados clinging to equivalence. I think they are being very very silly. Even theoretical idealised on paper physics aside.. that takes no account of big things like sensor design, of optic design.. as it goes I think FF is sucky for video... demanding to manually focus, huge rolling issues still.. so I'll reiterate.. use what makes you happy but this is not the same thing as equivalence.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,235
1,397
Hamburg, Germany
as it goes I think FF is sucky for video... demanding to manually focus, huge rolling issues still.. so I'll reiterate.. use what makes you happy but this is not the same thing as equivalence.
Also worth reiterating: There are values being attributed falsely to M43.

What does the sensor size has to do with manual focus or rolling shutter?

Especially on sensors like the one in the R5 or A7S III? I can't follow you here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Eric Potter

I'm New Here
Nov 8, 2020
13
4
On larger sensors the rendering of depth of field is more pronounced.. paper thin sometimes depending on perspective, focus distance and aperture...

Keeping a subject in focus can become very tricky. An M43 camera set to iso f2 will be much more forgiving and less critical than a FF camera at f2.

Being a tiny fraction out on say, the eyes in an intimate interview, will be very obvious on the huge TVs folks have these days. I know some folk switch to AF and forget about it. I'm not one of them.

The larger the sensor the longer the electronic scan takes to pass over the chip, hence greater rolling shutter. Smaller sensors are not immune although some high end or video dedicated cameras use a global shutter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

slclick

Forum Dweller
Dec 17, 2013
4,233
2,259
Base iso noise is what led me to sell my Pen F. Cute, quirky and fun over contrasty B&W but beyond that? Besides social media sized files, it was nothing but an experiment. Lensbaby use turned out to be a longer lasting niche for me on FF than shooting anything at all with m43. Oh and that Oly menu system, geezus. Even Canon P&S menu structure blows it away. Never anything smaller than 1.6 for me any longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,235
1,397
Hamburg, Germany
Keeping a subject in focus can become very tricky. An M43 camera set to iso f2 will be much more forgiving and less critical than a FF camera at f2.
Sure enough. Apart from comparing apples and oranges once more, there's nothing to note about this. Where you lost me is with this sentence:

"as it goes I think FF is sucky for video... demanding to manually focus"

To me, the implication here is that FF has trouble performing AF in video, requiring you to do it manually. Since no such statement is made about M43, you further seemed to imply the M43 has an inherent advantage when it comes to autofocus performance.

Now, I am either misinterpreting you here (hence the post asking for clarification) or I am not aware of the most recent comparisons. As far as I know, tracking and eye AF performance from the Sony FF models and now even Canon's with the R6 and R5 is considered superior to at least Panasonic's.

I any case, I would appreciate if you could point me to a comparison that backs up your claim, or elaborate on what you meant.

The larger the sensor the longer the electronic scan takes to pass over the chip, hence greater rolling shutter.
I am not doubting you, but I struggle to find a good source for this. Especially when looking at actual numbers (the theoretical aspects are apparently not appreciated as much around this thread), there aren't as many M43 models as APS-C and FF, but the few that are there do not look like they are clearly superior to either.

If you are correct, what should I expect the advantage of a M43 to be in terms of sensor read speed? Intuitively, I had looked for a difference in time proportional to the sensor area, so 1/4 the time vs FF. That I am not seeing clearly in the numbers presented. There are a lot of different factors at play here (bit depth, what percentage of the sensor is actually samples, resolution of the sensor itself). But if just being 1/4 the size would result in 1/4 the read out speed (=> rolling shutter), I would have expected this to show more clearly.

Numbers I found:


https://www.photohaustv.de/rolling-shutter-effekt-im-vergleich (German)

Again, I would appreciate if you could share your source of you have it at hand, or point me in the right direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Eric Potter

I'm New Here
Nov 8, 2020
13
4
"as it goes I think FF is sucky for video... demanding to manually focus"

To me, the implication here is that FF has trouble performing AF in video, requiring you to do it manually. Since no such statement is made about M43, you further seemed to imply the M43 has an inherent advantage when it comes to autofocus performance.

Now, I am either misinterpreting you here (hence the post asking for clarification) or I am not aware of the most recent comparisons. As far as I know, tracking and eye AF performance from the Sony FF models and now even Canon's with the R6 and R5 is considered superior to at least Panasonic's.
Your reading is wrong. That should clear things up for you completely.

I don't use AF. Most of the lenses I have for video do not even have AF on them.

I was not comparing AF systems. Sony may be better than Canons, and Canons better than panasonics. Means nothing to me. I don't use it.

When I said 'demanding to manually focus' I meant it was an arduous task, rather than a compunction forced upon you by the camera.

I've been doing video for 25 years. I trained on betacam ENGS and used that format for the next 15 years. AF has certain limitations, and my experience is that if you become lazy and let even a usually reliable system do the work for you, your eye will be off the ball when it really matters and AF gets it wrong. I shoot a lot of interviews, so it really has to be focus on the eyes, the eyes the eyes.

