Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: 4/3 vs FF

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Question 4/3 vs FF

    I got into semi-pro photography about 7 years ago and really felt like I did my homework before buying the e510 system, which was new at the time.

    Fast forward to today.
    My husband (a true pro photographer) and I took a pleasure trip to NYC. He used a Canon 5D Mark II and 15mm fisheye or 24mm lens.
    I used my 510 and 14-54mm lens.

    When we got back and looked at the photos, and even when we were shooting, I just wasn't happy with what I was able to get. Mostly from a wide angle perspective.
    I have struggled in the past as well. Particularly in low light or high speed situations.

    So, I started looking for lenses and realized that while I'd been happily shooting away for 7 years, Oly and the rest of the world have moved on from 4/3 gear.
    I also thought it was unreasonable for me to spend $500+ on the good glass I wanted just for hobby purposes.

    My husband found a "deal" on a Canon 5D Classic (also in his pro kit lineup) and two zoom lenses.
    We bought those and I've been trying to sell my Oly gear to offset the cost.
    The more I play with it, however, and look at prices on better Canon lenses and compare prices on what I could get for my gear, the more I wonder if it was the best decision for me.
    I have access to a variety of Canon L primes, plus the kit zooms. But if I help shoot a wedding or we go on a trip together, I'm going to play second fiddle when it comes to who gets what gear. Unless or until I have my own. (by choice, mostly, he would give me whatever I asked for if possible)

    I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with 4/3 vs FF and can comment on the pros and cons of each.
    I don't know how to approach my husband with it, but I'm seriously considering trying to pass on the Canon gear to someone else and just go back to the plan of rounding out my Oly kit.
    I currently have the e510, 14-54, 50-200, 50 macro, and 25 that I shoot with and a second e510, 14-45, and 40-140 that I would also like to sell to help fund new glass since I don't shoot events for myself anymore and don't really need two systems.
    I'd like to get the 11-22 and/or 12-60 and maybe a fisheye.
    If I keep the Canon, I'd like to get lenses at 2.8 or better. Going Canon completely negates my desires to not spend big bucks on a hobby. So, if I'm going to spend it either way, I'd rather be 100% happy.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Maui, HI
    Posts
    1,578
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Welcome to the great debate. Iím sure others will provide some input as well. Some of the bigger pros of full frame is depth of field and low light whereas the cons would be size and weight. There are some features in the E510 which no other camera had, or may still have. Like you, about 7 years ago, I did a lot of research and also ended up with the E510. One of the big selling features, for me, at the time, was the built in dust reduction system, and in body image stabilization. That camera was the only one with those features. Iíve never had to clean my sensor. I donít have to buy lenses with stabilization. The lens selection is not overwhelming and totally sufficient. The 14-54 is a great all around lens with a full frame equivalent field of view of 28-108. You may not have been as satisfied with wide angle because the widest you are getting is 14, or 28 compared to a full frame. Youíre not going to get the low light capacity in 4/3 and if you shoot a lot in low light, then full frame becomes a more significant issue. As a hobbyist, however, the idea of cost is also an issue and I have found Olympus to offer exceptionally high quality, in both bodies and lenses, at reasonable prices.



    Of course, with an eye to the future, Olympus is no longer making 4/3 bodies but is focused entirely on micro 4/3 with an impressive growing list of micro 4/3 lenses, though the 4/3 lenses with adapter work fine on micro 4/3 bodies. As a hobbyist, youíre idea of selling the 14-45 and 40-150 and getting 11-22 or fisheye is practical, and would likely suit you well. For the widest angle possible, I recommend the 8mm fisheye, which if held straight along the horizon does not have a fisheye effect, but a very wide field of view, equivalent in full frame terms to a 16mm. The 7-14mm would provide a slightly wider field of view, but its a big expensive lens. The 12-60 is a fantastic lens, but close enough to the 14-54 that your money would be better spent on the fisheye.


    In the end, it all comes down to what kind of photography you do the most and like the best, and what tool(s) will help you achieve the kind of results you want. There are lots of choices out there and although many have gone from 4/3 to full frame, there are still plenty of people in the 4/3 and micro 4/3 camp who are very satisfied.
    "The mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven" - John Milton, Paradise Lost
    _____
    -Ken

    Portals

    https://www.facebook.com/kenfieldsphotography
    https://www.facebook.com/MauiIslandPortraits







  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Thank you for your insight!
    You're absolutley right that the dust removal and in-body IS were huge factors for me. Size was another major factor, being a female and having relatively small hands.

