What is it with M43 folks?

[navastronia]

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.

I've enjoyed shooting different size formats, myself, and think about my cameras similarly, i.e., they have to be fun, and some are more like experiments. I started shooting film during the pandemic and am currently doing Instax Wide (basically medium format film, as far as the size of the frame), 35mm half frames (film, again) with a Canon Demi, and full frame digital on my 5D (vintage m42 lenses) and RP (adapted EOS lenses). Switching things up is keeping me amused.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

Not exactly sure why you insulted me and are trying to pick a fight with me. I don't think my "defending" my positive opinion of the Olympus cameras and lenses really warranted that type of response.

If you, or anyone else, took the term "forum dweller" as an insult, I do apologize. Considering there is nothing to my knowledge insulting about the term dweller - commonly used in terms like city dweller - I do not intend it as an insult. If I had written "cave-dweller" - then, maybe that would have been an insult, but not because of the use of the word dweller. As for having the opinion that there is a lot of FF snobbery on the forum, I am quite convinced of that, but, again, if I have ever personally called someone an FF snob, I apologize. But for having that general opinion, I think there is a lot of evidence to support my opinion. I would ask all those 7D mark II users who are hoping for a new crop camera to replace it, how they feel when they are told to "just buy an R6," or "why would anyone even want a crop RF camera when they can buy Full Frame?" This very thread, it seems to me, implies that M4/3 folks seem to be missing something, or that something is wrong with them. I am not saying that was the OP's intent, but if I am misreading the intent of a large number of forum users in that they often feel the need to lecture and talk down to crop users, then that is my bad.

Yes, I am guilty of sometimes using sarcasm in my replies. Considering forums such as this one clearly are inhabited by a number of trolls and others who feel that - by being anonymous - they can provide mis-information and promote an agenda (such as we have seen for years by Sony users), I feel that someone needs to speak up and point out that those users hurt forums such as this and should not be tolerated. And yes, I suppose that sometimes by using sarcasm, I can inadvertently upset unintended targets. Again, if you feel that I have done so to you, I apologize.

Have a Happy and safe Thanksgiving.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

For some of us, size and weight matter a great deal. If I were a pro photographer on assignment, then it might not, I would take whatever I needed. But some of us might be taking our camera with us while we are also walking the dog (or dogs). Or are towing along kids and family on vacation or to a state park. I am glad you think the R5 is "impossibly compact." To me, as a M4/3rds user, it is too heavy, weighing about 150 grams more than my Olympus E-M1 II. I was hoping to replace my Canon R with the new R6 - really looking forward to it, in fact, until I found out the the R6 is slightly heavier than the R. I was hoping that it woud be closer to the RP in terms of its size and weight.

Maybe some day I will get the 70-200 as it is small and light - for a FF lens. But it is still over 100 grams heavier than my Olympus 12-200mm - and the Olympus is a one-lens solution, which is definitely a huge plus for those aforementioned trips with the dog or the family. And when I need a whole kit, from wide angle to 75-300mm zoom, my Olympus gear fits in an 8" x 6" x 6" camera bag. I would need a bag about twice that size for a Canon FF kit. That is why I - and I assume many others - like the system, despite that there are a few drawbacks in comparison. In many cases I will take the Olympus gear with me, where I would not bother taking the Canon gear because it would be too heavy and cumbersome. That alone, it seems to me, makes m4/3rds worthwhile.

Hope this doesn't sound too evangelical.

 

[slclick]

Love to know just how large the m43 crowd is printing?

I know, I know... kids are asking "What is printing?"

 

[analoggrotto]

Hope this doesn't sound too evangelical.

Do you interrupt photography meets to bring up these advantages to the m43 ecosystem? That is what I'm getting at here, just wondering if my observations are universal.

And yes for all the R5 has, especially coming from the weapon like weight of the 5D, it is Prince versus Charlie Murphy.

 

[usern4cr]

Love to know just how large the m43 crowd is printing?

I know, I know... kids are asking "What is printing?"