I hope this addresses your concerns and curtails your supposition.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,235
1,397
Hamburg, Germany
When I said 'demanding to manually focus' I meant it was an arduous task, rather than a compunction forced upon you by the camera.
Ah, yes. It did not occur to me that 'damanding' may mean 'more challenging' in this context (I'm German). Thanks for clearing it up!

As far as your comments about the superiority of small sensors with regard to rolling shutter are concerned, I remain curious as to how much this difference is. If you don't have a source at hand that demonstrates the difference or explains why it exists, that's fine if course. I would just appreciate the leg up for my own understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

old-pr-pix

EOS RP
Dec 26, 2011
422
64
The rolling shutter effect may well be relatable to sensor size, but there are other factors that are in play as well. The recent video by Chelsea Northrup comparing various 600mm +/- wildlife lenses (
at 9:20) illustrates the significant rolling shutter difference between Sony a7RIV and Canon R5. These are both FF and current generation but clearly the Canon has much faster readout speed and negligible rolling shutter. The tall grass in the background of her Sony shot leans over like there is a 40 mph wind blowing while in the Canon shot the grass is standing vertical. Of course, the Northrups have already proclaimed M43 dead so she didn't bother to include the 300 mm f4 Olympus in her lineup. And, Tony has proclaimed buying the new Olympus 150-400 w/1.25 TC would be stupid so it didn't make the line-up either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Eric Potter

I'm New Here
Nov 8, 2020
13
4
Ah, yes. It did not occur to me that 'damanding' may mean 'more challenging' in this context (I'm German). Thanks for clearing it up!
Ah ok. Your English is far better than my German, and possibly my English as well haha.

I can't find an imperical source that gives comparative read off times.. I can say anecdotally that my 7D was better than my 5D2 regarding rolling shutter, and that my m43 cameras are better than my EOS m100.. this is also bourne out by any like for like contemporaneous reviews.

You tend to adopt a different shooting style with large sensor cameras, partly because of the absence of parfocal & servo zooms, avoid whip pans etc, things that are problematic for most CMOS type sensors in a way they weren't for CCD cameras.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,235
1,397
Hamburg, Germany
I can't find an imperical source that gives comparative read off times.. I can say anecdotally that my 7D was better than my 5D2 regarding rolling shutter, and that my m43 cameras are better than my EOS m100.. this is also bourne out by any like for like contemporaneous reviews.
Okay, thanks. There's definitely a lot of factors at play. I just have a hard time imagining what would cause an electrical process (something moving at the speed of light) to become notably slower due to an increase in the area over which the charge is collected and moved on the scale of millimeters (0.094"). If somebody has any good points for or against sensor size having an effect on rolling shutter, please share.

I don't understand well enough how A/D converters work (haven't looked into it), so maybe that answers it. Or maybe if there have been advantages m43 cameras had in this regard in the past, they have not been due to the actual size of the sensor but rather different manufacturing priorities. Panasonic for example is known for pushing video forward a lot more than Canon has at times.

I've argued multiple times now that the sensor size may not bring as many advantages as some believe, but the market segment m43 is aimed at allows designs not found in APS-C or FF currently. This could be an example - although maybe one of the past, seeing that the R5 is right up there when shooting 8k and beating almost all other models when shooting skipped/cropped according to the tests I linked previously.
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
538
488
Kentucky, USA
Okay, thanks. There's definitely a lot of factors at play. I just have a hard time imagining what would cause an electrical process (something moving at the speed of light) to become notably slower due to an increase in the area over which the charge is collected and moved on the scale of millimeters (0.094"). If somebody has any good points for or against sensor size having an effect on rolling shutter, please share.

I don't understand well enough how A/D converters work (haven't looked into it), so maybe that answers it. Or maybe if there have been advantages m43 cameras had in this regard in the past, they have not been due to the actual size of the sensor but rather different manufacturing priorities. Panasonic for example is known for pushing video forward a lot more than Canon has at times.

I've argued multiple times now that the sensor size may not bring as many advantages as some believe, but the market segment m43 is aimed at allows designs not found in APS-C or FF currently. This could be an example - although maybe one of the past, seeing that the R5 is right up there when shooting 8k and beating almost all other models when shooting skipped/cropped according to the tests I linked previously.
Well said, Joules.

My opinion is that there is no *inherent* reason a smaller sensor is better for rolling shutter. The benefit is indirect in that there are (typically) fewer pixels to digitize and thus (with the same technology) it may take longer to finish the digitization of the entire sensor as the sensor gets bigger and thus the max speed of the electronic shutter could have a lower limit in speed across the entire sensor - But that only applies to using the electronic 2nd shutter. If you use the electronic 1st shutter and mechanical 2nd shutter (as many might choose for stills) then the electronic shutter is only triggering a "dump to zero" of the sensor pixels simultaneously of a row at a time, which doesn't use a ADC and thus I *am guessing* could happen at the same speed no matter what the sensor size is. But for video purposes you use electronic 1st & 2nd shutters so this could be an issue (using the same sensor technology). But if the video is only reading the *same number of pixels* in each small & large sensor then I see no reason why there would be an appreciable difference in speed at all.