    A lot of the physical, I can see immediately, and can either adapt to or determine is going to be a deal breaker.
    Other aspects - some technical, some corporate, like 4/3 being discontinued - I can't immediately see (edit) or plan for (/edit) and hope more folks will pop up with input on.
    Last edited by OhSnapPhotos; 05-29-2014 at 12:20 PM.
    e510 (x2), 25mm pancake, 50mm macro, 14-54mm vI, 14-45mm vI, 40-140mm, 50-200mm vI, FL-36
    Canon 5D Classic, 28-90, 75-300

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    TyresŲ, Sweden
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    on the discontinued not: the negative, no more 4/3 lenses. (obviously) The positive - lenses are still out there, and good glass can be bought for reasonable prices. And m43 cameras (or at least those follow the E-M1) will be able to work ok with the 4/3 lenses, if need for a new camera exists.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    I suppose one advantage to Four Thirds being discontinued is that all but the very high-end lenses are available used. Keh currently has the 11-22 and 9-18, and Olympus US sells reconditioned lenses.

    On the other hand, Four Thirds does not have many fast primes, and seven years is a long time in terms of sensor technology. Your high-grade 14-54, 50-200 and 50 macro will work very well on an E-M1, which has better high-ISO capability than my E620 (or, I suspect, your E510). And micro Four Thirds has some lovely primes....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    I will leave it to others to debate over which is better. I shoot with Four Thirds (E-510, E-3, E-5), micro Four Thirds (E-P3, E-M5), Nikon APS-C (D7100), and Nikon FF (D800). That being said it has been awhile since I used my Four Thirds gear. If I was you I would look at two options. Purchase a mFT body like the E-M5, E-M10, or if you can afford it an E-M1 and migrate to mFT using your existing lenses and adding to them as you can. Or move to Canon and share the pool of lenses with your husband. Personally I would probably go the second route since your husband already has lenses that you can use. There are pros and cons to both approaches but I would definitely retire the E-510 and move to a newer body. That is the only way you are going to get the performance and quality that you want.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Comox Bristish Columbia
    Posts
    3,222
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Quote Originally Posted by saburns View Post
    I will leave it to others to debate over which is better. I shoot with Four Thirds (E-510, E-3, E-5), micro Four Thirds (E-P3, E-M5), Nikon APS-C (D7100), and Nikon FF (D800). That being said it has been awhile since I used my Four Thirds gear. If I was you I would look at two options. Purchase a mFT body like the E-M5, E-M10, or if you can afford it an E-M1 and migrate to mFT using your existing lenses and adding to them as you can. Or move to Canon and share the pool of lenses with your husband. Personally I would probably go the second route since your husband already has lenses that you can use. There are pros and cons to both approaches but I would definitely retire the E-510 and move to a newer body. That is the only way you are going to get the performance and quality that you want.
    The only thing I would add is the possibility of picking up a used e5 body to use with existing lenses. But with 4/3 being a retired system, going with a FF unit may be the better solution given the pool of lenses available to OhSnapPhotos.
    __________________________________________________ _____________________________________ ​
    ​John Nicklin

    e3, ZD 11-22, ZD 12-60, Sigma 70-200, EC14, FL50R, 5DMkIII, 24-105 L, 70-200 f4 L, RB67, OM1, B&J 8x10, 5DIII, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f4 L, 100D.
    www.jnicklin.ca | flicker | SmugMug | Blog

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    1,723
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Quote Originally Posted by OhSnapPhotos View Post
    I don't know how to approach my husband with it, but I'm seriously considering trying to pass on the Canon gear to someone else and just go back to the plan of rounding out my Oly kit.
    I currently have the e510, 14-54, 50-200, 50 macro, and 25 that I shoot with and a second e510, 14-45, and 40-140 that I would also like to sell to help fund new glass since I don't shoot events for myself anymore and don't really need two systems.
    I'd like to get the 11-22 and/or 12-60 and maybe a fisheye.

    Thanks!
    Followed a similar path WRT starting with the 510 kit and adding key lenses, including the 50-200, 11-22, 12-60, etc. Where our paths diverge is I graduated to the E-30 and E-5, which wring a whole lot more out of the excellent lenses and also allow shooting in dim conditions and fast action. (The E-510 is about as good as one would expect a nearly decade-old digicam to be... barely relevant.)

