4/3 vs fullframe
- Thread starter crapex
- Start date
- Status
Personally I feel that advantange of other brand's FF camera compared to oly's 4/3 is perhaps higher MP (better for enlarge print) with greater dynamic range (based on larger sensor size) although I have not tested it for myself. And the advantage for oly 4/3 over other FF is the provision for distortion correction with zuiko digital lens and to a great extend relatively lower price (although a lot of guys here will not agree with that)...
As Olympus offer smaller sensor to cater for lighter weight at the expense of IQ, isnt it showing that the co. is moving towards prosumer segment, while other makes are moving up to 35mm and beyond to improve IQ.
The reason I bought a dSLR is to get better IQ and higher dynamic range. And i thought that is the very core of a photography business.
In term of MP and IQ, olympus will be capped in the very near future. Where as improvement may only be innovations in the built and functions of the camera.
I am eager to get enter Olympus dSLR or in the foreseeable future, yet the smaller sensor and the argument of IQ are stumbling blocks.
The reason I bought a dSLR is to get better IQ and higher dynamic range. And i thought that is the very core of a photography business.
In term of MP and IQ, olympus will be capped in the very near future. Where as improvement may only be innovations in the built and functions of the camera.
I am eager to get enter Olympus dSLR or in the foreseeable future, yet the smaller sensor and the argument of IQ are stumbling blocks.
As Olympus offer smaller sensor to cater for lighter weight at the expense of IQ, isnt it showing that the co. is moving towards prosumer segment, while other makes are moving up to 35mm and beyond to improve IQ.
The reason I bought a dSLR is to get better IQ and higher dynamic range. And i thought that is the very core of a photography business.
In term of MP and IQ, olympus will be capped in the very near future. Where as improvement may only be innovations in the built and functions of the camera.
I am eager to get enter Olympus dSLR or in the foreseeable future, yet the smaller sensor and the argument of IQ are stumbling blocks.
I suggest you read more about sensor technology, wafer fabrication process and image processing design before you make such a comment.
Never say never...it used to be that CCDs were better IQ than CMOS, CMOS was only used in CHEAP webcams, it was laughable to see it in any decent camera, never mind a dSLR.
Yet the new Nikon that will be coming out has a low noise CMOS at ISO5000. There's also plenty of room for improvement yet to come with new types of sensors not yet invented. The digital camera is still in its infancy.
but everything said,
the IQ of the 35mm frame will always be roughly 4x more details than the 4/3rd assuming the underlying technology is the same.
BUT I think it all boils down to whether you can afford it and whether you "want" it (not need it). I think not many people in CS need a FF.....
So that is the bottomline lah. Are you willing to carry bigger lens, bigger body, higher price for the higher IQ which you probably won't need?
As long as it is better, people will buy I guess.
me included
the IQ of the 35mm frame will always be roughly 4x more details than the 4/3rd assuming the underlying technology is the same.
BUT I think it all boils down to whether you can afford it and whether you "want" it (not need it). I think not many people in CS need a FF.....
So that is the bottomline lah. Are you willing to carry bigger lens, bigger body, higher price for the higher IQ which you probably won't need?
As long as it is better, people will buy I guess.
me included
but everything said,
the IQ of the 35mm frame will always be roughly 4x more details than the 4/3rd assuming the underlying technology is the same.
BUT I think it all boils down to whether you can afford it and whether you "want" it (not need it). I think not many people in CS need a FF.....
So that is the bottomline lah. Are you willing to carry bigger lens, bigger body, higher price for the higher IQ which you probably won't need?
As long as it is better, people will buy I guess.
me included
A few 4/3 bodies might be a little smaller but FF doesn't necessarily equate to bigger lenses. If anything, Olympus 4/3 lenses aren't any smaller than 1.5/1.6 crop or current FF lenses. And price wise, 4/3 lenses aren't necessarily cheaper than those made for other makes.
Oh yes they do. Maybe not the primes, but fast zooms definitely.
The pro-lenses are weather-sealed, sharp wide open and edge to edge, and are at least 30% cheaper than Ls and the equivalent Nikons.