Well, I printed some of my Olympus 20MP files (with their 'pro' lenses after DXO work & prime denoising and quality upsampling) to 32" wide, sent to Whitwall in Germany for fuji crystal photo(not ink) prints, and they look truly beautiful, and I'm sure I could print them bigger if I had to. Also made panos from them to over a GigaPixel which I could print to full 4'x8' size, or larger(if that was possible somewhere), all from those M43 20MP files. It's not always the size of what you start with, but what you can do with it with the right tools!

But the single 45MP files I'm getting from the R5 and RF L lenses are even better! (and yes, they better be for the price & size/weight).

 

[stevelee]

Printing is not that critical. I know there are lots and lots of “that depends“ considerations. I mostly make prints on 13” x 19” paper. My first digital camera was 4MP. I have a print of a picture I made with it in Glacier Bay in 2002, framed and hanging in my hall gallery. It looks great. Others were made with my 1” sensor cameras. M43 has about twice that sensor size (?) so should do fine. While not a linear relationship, generally the bigger the print, the farther from it you stand to view. I like to have 300 pixels per inch when printing on my inkjet. But if I go below that, I really don’t see a practical difference.

 

[Ozarker]

Not exactly sure why you insulted me and are trying to pick a fight with me. I don't think my "defending" my positive opinion of the Olympus cameras and lenses really warranted that type of response.

If you, or anyone else, took the term "forum dweller" as an insult, I do apologize. Considering there is nothing to my knowledge insulting about the term dweller - commonly used in terms like city dweller - I do not intend it as an insult. If I had written "cave-dweller" - then, maybe that would have been an insult, but not because of the use of the word dweller. As for having the opinion that there is a lot of FF snobbery on the forum, I am quite convinced of that, but, again, if I have ever personally called someone an FF snob, I apologize. But for having that general opinion, I think there is a lot of evidence to support my opinion. I would ask all those 7D mark II users who are hoping for a new crop camera to replace it, how they feel when they are told to "just buy an R6," or "why would anyone even want a crop RF camera when they can buy Full Frame?" This very thread, it seems to me, implies that M4/3 folks seem to be missing something, or that something is wrong with them. I am not saying that was the OP's intent, but if I am misreading the intent of a large number of forum users in that they often feel the need to lecture and talk down to crop users, then that is my bad.

Yes, I am guilty of sometimes using sarcasm in my replies. Considering forums such as this one clearly are inhabited by a number of trolls and others who feel that - by being anonymous - they can provide mis-information and promote an agenda (such as we have seen for years by Sony users), I feel that someone needs to speak up and point out that those users hurt forums such as this and should not be tolerated. And yes, I suppose that sometimes by using sarcasm, I can inadvertently upset unintended targets. Again, if you feel that I have done so to you, I apologize.

Have a Happy and safe Thanksgiving.

Nobody was trying to insult you. You are just sensitive, I guess. You said, "If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons."

People who feel the need to "keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons" are insecure. I have an OLY. I have an R. Why would I care a bit what someone else thinks of my gear or any "unfair" comparisons (a matter of opinion) they make? That's what I was stating. You, being sensitive, took that as an attack on yourself. Knock it off. It was an attack on the idea that one should feel compelled to defend his gear... as though blood related. Silliness. Insecure silliness. It makes no got dang difference what the opinions of others happen to be concerning what we shoot with... unless, or course, one's self worth and identity are dependent upon the gear one has and opinions of others about that gear.

 

[slclick]

Printing is not that critical. I know there are lots and lots of “that depends“ considerations. I mostly make prints on 13” x 19” paper. My first digital camera was 4MP. I have a print of a picture I made with it in Glacier Bay in 2002, framed and hanging in my hall gallery. It looks great. Others were made with my 1” sensor cameras. M43 has about twice that sensor size (?) so should do fine. While not a linear relationship, generally the bigger the print, the farther from it you stand to view. I like to have 300 pixels per inch when printing on my inkjet. But if I go below that, I really don’t see a practical difference.

Your critical is not another's critical. Please....

 

[stevelee]

Your critical is not another's critical. Please....

You could come by my house and see the pictures for yourself, if you like. I agree it is not everybody’s answer. I’m addressing just home inkjet printing, albeit with 9 colors of ink. If you are shooting for a high quality magazine, I wouldn’t recommend small cameras, maybe not full frame.