    And, while I dipped my toe into the Ķ4/3 world a couple years ago, 4/3 lenses underperformed so I stuck with system and legacy lenses, right up to the E-M1. Beginning with this body the 4/3 lenses promise an unlimiated lifespan and combined with key fast Ķ4/3 primes give me a comprehensive kit covering amost all I conceivably need to do. The E-5 and E-30 still get used from time to time, primarily field sports, but I'm rolling in the E-M1 as I become better with it.

    Biggest "format" camera I own is a Sigma DP, so I can't do a compare-and-contrast with Canon. If you still value smaller, lighter gear and Oly image characteristics, get an E-M1 and MMF3 adapter and breathe new life into your lenses. I'm thrilled with the little bugger.

    Cheers,

    Rick

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    York UK
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    I own a Canon 6D and also an E5. The first thing to point out that the size of the FF system (6D + 24-105 IS smaller than the Oly (E5 plus 12-6) but that the Canon is lighter. Secondly the Canon has access to a whole raft of fairly cheap accessories where the Oly equivalents (if they exist) are much pricier - one example being the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens which is remarkably cheap in the the UK. Next with the Canon one can get remarkable focused images in light where it is is difficult see the subject with the naked eye the camera sometimes goes to ISO 25,000 to get these images and whilst not as good as ones taken at ISO100 they are still excellent. I was at a couple of weddings last year (as a guest) and took a lot of ambient light images with the Canon in my opinion much better than the Pro's who flodded the scene with flash

    On the other hand I do still use the Oly for all my tele work - I could not carry a 600mm stabilized Canon lens let alone afford one but that is what I have in a small package of the E5 plus 70-300mm. I use the Oly exclusively for document copying (I have the 50mm f2 lens, a real beauty) and most studio work where I have control of the lighting and can ensure there is no excessive contrast. Finally DOF - I find no difficulty in getting differential focus with the Oly and do have to worry about lack of DOF on the Canon.

    That's my quick answer and I am keeping both for what they each are good at. If you are interested I will go into more detail later

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Roger-
    Please expound more if you are so inclined.

    Hearing real world comparisons is ultimately going to help me decide which system to keep and which to part ways from. At this point I can't afford to keep both and doubt I'll have enough need for both systems, at least in the foreseeable future.
    e510 (x2), 25mm pancake, 50mm macro, 14-54mm vI, 14-45mm vI, 40-140mm, 50-200mm vI, FL-36
    Canon 5D Classic, 28-90, 75-300

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 192 Times in 144 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    You say that Olympus and the rest of the world has moved on. This is true. But at a price. Today even a point-and-shoot like the Sony RX100 is $700. Are you willing to pay the price?

    If all you want to afford for your hobby is 7+ years old gear, Olympus is still well on your radar. I seriously doubt you will get much better pictures out of an original Canon 5D vs Olympus E-620.

    Many people say full frame Canon has better high ISO and depth of field, but in many situations you end up using high ISO simply because the camera has too shallow depth of field. For example, if you are shooting architecture with a Canon 5D chances are you will have to shoot at f/8 & ISO1600. In this situation Canon has no advantage over Olympus at all, because with Olympus I can shoot the same picture at f/4 & ISO400.

    However, if you're mainly shooting portraiture, and you want really shallow depth of field, that's where full frame really shines.

    You have the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. The Canon equivalent for this is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. As you can see it is 1 and 1/3 stop slower, which means the Canon's high ISO and depth of field advantage almost disappears. It costs $1600 new and $1000 used. Selling your Olympus lens would net you about $400.

    Another thing to remember, if you do sell out, you're not really getting much for it. The 50-200mm will net you about $400, 14-54 about $150, 50mm about $300, the pancake about $170, about $300-400 for both cameras with the kit lenses. For all that, what can you get for Canon full frame?