There are weaknesses in Olympus, but optics are definitely not one of them.
FF has the same advantages over 4/3 that Medium Format has over the FF:
1) FF has a 4 times larger sensor by area, so you can either fit more pixels (21MP of 1Ds MkIII), or you can make individual photodiodes larger leading to better S/N ratio and hence less noise, better image quality and higher ISO sensitivity (Nikon D3).
2) 4/3 camera of the same MP count magnifies lens aberrations by the factor of 2. Diffraction limitations start dominating at apertures twice the size of FF, leading to further IQ deterioration and restricting a usable aperture range (restricting your creativity).
3) Harder to achieve shallow DOF. An example: Canon has a wonderful 85 f/1.2 lens, which produces shallow DoF and nice bokeh at f/1.2. To simulate the DoF and bokeh of such lens, you need to have 43 f/0.6 lens in 4/3. I don't know any such lens, never heard of plans to produce it, and can't imagine how much it might cost or if it is technologically feasible.
4/3 system is about Kodak's long-term commitment to sell a crippled small-frame system for a price of 35 mm (an MBA's dream). They tried many times to do it with 35mm (if anybody recalls Kodak's 110, 126 and APS formats), and now they came up with 4/3.
Just my 2 cents.
1) FF has a 4 times larger sensor by area, so you can either fit more pixels (21MP of 1Ds MkIII), or you can make individual photodiodes larger leading to better S/N ratio and hence less noise, better image quality and higher ISO sensitivity (Nikon D3).
2) 4/3 camera of the same MP count magnifies lens aberrations by the factor of 2. Diffraction limitations start dominating at apertures twice the size of FF, leading to further IQ deterioration and restricting a usable aperture range (restricting your creativity).
3) Harder to achieve shallow DOF. An example: Canon has a wonderful 85 f/1.2 lens, which produces shallow DoF and nice bokeh at f/1.2. To simulate the DoF and bokeh of such lens, you need to have 43 f/0.6 lens in 4/3. I don't know any such lens, never heard of plans to produce it, and can't imagine how much it might cost or if it is technologically feasible.
4/3 system is about Kodak's long-term commitment to sell a crippled small-frame system for a price of 35 mm (an MBA's dream). They tried many times to do it with 35mm (if anybody recalls Kodak's 110, 126 and APS formats), and now they came up with 4/3.
Just my 2 cents.
Is that some sort of urban legend?
Take Olympus Zuiko 35-100mm f/2, for example. It weighs 1.65 kg without a tripod collar and 1.80 kg with one (source)
Optically (perspective, DoF) it is equivalent to 70-200 f/4 if FF. None of Canon's 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 lenses weigh that much:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM weighs 0.76 kg
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM weighs 0.71 kg
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM weighs 1.47 kg
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM weighs 1.31 kg
The 35-100mm/f2 is an f2... it is NOWHERE equivalent to an f4 or a f2.8.
If you can't figure that one out, then try to imagine what a Canon 35-100mm/f2 would weigh.
Consider the Zuiko 300mm f//2.8 and compare it with a 135/35mm 600mm f/2.8 in terms of size and price.
And stop using the term "FF" or "full frame" to refer to 135/35mm format, FourThirds is also "full frame"...and there is no crop factor with FourThirds UNLESS you are using a film lens like an OM lens (there is a multiplication factor of 2x (actually 1.96x) if you are comparing 4/3 with 135 format).
Personally, I don't see that as a larger sensor advantage over a smaller sensor - merely qualities of each and how they behave. It is just physics.
Anyway if bigger really was better, 35mm would never have become popular in the first place. People are always willing to make compromises based on their personal requirements.
Just like how I prefer more DOF than less.
eh? seeing all the experts here makes me confused... i thought a ZD 300mm F2.8 is still F2.8 no matter what due to the construction of the lens?
only when we want to compare it to FF then it becomes a 600mm because of the smaller 4/3 sensor size? and its because of the CROPPING factor of 2 to make it be the equivalent which is also why 4/3 is half the size of 35mm therefore we need to multiply by 2?