 

[Eric Potter]

Good points, I wonder if RF will follow suit given EF's seamless adaptation to it and some interesting adapters with the new C70.

The RF mount has a much shorter flange depth making it less adaptable. Although of course folks could still adapt lenses to EF and use an EF-RF adaptor.

 

[Eric Potter]

Love to know just how large the m43 crowd is printing?

I know, I know... kids are asking "What is printing?"

A better question might be 'What screen size are M43 films being projected to / displayed on.

Nothing comes close to the video quality of panasonic m43s for the money and quite a bit beyond it.

 

[Dalantech]

...The crop factor simply has to be considered for DoF and light gathering, ...

I honestly think that both of those are kinda "wrong" -wrong in quotes cause it's not the crop that's effecting either, it's what you do to create an equivalent full frame image.

Light gathering is done on a per pixel basis, not on total surface area. If there are any exposure differences it's due to equivalence issues or pixel size and the way that the signals that those pixels produce are being amplified. Smaller pixels are less light sensitive than larger ones.

Depth of field doesn't change with sensor size either. I can fill the frame at lower mags when shooting macro because I'm shooting with an APS-C sensor. Shooting at a lower mag gives me more depth, since depth of field is really just a function of Fstop and magnification. So is the smaller sensor giving me more depth of field? Not really, but it is allowing me to shoot at lower magnifications. I could get the exact same effect if I was using a full frame sensor and cropping images in post. It's called a crop factor because that's all it really is, and it's functionally no different than cropping in post.

 

[honeyiscool]

As a long time MFT who fully converted to Canon mirrorless (both EF-M and RF) in 2020, anybody who hasn't used MFT probably doesn't realize how good these cameras are. I had a GX85 that in 2016 had specs that most EF-M shooters would be ecstatic with in 2020. Pretty old bodies like the GH5 and E-M1 Mk II are still extremely competitive in their niches.

Literally the only thing that Panasonic hasn't gotten right over the years is AF in video, and I switched because that finally became enough of a dealbreaker. And the weird part is they were one of the first to really nail snappy AF in stills, and they had pretty breathtaking video quality even in 2012 (GH3). Literally a serviceable C-AF in video, not even a great one, would have made people unwilling to switch out of brand loyalty, but for me, GX85 wasn't even usable for casual video use with AF. I became less interested in Olympus cameras when they started focusing exclusively on OMD bodies instead of PEN bodies.

 

[honeyiscool]

A better question might be 'What screen size are M43 films being projected to / displayed on.

Nothing comes close to the video quality of panasonic m43s for the money and quite a bit beyond it.

Not only that, especially if you're on, say, the GH5S with its supersized sensor, the crop factor is actually pretty competitive with some APS-C cameras that can't do full 4K readout in some frame rates, like Sony in 4K.

Also, think about how projects such as The Walking Dead have been shot on 16mm, and that is a much smaller picture circle than MFT.

 

[Eric Potter]

Literally the only thing that Panasonic hasn't gotten right over the years is AF in video, and I switched because that finally became enough of a dealbreaker. And the weird part is they were one of the first to really nail snappy AF in stills, and they had pretty breathtaking video quality even in 2012 (GH3). Literally a serviceable C-AF in video, not even a great one, would have made people unwilling to switch out of brand loyalty, but for me, GX85 wasn't even usable for casual video use with AF. I became less interested in Olympus cameras when they started focusing exclusively on OMD bodies instead of PEN bodies.

I shoot video professionally. AF isn't a deal breaker for me. Thats probably why the GH cameras have had such success amongst film-makers.

The GH2 was embarrassingly far above the 5D2 as a video tool.

 

[Eric Potter]

I shoot video professionally. AF isn't a deal breaker for me. Thats probably why the GH cameras have had such success amongst film-makers.

The GH2 was embarrassingly far above the 5D2 as a video tool.

Although, obviously no comparison when it comes to stills.

 

[Czardoom]

Nobody was trying to insult you. You are just sensitive, I guess. You said, "If all the FF enthusiasts had the same opinion, crop camera users wouldn't have to keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons."