The real difference (besides the MP count of the sensor) is in the technology of the sensor in how fast you can "dump to zero" for electronic 1st shutter and/or "read ADC" for electronic 2nd shutter. A new Olympus EM1_III uses (to my knowledge, but I could be wrong) a 3 year old sensor, while a FF Canon R5/6 uses a brand new sensor, and the newer technology can have a drastic difference here, possibly surpassing the ability of an older smaller sensor. I assume Panasonic or Fuji would use newer sensors, but I haven't been following them at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

RunAndGun

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
422
101
I was at a photographic society meet once (something I will never bother with again), the speaker mentioned Full Frame and APS-C in some context. Of a few hundred people, a guy in the back shouted "M43" is smaller and better. Ever present DPR seems littered with people dedicated to reminding the world that this smaller format exists.

Has anyone else noticed this?

I'm not bashing M43, but now Canon has answered the call with such lenses as the new can sized 70-200 F4L, the F11 duo and the impossibly compact R5 itself; these folks must feel all the more evangelical.
There is a parallel in the video world, with those that sing the virtues of m4/3. Several years ago, a manufacturer that is actually kind of known for their m4/3 cameras produced a relatively small and highly anticipated cine camera(small in that sense) with a s35 sensor(slightly bigger than APS-C) and EF mount. It was a little crazy the amount of people who just couldn’t understand why they didn’t use the m4/3 mount and kept saying/wishing that “hopefully” they’ll bring out an m4/3 mount version. The manager of the product division was actually a very active member of that particular message board(imagine if Canon’s product managers were real photographers and frequented Canon Rumors and responded to posters like real people, this was that person) and addressed multiple times why and it was still, “Why not m4/3? It should have been m4/3. m4/3 would have been so much better. Etc.”.
 

analoggrotto

EOS RP
Aug 27, 2016
265
154
There is a parallel in the video world, with those that sing the virtues of m4/3. Several years ago, a manufacturer that is actually kind of known for their m4/3 cameras produced a relatively small and highly anticipated cine camera(small in that sense) with a s35 sensor(slightly bigger than APS-C) and EF mount. It was a little crazy the amount of people who just couldn’t understand why they didn’t use the m4/3 mount and kept saying/wishing that “hopefully” they’ll bring out an m4/3 mount version. The manager of the product division was actually a very active member of that particular message board(imagine if Canon’s product managers were real photographers and frequented Canon Rumors and responded to posters like real people, this was that person) and addressed multiple times why and it was still, “Why not m4/3? It should have been m4/3. m4/3 would have been so much better. Etc.”.
It is fascinating how Canon lenses are so desirable for video.
 

Eric Potter

I'm New Here
Nov 8, 2020
13
4
It is fascinating how Canon lenses are so desirable for video.
The canon EF mount has a few things going for it..

- wide range of existing lenses including very good value, fast primes.. 50mm f1.8, 85 f1.8, 35mm f2 etc

- it is an adaptable mount because of the flange distance etc. the nikon mount less so. All those takumers, m42 helios etc.. can be adapted to mount on Canons no bother.

- Canon really dominated the early years of DSLR film-making, the 7D was the first with manual controls and manual audio out of the box (although these came to the 5D2 a little while into the production run via magic lantern initially, but then a firmware update, so a lot of budding film makers would already have some canon glass.

- The EF mount is out of patent now.

- There are some great third party manual lenses for video. The Samyang range is excellent in places, and many video users prefer a manual iris and MF with proper end stops etc rather than fly by wire.
 

analoggrotto

EOS RP
Aug 27, 2016
265
154
The canon EF mount has a few things going for it..

- wide range of existing lenses including very good value, fast primes.. 50mm f1.8, 85 f1.8, 35mm f2 etc

- it is an adaptable mount because of the flange distance etc. the nikon mount less so. All those takumers, m42 helios etc.. can be adapted to mount on Canons no bother.

- Canon really dominated the early years of DSLR film-making, the 7D was the first with manual controls and manual audio out of the box (although these came to the 5D2 a little while into the production run via magic lantern initially, but then a firmware update, so a lot of budding film makers would already have some canon glass.

- The EF mount is out of patent now.

- There are some great third party manual lenses for video. The Samyang range is excellent in places, and many video users prefer a manual iris and MF with proper end stops etc rather than fly by wire.
Good points, I wonder if RF will follow suit given EF's seamless adaptation to it and some interesting adapters with the new C70.