Graphical Link
so ZD 300mm f2.8 is still a f2.8. its considered a 4/3 Frame Lens...
the reason why we have the 35mm equivalent is not to confuse the rest of the world who is so used to 35mm equivalent right?
maybe we should start saying the equivalent the other way round?
4/3 equivalent of a 600mm lens is 300mm?.
I find no need to compare as 4/3 is already design specifically and deliberately to be a full digital system from the ground up right?
FF sensor is the digital conversion of a 35mm Film morphing into a Digital Sensor 35mm Big
APS-C sensor is a compromise of 35mm lens and Digital Sensors at the time..
4/3 is on another level totally...we cannot deny that the new 4/3 sensor (E-410, E-510 and E-3) pics looks great!
4/3 angle of View
Crap... did i just contribute to the confusion?
Comparison of Different Sizes
My basics are correct, it's just your misunderstanding of them (are you an Olympus user, because I don't remember seeing your name here before).
In this thread we are comparing FourThirds vs. 135 format, and the size and cost of lenses...to get the same focal length shot at the equivalent of 600mm (which I chose because it really shows the advantage of the FourThirds format), you'd need a 300mm FourThirds mount which is a smaller lens and half the price!
The reason why FourThirds are marked in actual measurements rather than 135/35mm equivalent is because FourThirds is another format, and its lenses are marked to the full frame size of its format (rather than another format's full frame size); when 135/35mm was invented you didn't see the lenses marked in 6x6 (medium format) measurements.
Each format has its benefits and negatives, and for FourThirds it is smaller lenses for the same EQUIVALENT 135/35mm format.
135/35mm format isn't the be all and end all of cameras...for instance if I was doing portrait shooting professionally I wouldn't even consider 135/35mm or FourThirds...I'd use medium format cameras due to their narrower depth of field. Each tool does the job it is designed for best.
Do you know why manufacturer describe a lens as 300mm and 600 mm? Why call it a 300 mm lens or 600 mm lens? Get your basics right.. Go google or Wiki it.
Well.. but if you couldn't find it.. here's your link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenses_for_SLR_and_DSLR_cameras
But, if u are so lazy even to click it, here's a snippet from it.
"The focal length of a lens, together with the size of the image sensor in the camera (or size of the 35 mm film), determines the angle of view. A lens is considered to be a "normal lens", in terms of its angle of view on a camera, when its focal length is approximately equal to the diagonal dimension of the film format or image sensor format.[2] The resulting diagonal angle of view of about 53 degrees is often said to approximate the angle of human vision; since the angle of view of a human eye is at least 140 degrees,[3] more careful authors will qualify that, for example as "similar to the angle of crisp human vision."[4] A wide-angle lens has a shorter focal length, and includes more of the viewed scene than a normal lens; a telephoto lens has a longer focal length, and images a small portion of the scene, making it seem closer.
Lenses are not labeled or sold according to their angle of view, by rather by their focal length, usually expressed in millimeters. But this specification is insufficient to compare lenses for different cameras because field of view also depends on the sensor size. For example, a 50 mm lens mounted on a Nikon D3 (a full-frame camera) provides approximately the same field of view as a 32 mm lens mounted on a Sony α 100 (an APS-C camera). Conversely, the same lens can produce different fields of view when mounted on different cameras. For example, a 35 mm lens mounted on a Canon EOS 5D (full-frame) provides a slightly wide-angle view, while the same lens mounted on a Canon EOS 400D (APS-C) provides a "normal" or slightly telephoto view.
In order to make it easier to compare lenscamera pairs, it is common to talk about their "35 mm equivalent focal length". For example, when talking about a 14 mm lens for a Four Thirds System camera, one would not only indicate that it had a focal length of 14 mm, but also that its "35 mm equivalent focal length" is 28 mm. This way of talking about lenses is not just limited to SLR and DSLR lenses; it is very common to see this focal length equivalency in the specification of the lens on a digicam.
