The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

M8 vs 4/3

LCT

Member
Re: The problem is...

...if what you are looking for is shallow DOF - as in, fast-lenses-wide-open-shallow or close to that, despite the qualities it might have in other fields, 4/3 is not going to work for you...
Agree.

...as well as the M8 or as any DSLR (1.5x or 1x) for that matter.
Not sure if 4/3 and APS can be put in the same pot here. Of course DoF is wider than full frame with APS but you can still get some blur with a 28/2 for instance, which is much harder with a 18 or even a 21 on a 4/3 camera.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Re: The problem is...

So this is a no-brainer: if what you are looking for is shallow DOF - as in, fast-lenses-wide-open-shallow or close to that, despite the qualities it might have in other fields, 4/3 is not going to work for you as well as the M8 or as any DSLR (1.5x or 1x) for that matter.
That's not what I'm looking for much of the time, so it hasn't been my problem.

cheers,

scott
 

Riley

New member
i think the main legitmate complaint about cropped format cameras is the lack of sufficiently wide enough lenses to give a wide angle field of view.
just feel the need to indicate that the zoom range starts with 7-14/4 (14-28 EFL). Wide is one thing 4/3rds does particularly well, but it does so with massive DoF as opposed to limited. OTOH, that amount of DoF can be difficult to achieve with FF without stopping down significantly, then you end up cashing in some iso to hold shutter speed thus losing DR and walking toward more s/n.
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/lenses.html
http://www.4-3system.com/modules/lenses/

jlm said:
I don't buy the argument about increased DOF when you use a 25mm to get the FOV of a 50, for example. what you are doing is selecting a portion of the total 25mm viewing circle. if you made contact prints of the total circle and the 4/3 crop, they would show the same DOF, but if you enlarge the crop to get an 8x10 print, which the DOF tables for a 35mm neg. are based on, you are also enlaging the circles of confusion, so the effective DOF is proportionately reduced
That would be the story for legacy glass, which Olympus dont have. You need to think about the lenses and system being matched much as FF135 and film lenses are, but without the poor geometry that shows up in some areas of FF performance.

One of the main benefits is you are able to shoot wide open and yet hold the edges and corners very well. They are not disposed to vignetting, fall-off and generally the optical performance particularly in the pro quality lenses is flawless. You can stop down to get more in the zone for a particular lens as usual 1 or 2 stops from wide open, but not due to optical inhibitions of the system.

So while diffraction closes in earlier, sharpness doesn't fall of sufficiently fast enough for this to become an issue until you start playing out around F16 or more. That really depends on what sensor iteration (Mp) you are looking at.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Here's my "silly little game" ... just to show that the web is not where, or how, to compare IQ in any way, shape, or form ... I'm selling this stuff so I was taking a snap of it anyway ... LOL !

The web is just the great democratic equalizer where mediocrity reigns supreme, and midgets slay giants like in a fairy tale ...

Once upon a time, there was a poor little camera that could, and it took on a big, bad-assed camera in a shoot out far, far away in the magical computer kingdom of Oz ...

Guess which cameras were used without sneaking a peek at the exif info : -)
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Marc:

I agree with you whloeheartedly that large prints rule the day when it comes to comparing cameras directly. However, I usually still see a difference in the web files, especially at 100% crops or the 50% print repro technique... And I do see a difference in the full images shown above too :)

Note FWIW: I used to do screen captures of "print size" view at 240 PPI when I normally printed at 360 PPI to proof print output on the computer. This had the effect of a mild magnification of the final print. But not long ago somebody in another thread somewhere said they preferred just sizing to 50%. Since that was a lot easier than my method and I found I drew essentially the same conclusions with it, I now use it too.

Cheers,
 

carstenw

Active member
The second shot looks much nicer. There is a difference in the highlights though. Did you move a light between the two shots? The perspective also seems not to be identical.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
sorry for the dumb???
but how exactly do you critically compare two images that are on the web as 800x600 max jpg's?
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
For me it would not be a replacement but a supplement and after playing with it yesterday I wonder how it and the D300 match up.
Hi Guy,

Those are exactly the two models we're considering for my wife's next wedding cameras. She may switch to all Oly or all Nikon.

Cheers,

Sean
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Wide is one thing 4/3rds does particularly well, but it does so with massive DoF as opposed to limited. OTOH, that amount of DoF can be difficult to achieve with FF without stopping down significantly, then you end up cashing in some iso to hold shutter speed thus losing DR and walking toward more s/n.
Right, and one also loses some resolution then to diffraction. To me, it makes sense for one to first figure out what kind of depth of field is usually most important to him or her, then pick the format, then pick the camera. People who really love short DOF obviously have great options with FF cameras like the 5D, D3, etc. (or cameras with even larger sensors).

--------------------------------

On the other topic... It's true that downsized JPEGs make it hard to compare pictures but 100% crops can sometimes be even more revealing of differences than a good print. In fact, 100% crops sometimes reveal differences that won't even be noticed in most prints.

Cheers,

Sean

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:
Top