People who feel the need to "keep defending their cameras from unfair comparisons" are insecure. I have an OLY. I have an R. Why would I care a bit what someone else thinks of my gear or any "unfair" comparisons (a matter of opinion) they make? That's what I was stating. You, being sensitive, took that as an attack on yourself. Knock it off. It was an attack on the idea that one should feel compelled to defend his gear... as though blood related. Silliness. Insecure silliness. It makes no got dang difference what the opinions of others happen to be concerning what we shoot with... unless, or course, one's self worth and identity are dependent upon the gear one has and opinions of others about that gear.

Thanks for defining what an insult is.

Thanks for defining what being insecure is.

Thank you for stating that I am sensitive, as a matter of fact.

Thanks for letting me know that I consider it an attack on myself and my "self worth and identity are dependent upon the gear one has...". I would never have thought of that! I guess saying all these things about me is for my own good..and not an insult at all!

Bullcrap! I know English well enough to know whan I am being insulted...and I'm guessing so do you. But no matter. I won't pretend to psychoanalyze you.

I guess I would disagree to all those "proclamations" listed above But, of course, based on your comments, responding to them would only further reveal my sensitivity and insecurity.

I would say that responding to - and defending - UNFAIR comparisons, is merely trying to set the record straight and try to bring some truth into the conversation. But, thanks for letting me know that I am wrong...that it is all due to my personal shortcomings.

Can't wait for your next non-insult.

 

[honeyiscool]

I shoot video professionally. AF isn't a deal breaker for me. Thats probably why the GH cameras have had such success amongst film-makers.

The GH2 was embarrassingly far above the 5D2 as a video tool.

That's the thing. Panasonic works great as a semi-pro or pro video camera, and it always worked great when I was behind the camera. However, it is terrible if there's nobody behind the camera and you're in front of the camera.

I realize the concept of a set-it-and-forget-it video AF in a hybrid body is a concept that didn't really exist until 2013 with the 70D, but it's been 7 years since then and almost every company, even Fuji, do at least a serviceable job of it today, and Canon and Sony are amazing at it, and Nikon and Olympus are just a bit behind. The fact is, Panasonic is actually the worst among all the major camera manufacturers today at C-AF in video, and the only one you can't even begin to count on. Considering how much better than the rest of the manufacturers they are at everything else involving video, it's baffling that they have let even Olympus pass them in this regard.

I mean, I've been using Panasonic long enough that I remember a time when "not including IBIS" was a feature they used to tout. All that went away in 2016 when the GX85 was released w/ 5-axis IBIS in video that really worked. I just kind of figured that PDAF would be the same way; they'd be like, "nope" til the last minute and then it'd come out of nowhere and it'd be amazing. That's just how Panasonic seemed to do business up until 2017, when the GH5 was released. But it's like everything since then feels marginal. The GH5 is still their best body, and other cameras just feel like weird exercises in crippling. And they're still using the same sensor since 2017, which is basically the only truly superior sensor they'd made since the GH3 in 2012, since I was one of many who thought the GH4 sensor was a side-grade and that the GH3 had nicer images, IMO.

To me, it's just weird that they were the best, most forward thinking mirrorless manufacturer up until 2017, and then they became the one with the most quirky caveats as every other manufacturer tried to round out their weaknesses. Heck, Fuji used to be tragic at video and now they are pretty dang good at it. Same with Olympus. They were laughably bad even up to the E-M5 Mk II, but with the E-M1 Mk II, they really made an effort, and slowly, with firmware updates, they even got pretty good at video C-AF, and it actually became a pretty good 4K shooter.

 

[Eric Potter]

Heck, Fuji used to be tragic at video and now they are pretty dang good at it.

I have been very very impressed with the quality of footage from the XT-2 & 3. A stringer I use has them and the tonal and colour quality is lovely.
They don't do anything flashy headline wow... i.e. no full frame etc.. but what they do do, they do better than anybody else in their class.

I'm in the panny system. I don't vlog so although I get your concerns, they don't apply for me.

The dual IS system is pretty hard to argue with results wise.. The GX80 would be just about perfect for a lot of stuff if it had a mic input. I've got mine hacked for Cine-D and it serves as a discreet GVs camera or B or C interview camera. I love using it for street photography.. the screen is very like a WLF to use and I have a wee ERC case for it. In good to decent light it's as good as anything.