"
Don't you see it now? a 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens? It's just because your smallish 4/3 sensor caused that angle of view to be shrinked? Why do you think that most of the Zuikos are always ending up with the common focal length that the 135mm format user shoots? It the same design as the 135mm lens. Olympus will only have to redesign it such that the lens resolution are increased to be able to resolve on the smallish 4/3 sensor. Duhz...
Well.. but if you couldn't find it.. here's your link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenses_for_SLR_and_DSLR_cameras
But, if u are so lazy even to click it, here's a snippet from it.
"The focal length of a lens, together with the size of the image sensor in the camera (or size of the 35 mm film), determines the angle of view. A lens is considered to be a "normal lens", in terms of its angle of view on a camera, when its focal length is approximately equal to the diagonal dimension of the film format or image sensor format.[2] The resulting diagonal angle of view of about 53 degrees is often said to approximate the angle of human vision; since the angle of view of a human eye is at least 140 degrees,[3] more careful authors will qualify that, for example as "similar to the angle of crisp human vision."[4] A wide-angle lens has a shorter focal length, and includes more of the viewed scene than a normal lens; a telephoto lens has a longer focal length, and images a small portion of the scene, making it seem closer.
Lenses are not labeled or sold according to their angle of view, by rather by their focal length, usually expressed in millimeters. But this specification is insufficient to compare lenses for different cameras because field of view also depends on the sensor size. For example, a 50 mm lens mounted on a Nikon D3 (a full-frame camera) provides approximately the same field of view as a 32 mm lens mounted on a Sony α 100 (an APS-C camera). Conversely, the same lens can produce different fields of view when mounted on different cameras. For example, a 35 mm lens mounted on a Canon EOS 5D (full-frame) provides a slightly wide-angle view, while the same lens mounted on a Canon EOS 400D (APS-C) provides a "normal" or slightly telephoto view.
In order to make it easier to compare lenscamera pairs, it is common to talk about their "35 mm equivalent focal length". For example, when talking about a 14 mm lens for a Four Thirds System camera, one would not only indicate that it had a focal length of 14 mm, but also that its "35 mm equivalent focal length" is 28 mm. This way of talking about lenses is not just limited to SLR and DSLR lenses; it is very common to see this focal length equivalency in the specification of the lens on a digicam.
"
Don't you see it now? a 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens? It's just because your smallish 4/3 sensor caused that angle of view to be shrinked? Why do you think that most of the Zuikos are always ending up with the common focal length that the 135mm format user shoots? It the same design as the 135mm lens. Olympus will only have to redesign it such that the lens resolution are increased to be able to resolve on the smallish 4/3 sensor. Duhz...
A 300mm F/2.8 is always a 300mm F/2.8 regardless of what sensor size you use.
The aperture F number is basically the diameter of the diaphragm divided by the actual focal length
I’m sure most of us here already know that 35mm format equivalent refers to the field of view and not the focal length.
A 300mm F/2.8 may have a 600mm field of view based on the 35mm aka 135 format on the Olympus DSLR but the similarity with a 600mm lens on a full frame stops there.
[FONT="]Now compare (assume same lens quality) :
Imaginary Olympus full frame camera, 600mm lens, @F/2.8 from 20 metres away.
vs
Olympus DSLR, 300mm lens, @F/2.8 from 20 metres away.
Now the composition is the same.
Details captured is different as the magnification factors are :
Full frame = 600mm/20m = 3/100
Olympus DSLR = 300mm/20m = 3/200
Compared to the Olympus DSLR, the full frame needs less shrinkage of the scene to fit into the image sensor and therefore more details can be resolved.
Perspective wise, they are the same since they are at the same 10m shooting distance.
However, DOF is definitely different. The Olympus DSLR with 300mm @F/2.8 from 10m away has about the same DOF as the full frame with 600mm @F/5.6 from 10m away.
To get the same shallow DOF as the full frame's 600mm @F/2.8, the Olympus DSLR with 300mm needs to shoot at F/1.4.
On the other hand, the full frame can get the same deeper DOF as the Olympus DSLR by simply stopping down to F/5.6.