    Which brings me back to the original point - if you' re not willing to spend big bucks, full frame gear is not for you. I don't usually recommend people stick with a dead format, but if you think spending another $500 for your hobby is unreasonable, I would stick with Olympus, as you can find some of the best bang for your buck here. If you want a slightly better camera, try looking for a good deal with an E-620 or E-30. If you want a wide angle lens, I used the Olympus 9-18mm extensively and, other than the slow aperture, it is excellent and a used one is only $300.
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmunds View Post
    Many people say full frame Canon has better high ISO and depth of field, but in many situations you end up using high ISO simply because the camera has too shallow depth of field. For example, if you are shooting architecture with a Canon 5D chances are you will have to shoot at f/8 & ISO1600. In this situation Canon has no advantage over Olympus at all, because with Olympus I can shoot the same picture at f/4 & ISO400.

    However, if you're mainly shooting portraiture, and you want really shallow depth of field, that's where full frame really shines.
    Every time I see arguments like this I cringe. Yes, for the same eFOV a FT or mFT camera will have a greater depth of field than an APS or FF camera but the reason for that is that you are using different focal length lenses to get the same FOV. If you take the same picture with a 50mm lens on both and crop the FF picture down to the same FOV as the FT camera your depth of field will be the same or greater on the FF camera. Yes, you may have more resolution with the mFT camera due to the pixel density (although this is no longer a given since cameras like the D7100 have roughly the same pixel density as the E-M1) but for most uses this will not be an issue.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Edmunds-
    Wow! I feel like I've been called out. LOL

    I like honesty though. Seriously.

    I can't see myself ever going back to a point and shoot. I figure that's what my phone is for.

    It's not necessarily that all I *want* to spend on my hobby is for 7+ year old gear. It's just that that's what I have. It's served me well for 7 years and I haven't really seen a need on a regular basis to improve or move on.
    I didn't stop shooting for the past 5 years, but I did stop pursuing any professional engagements and so didn't really follow what was going on in the photography world. It's perhaps an unfair comparison to film shooters, but I think I can liken my situation to a manual film shooter who knew his gear and was getting what he wanted and so didn't have to raise his eye from the viewfinder to see what was going on in the digital world until he started having a hard time buying film or getting it processed.
    I was doing fine until I wasn't and then I realized everything had changed.

    Does that make sense?

    I also don't *want* to jump to Canon FF. But it's gear we already have to a certain extent.
    My husband shoots Canon pro. He picked up an extra body and a couple of kit lenses when I started looking for something to fill in the gaps I was noticing with my gear.
    So now we have 3 Canon bodies, 2 zooms, and assortment of L primes, and various Canon flashes. More or less "at my disposal".

    The issue is going to be going forward, what will work for me on the Canon.
    As you point out, the equivalent lenses to what I'm used to, aren't really equivalents and/or come with a steep price tag.
    I don't want to go for the Canon name, just to have the Canon name.

    As you also point out, I'm not going to net much out of my gear. It's mostly dinosaurs.

    And we're right back around the issue of money.
    Yes. I do think spending $500 on me. On a hobby. Is unreasonable.
    I don't think it's justified (that's a house payment, btw) and our budget won't "allow" it on a regular basis.
    Would I need to spend it regularly if I stick with what I have? Probably not.
    Will I find something that meets my needs and continue to be happy for another 7 years? I don't know.
    Would I need to spend that and more regularly to get where I want to be if I go to Canon and want my own kit? Yes.
    Am I prepared to do that? No.
    But I do have a body and two kit zooms. And access to primes from 15mm to 135mm.
    Could I use that and be happy for another 7 years? I don't know.

    I know you can't answer those questions for me! :-)
    But that's why I'm looking for input from others as to what they use, how, why, what they like or don't like, etc.

    I do appreciate your post.
    I look at things from your perspective one moment and know I need to stick with what I have.
    And the next moment I look at it from the perspective of I'm going to have to make some sort of investment anyway and I wonder where the investment should be put.
    Or do I just accept the limitations and move on?

    Looking forward to continued discussion!
    Hope I haven't offended.
    e510 (x2), 25mm pancake, 50mm macro, 14-54mm vI, 14-45mm vI, 40-140mm, 50-200mm vI, FL-36
    Canon 5D Classic, 28-90, 75-300

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    My recommendation - don't be in a hurry to make a decision. You have your Olympus gear and you have the Canon gear. Work with the Canon gear for awhile and see if it fills your needs. In the meantime do more research on what you feel your other options are, such as micro Four Thirds. In today's world $500 is not going to buy you much photography gear. I don't even want to think about what this "hobby" has cost me over the last few years. :-)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 192 Times in 144 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    I was just mentioning the money thing because I don't think you're gonna get much better bang for your buck than with an Olympus DSLR. If you do sell out, you're in a buyer's market.

