Micro 4/3 have teeny sensors - discuss

[jonoslack]

Well, not really!

I just found an interesting website - I think that in most comparisons you only see 1/4 of the sensor, which makes the difference look bigger.

There is a common feeling that APSc is much bigger than m4/3, but, when you look at it like this:

Sensor Size Comparison​

It shows that it's not that much of a big deal (mind you, other APSc sensors are a little larger than the Canon one).

If you think of this as equivalent print sizes for a given resolution, then one realises how small the difference really is.

all the best

 

[JMaher]

Great comparison. The M4/3 does look much bigger than I commonly think of it.

I love my OM-D but it sure is smaller than the one on your M9 or my 5D2. That's one of the reasons I keep the larger camera around.

That and sometimes I need to look more like a photographer (grin) and a big SLR with a 70-200 does that. Unfortunately (for the 5D2) the big camera and lens is still in the closet and the OM-D has been out and about a lot lately.

Jim

 

[emr]

Thanks for the link, Jono! I've seen some static comparisons but they only contain a few sensor sizes.

How about this:

Sensor Size Comparison

I was never a great fan of the Pentax Q concept, but this shows how it's nearly in the iPhone class. On the other hand, even a 35mm FF sensor does not look so huge compared to a (crop) medium format one.

 

[woodmancy]

It's interesting that my newly departed GH-2 sensor was as "high" as the Canon APSC, though not quite as wide. With this sensor Panasonic is giving us square frame types a bit of a break. If they pushed a bit higher they would get to square format, which would still encapsulate the current m4/3 sensor size from Oly.
I would love this to happen!

Keith

 

[Braeside]

Yes, the 4:3 aspect ratio of m4/3 does make up a bit in sensor area wrt to APS-C's 3:2.

I easily notice the difference in DOF between m4/3 and APS-C though. Its about a stop, about the same as the difference between APS-C and FF. Of course what is best depends what you want - small or large DOF.

 

[Shashin]

Size only seems to matter when yours is smaller than mine...

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

:facesmack: for a moment, I thought that Jono was on the wrong track

I'm reassured ...

Good night,
Rafael

 

[MGrayson]

Jono,

Nice try, but I still want an IQ160.

That website doesn't have the S2, but it DOES have the Pentax 645D, which is almost the same size.

--Matt

 

[monza]

Comparing the area of the 'teeny' micro 4/3 to the APS-C, it's 224.9 square mm vs 366.6 square mm, so the APS-C is 163% of the size of the micro 4/3. To me this is substantial...whether this makes a practical difference is another discussion however

 

[Diane B]

:OT: A bit OT but I remember shooting with several generations of Canon APS-c bodies. I couldn't wait until I could own a FF. I was figuring I would have to be patient and buy a used--and then the 5D was announced and I pounced. I kept an APS-c for backup but never shot with it. I did try a Rebel down the road too when I was soon to give up commercial shooting and wanted a small body for travel and hiking. That was sort of the beginning of the end as I moved from it to try a Canon G body (I had had the original G1) and quickly passed it to my husband. Then the Panasonic G1 was announced and I tried skeptically. I carried both, then started leaving the DSLR home sometimes, then all the time and now with the EM5 I may divest myself of all Canon gear.

It just seems ironic to me how much I wanted shut of an APS-c sensor and now accept a bit smaller sensor and talk about 'accepting compromises' :ROTFL:

 

[JMaher]

Diane,

The question is - is it really a compromise? I have shot with a 7D (borrowed) and used to own a 1DMk2 and I would take the IQ of the OM-D over them any day. Now my 5D2 is obviously better for some applications but even so it isn't seeing much use.

Jim

 

[Diane B]

Diane,

The question is - is it really a compromise? I have shot with a 7D (borrowed) and used to own a 1DMk2 and I would take the IQ of the OM-D over them any day. Now my 5D2 is obviously better for some applications but even so it isn't seeing much use.

Jim

Jim, I really don't feel its a compromise. I don't shoot sports so I don't need a DSLR to be truthful. I'm really enjoying shooting with the EM5 and I think I just have gotten past the whole sensor thing. I have not printed yet but I really do think I'll be happy with those too.

 

[JMaher]

Diane,

I have not printed yet but plan to do a vacation book and maybe a canvas from my vacation. I'll see what the quality is like then but I really expect it to be very good.

JIm

 

[curious80]

Comparing the area of the 'teeny' micro 4/3 to the APS-C, it's 224.9 square mm vs 366.6 square mm, so the APS-C is 163% of the size of the micro 4/3. To me this is substantial...whether this makes a practical difference is another discussion however

Based on its area, it gets roughly half a stop less light than canon APS-C and 2/3rd stop less than Sony APS-C. So given identical technology, you would expect Canon ASP-C to be about half a stop better and Sony to be about 2/3rd of a stop better. Its up to you to decide how significant that is. With Sony's superior sensor technology EM-5 seems to have offset the gap compared to Canon APS-C and seems a bit behind Sony APS-C. Pretty much what you would expect based on sensor size.

In terms of DOF the difference is roughly 1.2x wrt to Canon and 1.3x wrt Sony. Again up to you to decide if that's significant. In my opinion it is way less significant than what people imagine. If you have 1ft of DOF with a NEX-5N, an equivalent canon shot would have just under 1.1ft, and m43 would have 1.3ft. Hardly as big a difference as people think.

 

[ustein]

>so the APS-C is 163% of the size of the micro 4/3

Maybe a linear comparison is more realistic? 128% linear and the diff sounds less.

 

[Godfrey]

Working in the range from FourThirds to "Full Frame" cameras, I've not bothered to worry about sensor size very much at all. FourThirds and APS-C are so close as to be a toss up once I'm done cropping. The big advantage to FF is more focus zone control.

Otherwise, eh? who cares? Take pictures, don't argue pixels.

 

[Vivek]

Well, not really!

I just found an interesting website - I think that in most comparisons you only see 1/4 of the sensor, which makes the difference look bigger.

There is a common feeling that APSc is much bigger than m4/3, but, when you look at it like this:

Sensor Size Comparison​

It shows that it's not that much of a big deal (mind you, other APSc sensors are a little larger than the Canon one).

If you think of this as equivalent print sizes for a given resolution, then one realises how small the difference really is.

all the best

The Canon EOS M is the world's first serious mirrorless camera.

says

Canon EOS M​

There are also plenty of other nuggets there.

 

[monza]

That'll stir things up for sure.

 

[jonoslack]

:ROTFL:
Ah! Trust Click Through Ken to come up with a headline like that.

I haven't read it, because, although he sometimes says good things, reading his articles always seems to have a negative effect on my temper, and I don't need to get grumpy on a sunny afternoon!

Uwe - of course linear is a better way to deal with it (at least as far as print size is concerned). Of course, if you tend to crop to 4:3 anyway, (and depending on your paper sizes that may be convenient), then it's only 114%.

But hey - my point was really as a response to talking to various people who obviously thought of µ43 as closer to compact cameras than to APS/c.

Personally I think it makes a good companion to full frame.

 

[bcaslis]

...
There are also plenty of other nuggets there.

Like wow. It must be good to be clairvoyant so you can review a camera you have not even touched. I wonder if he even watched any youtube videos showing the slow as molasses focusing.

Still I see a lot of posts about people pre-ordering this. They must be seeing something I don't.