On top of that, in terms of light gathering, the diaphragm @F/2.8 for 600mm is definitely bigger than@F/2.8 for 300mm. The more light gathered by the 600mm is of course now spread over a larger image sensor on the full frame and therefore there is no aperture advantage in terms of exposure. However, there is noise to signal advantage for the full frame over the smaller sensor.
====
If a 300mm lens on an Olympus DSLR can be equated to a 600mm lens on a full frame, then the 84mm lens on Olympus SP550-UZ or Panasonc FZ18 (both of which has a crop factor of 6x and 84x6=504mm field of view) would be equated and compared to a 500mm lens on a full frame already.
A 300mm F/2.8 lens is still just a 300mm F/2.8 lens regardless of your sensor size and cannot be directly equivalent to a 600mm F/2.8 lens just because you have a smaller focal plane (i.e. image sensor). The Field of view is the same doesn't mean you can anyhow equate a shorter lens on a smaller sensor size camera to another longer focal length lens used on a bigger sensor size.
[/FONT]
The aperture F number is basically the diameter of the diaphragm divided by the actual focal length
I’m sure most of us here already know that 35mm format equivalent refers to the field of view and not the focal length.
A 300mm F/2.8 may have a 600mm field of view based on the 35mm aka 135 format on the Olympus DSLR but the similarity with a 600mm lens on a full frame stops there.
[FONT="]Now compare (assume same lens quality) :
Imaginary Olympus full frame camera, 600mm lens, @F/2.8 from 20 metres away.
vs
Olympus DSLR, 300mm lens, @F/2.8 from 20 metres away.
Now the composition is the same.
Details captured is different as the magnification factors are :
Full frame = 600mm/20m = 3/100
Olympus DSLR = 300mm/20m = 3/200
Compared to the Olympus DSLR, the full frame needs less shrinkage of the scene to fit into the image sensor and therefore more details can be resolved.
Perspective wise, they are the same since they are at the same 10m shooting distance.
However, DOF is definitely different. The Olympus DSLR with 300mm @F/2.8 from 10m away has about the same DOF as the full frame with 600mm @F/5.6 from 10m away.
To get the same shallow DOF as the full frame's 600mm @F/2.8, the Olympus DSLR with 300mm needs to shoot at F/1.4.
On the other hand, the full frame can get the same deeper DOF as the Olympus DSLR by simply stopping down to F/5.6.
On top of that, in terms of light gathering, the diaphragm @F/2.8 for 600mm is definitely bigger than@F/2.8 for 300mm. The more light gathered by the 600mm is of course now spread over a larger image sensor on the full frame and therefore there is no aperture advantage in terms of exposure. However, there is noise to signal advantage for the full frame over the smaller sensor.
====
If a 300mm lens on an Olympus DSLR can be equated to a 600mm lens on a full frame, then the 84mm lens on Olympus SP550-UZ or Panasonc FZ18 (both of which has a crop factor of 6x and 84x6=504mm field of view) would be equated and compared to a 500mm lens on a full frame already.
A 300mm F/2.8 lens is still just a 300mm F/2.8 lens regardless of your sensor size and cannot be directly equivalent to a 600mm F/2.8 lens just because you have a smaller focal plane (i.e. image sensor). The Field of view is the same doesn't mean you can anyhow equate a shorter lens on a smaller sensor size camera to another longer focal length lens used on a bigger sensor size.
[/FONT]
i have always believed that such format mud slinging threads are unnecessary flame-baits. every format has its engineering and design philosophy behind it, so please, reinforce and/or preach your consumer decision of camera formats as much as you wish in your respective sections.
there is no need for name calling / wikipedia referencing to make your point. if you have nothing to contribute to the 4/3 format, please make your presence felt elsewhere.
admins & mods, i do think this thread has lost its point, do close it if you agree with me.
there is no need for name calling / wikipedia referencing to make your point. if you have nothing to contribute to the 4/3 format, please make your presence felt elsewhere.
admins & mods, i do think this thread has lost its point, do close it if you agree with me.
- Status
Similar threads