    Now of course, if you have free access to an excellent range of Canon lenses... you can't really beat a combination of free & excellent. But if you're using kit lenses, I would much rather have an outdated Olympus camera and excellent lenses than a Canon full frame with kit lenses.

    If you want much better picture quality with full frame you have to at least spring for a 5D Mk II or a 6D.
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Thanks Edmunds!

    I do have a problem where in general I dislike spending major money on me. Personal issue! Probably some unresolved childhood thing or something. LOL

    All the discussion on this board as well as another or two I've posted on has got my wheels turning again. As Saburns points out, I shouldn't be in a hurry. I think that's what led me to where I am. Partly. I felt/feel pressured to make a decision between the two systems we have and stick with that decision.

    But that's not entirely the case.

    And with all the information I'm getting I'm inclined to go back to the research table and spend more time finding out what might actually work for me than taking what I'm handed just because it works for someone else.

    On that line of thinking... I'm hearing a lot that the m1 is probably the way I need/want to go. I hoping to rent one soon to experience it for myself. We don't have any camera stores nearby though, so I'm wondering if anyone can break down the differences or pros/cons of the m1, m5, and m10.

    As I understand it the m1 is the updated m5, which is probably going to go the route of my e510. So I probably don't want to go that way.
    And the comparison chart I have shows the 5 vs 3 axis IBIS in the 1 vs the 10 as a difference.
    EDIT: (REMOVE - More mp as well I think was an "obvious" difference, but may not really matter day to day.) Difference was in resolution and magnification, not mp.

    What else am I going to notice between the two bodies? Faster focusing with legacy 4/3? Ability to use legacy lenses at all?

    There's so much I like about the Oly model, that I hate to change brands.
    m4/3 is such an open market right now I think I can find something to supplement my wide needs with my legacy lenses until I can move over to fully m4/3 if I ever need/want to.

    I'm weighing options now I didn't think I had before.
    A purchase won't come as soon as I might have liked. But that's ok if it's the right purchase for me when it happens!
    Last edited by OhSnapPhotos; 05-31-2014 at 07:29 AM. Reason: wrong info
    e510 (x2), 25mm pancake, 50mm macro, 14-54mm vI, 14-45mm vI, 40-140mm, 50-200mm vI, FL-36
    Canon 5D Classic, 28-90, 75-300

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,182
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 192 Times in 144 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    The main difference between an E-M1 and the rest of m4/3 cameras is that the E-M1 has PDAF support, which means that you will have autofocus with the 4/3 DSLR lenses using an adapter.

    If you plan on using your 4/3 lenses, E-M1 is really the only choice you have.

    If you plan on selling your 4/3 stuff, then I really don't see much advantages of the E-M1 over the E-M5. I personally have the E-M5 and have not upgraded and don't consider E-M1 to be much of an upgrade.

    The E-M1 is a $1300 camera and there are not many used options as it is top of the line. I am not sure how that fits into the budget you outlined above.
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    36 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmunds View Post
    The main difference between an E-M1 and the rest of m4/3 cameras is that the E-M1 has PDAF support, which means that you will have autofocus with the 4/3 DSLR lenses using an adapter.
    It's a little bit more complicated than that. All m4/3 camera (save the early Panasonics) will autofocus all of the 4/3 lenses, but the speed varies a lot depending both on the camera and the lens. If you need AF tracking or fast AF, the E-M1 is the only option. But if e.g. you shoot landscapes and can live with AF taking a several seconds, then most m4/3 bodies, E-M5 included, will suffice, though it depends a bit on the lens - wider lenses and those without SWD motors have an easier time in general.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,278
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Default Re: 4/3 vs FF

    Well the pros to full frame. Better dynamic range, color depth and lower noise at high ISO. When I print large the full frame prints and smoother and less pixelated. The cons, weight, high cost of lenses, especially if you shoot wildlife.
    i like the DOF better on full frame I suppose because I grew up using film and it just seems a more natural look. Many will argue that point.
    It really depends on what you want out of your photography and how much you demand out of it. The Sony a7 and a7R are quite small full frame cameras if weight is a big deal but then the lens cost comes into play again.
    Me personally I had rather be full frame and a couple of low cost primes than anything else. How many lenses do you really need?


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •