Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: 1" vs. M43 Cameras  (Read 3063 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9294
    • Flicker photos
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2019, 02:47:03 pm »

I fully agree.  One thing I didn't like about the camera was the difficulty in zooming with the little lever on the top front of the camera.  The control was way too coarse.  I recently discovered that there is a menu setting to make  the control ring on the front of the camera function to set the zoom.  Much finer control and shows a circular dial with the focal length selected.  I am very happy with this setting.
JOhn there are a couple of ways of using that ring.  It can be advanced gradually through the entire range.  Or, you can set it so it jumps from one setting to the next.  The normal size of most fixed lenses through the range: ie. 24mm, 28mm.,33mm, 50mm etc. 

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2019, 04:52:41 pm »

Throwing the Sony RX10 Mk II into the mix, and also the update to Mk IV, here are some of the options I am thinking about:

- The 4/3" format Panasonic LX-100 II with 12-38/1.7-2.8 lens
- The Sony RX100 Mk IV in 1" format, equivalent to 12-35/2.4-3.7 in 4/3" (true f-stop values f/1.8-2.8)
(Added Alan Klein's current camera!)
- The Sony RX100 Mk VII in 1" format, equivalent to 12-100/3.7-6 in 4/3" (true f-stop values f/2.8-4.5)
- The Sony RX10 Mk II in 1" format, equivalent to 12-100/3.7 in 4/3" (true f-stop value f/2.8)
- The Sony RX10 Mk IV in 1" format, equivalent to 12-300/3.2-5.3 in 4/3" (true f-stop values f/2.4-4)
- The Canon G5 X Mk II in 1" format, equivalent to 12-60mm/2.4-3.7 in 4/3" (true f-stop values f/1.8-2.8)
- The Canon G1 X Mk III in its "1.6x" APS-C format, with lens equivalent to 12-36/2.3-4.5 in 4/3" (16-38/2.8-5.6 true values?) CORRECTION: 16-38 was a type for 16-48, and anyway I have been corrected below: it is 15-45mm; I divided by 1.5 instead of 1.6

Vs MFT bodies with lens options like:
- 14-42/3.5-5.6
- 12-40/2.8 (added later)
- 12-50/3.5-6.3
- 12-60/3.5-5.6
- 12-60/2.8-4
- 14-140/3.5-5.6
- 12-100/4
- 14-150/4-5.6

Also, I think a good question to ask is "under what circumstances (of both the scene photographed and the way the result is displayed) does one option produce visually better results than another, and by how much?" There is a wide range of cases where all above options can production an effectively "perfect" image because the subject brightness range of the scene is moderate and so there are neither blown highlights nor perceptible shadow noise, the desired print size is not too big (maybe not beyond A3 or 11"x14"), and so on.

I like to think of the "gamut" of a camera: the image-making situations (scene and display intent) where its results are not perceptibly inferior to what any other gear can give because the DR, resolution, usable shutter speed, color accuracy etc. are enough. And in fact, I suggest that there is a significant "gamut" of situations where good phone cameras produce effectively "perfect" results. More importantly, a great proportion of people rarely or never want to do photography outside that gamut, so the best choice for them is indeed a phone. And in fact also for me on outings where I am happy to stay within my phone's gamut.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 07:34:26 pm by BJL »
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2019, 05:49:02 pm »

What do you want to do with an m43 that you can't do with a 1"? Print larger?

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9294
    • Flicker photos
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2019, 06:40:19 pm »

What do you want to do with an m43 that you can't do with a 1"? Print larger?
Well, I thought that I'd get better IQ from m43.  But it sounds like it's not that much different.  What about DOF for portrait shooting?

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2030
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2019, 07:05:10 pm »

Well, I thought that I'd get better IQ from m43.  But it sounds like it's not that much different.  What about DOF for portrait shooting?
You get better IQ from m43. You get less depth of field for portraiture with m43. Whether the differences are meaningful to your photography can only be answered by you.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16910
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2019, 07:18:20 pm »

Well, I thought that I'd get better IQ from m43...

Look, people... they compared an iPhone 11 Pro with a Fuji 100 Mpx medium format and most people couldn't tell the difference.* You can't possibly see a better IQ from just a marginally larger sensor, as it is the case with 1" vs. m43, in 80-90% of cases.

https://fstoppers.com/bts/photographer-compares-iphone-11-pro-against-his-13000-camera-416228?fbclid=IwAR3AhnHY_EfMa924aDXm50OcaG_unp9M_4QSIbA_C-OtdTgx2saEz7QC5mE

Obviously, if you want to shoot mostly portraits with a shallow depth-of-field, an m43 with a fast telephoto (e.g., Zuiko 75/1.7) would be a better option.

*Remember Michael Reichmann's comparison between p&s Canon G10 and a $50,000 medium-format Hasselblad years ago?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 08:01:13 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9294
    • Flicker photos
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2019, 07:22:37 pm »

I think I'll sit on it.  In any case, the thought of learning a new menu system doesn;t make me feel any too cheerful.  Thanks all for your input.

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2019, 07:56:15 pm »

You get less depth of field for portraiture with m43.
That depends on the lens, and looking at the updated list in my previous post https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132572.msg1135445#msg1135445, Alan's current camera has a f/1.8-2.8 lens, so even allowing for the smaller format, that lens used wide open gives shallower DOF (and likely better low light performance) than almost any MFT zoom lens option. The only way to get shallower DOF is with a lens like the 12-40/2.8, 45/1.2 or 60/2.8.

Whether the differences are meaningful to your photography can only be answered by you.
Indeed!
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9294
    • Flicker photos
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #28 on: October 22, 2019, 08:07:52 pm »

That depends on the lens, and looking at the updated list in my previous post https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132572.msg1135445#msg1135445, Alan's current camera has a f/1.8-2.8 lens, so even allowing for the smaller format, that lens used wide open gives shallower DOF (and likely better low light performance) than almost any MFT zoom lens option. The only way to get shallower DOF is with a lens like the 12-40/2.8, 45/1.2 or 60/2.8.
Indeed!

That's interesting.  I didn't think of it.  Now that you mention it, when you go to the later RX100 models, the ones with zooms up to 200mm, the aperture really gets worse. It starts at f2.8 to f4.5 and quickly loses even its low end as you move away zooming up from 24mm.

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2019, 03:46:12 am »

I have a Panasonic TZ100 which I think has a 24-240mm lens, also Panasonic GX9 and GX80.

I think for IQ the TZ100 is definitely behind MFT for DR and overall IQ and definitely if you pixel peep. I'll happily crop a MFT picture to 100% (for bird and flower shots maybe) and be happy with a picture filling the whole screen, much less so for the 1" and in fact I'll probably not crop at all but that may be in part down to the quality of the TZ100 lens also. The advantage of the compact camera sized 1" cameras is though that they're so small they can be used in situations when even a relatively small MFT camera may attract too much attention and be too intrusive.

I tend to use my TZ100 instead of a smartphone, when I think even a small RF style MFT camera is too much and when it's not even remotely a photograph centered occasion. For example I might take it when going out for a meal with the Mrs.
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1771
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2019, 10:07:09 am »

That's interesting.  I didn't think of it.  Now that you mention it, when you go to the later RX100 models, the ones with zooms up to 200mm, the aperture really gets worse. It starts at f2.8 to f4.5 and quickly loses even its low end as you move away zooming up from 24mm.

I have the RX100 m6, with the 24-200mm equivalent lens. Yes, the aperture is rather slow as soon as one zooms. However, I'm very pleased with the images this camera is capable of making. It's not ever going to be a strong portrait camera, but for travel, hiking, and personal work, where having a compact camera that makes high quality images is important, it really shines.

(I also have the Mark 3, with the faster 24-70 lens, and when I have to choose, I always take the newer one for the longer zoom range.)
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2019, 01:15:55 pm »

I forgot to mention, I have an Olympus E-PL1, the original m43.  I stopped using it years ago when I upgraded because it only has 720 video.  I wanted HD at the time.

Alan that was Olympus's first m43 camera...Panasonic was first by under a year. Panasonic G1 was released in October 2008, the Olympus was July of 2009.

Peter

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2019, 05:56:34 am »

I had a Panasonic G1 and at low ISO's I'd say the image quality was easily better than my Panasonic TZ100 and G1 bird and flower shots could easily be cropped to 100% for on screen viewing and I've not found that possible with the TZ100 as the quality just isn't there. It is fine for whole picture viewing though even at ISO 12,800.
Logged

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2019, 04:54:46 pm »

I think it really depends on your subject matter, style of shooting,  etc...  I often carry a Fuji x100 Bayer version when I want small.  Or just my phone if itís casual snaps.  I carry m43 without L brackets and just small primes if I want features and options for more intentional shooting but still not a photography dedicated outing.  The Olympus cameras can punch well above their weight class when used right.  The. Sensor size is hardly the end all in my decision.  It often comes down to form factor, volume of space needed to carry, and intent.  Image quality is dependent on far more variables.  Sheer Sensor resolution also will depend on variables in the real world and the subject for it to have a discernible difference in my opinion. 
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4637
    • Photos
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2019, 02:18:33 pm »

Agree. But even at the longer focal lengths, say 300-600mm, the shallow DOF, though better than at the 24-85 range, is still a far cry from a full frame super telephotos. I was shooting last year with a Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 and the bokeh at the end range is really creamy. I also tried a Leica 25-400 in a shop this year (another 1" camera) and wasn't impressed with the bokeh and shallow (or not) DOF at 400mm.

That said, I was aware of those limitations when considering RX10 IV and would work with what I would have (i.e., try to find images that would work with the camera/lens limitations).

Also, the kit zoom I mentioned, 18-150 APS-C format, is a rather slow one: f/3.5-6.3. Those f/stops roughly translate to the same DOF for the same focal lengths when compared to RX10 IV. However, I would have two high-speed lenses for the times when I need more light or more shallow DOF (22/2 and 56/1.4).

I didn't want to hijack that thread further so I'm replying here.
Here are several shots that I've taken with the RX10iv over the last couple of days. You have to keep your expectations in check. If that's your only camera/lens, the RX10iv is as good as any. If you just want to supplement what you have you can take a look at the Panasonic FZ-1000 which for a third of the price offers 80-90% of what Sony does. The extra 400 to 600 is nice, but many times haze takes care of it.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4637
    • Photos
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2019, 10:28:08 pm »

I realized that by default I stripped the exif info, so for the last 4 shots they are as follow (all shot wide open):
1. 247mm equiv, F4, iso250
2. 599mm equiv, F4, iso100
3. 221mm equiv, F4, iso400
4. 447mm equiv, F4, iso320

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4637
    • Photos
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2019, 01:00:41 pm »

And here are a couple of shots wide open at 600mm, no post-processing, to assess the DOF and background.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4637
    • Photos
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2019, 02:25:44 pm »

This is what I meant when I said the high ISO shots from the RX10iv can be quite variable in quality.
Both at iso 3200, default LR settings. 100% crops.

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 793
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2019, 06:30:16 pm »

Generally you need to skip one size to see a real difference.  The difference between "adjacent" sizes is often 1-stop.  (DoF, high ISO, etc.)  I make my system choice based on available lenses.


Kent in SD
Logged
Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
miserere nobis.

MarcRochkind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2020, 11:52:02 am »

I have a Sony RX100 IV and an Olympus E-M5 II with about 8 lenses.

The m4/3 made sense when I started with it, but not anymore, since there are excellent APS-C cameras that are physically smaller. For example, the Sony A6400.

All those lenses were taking the fun out of photography for me, and I found I was leaving the Olympus at home. Just acquired a fixed-lens Fuji X100F.

My RX100 is currently for sale.

My current thinking is that the right combination for me is:

1. Camera that's always in my pocket: a phone.
2. Small camera for when I want a real camera: X100F
3. For special purposes (macro, ultra-wide, telephoto, etc.): Still have the Olympus system, but would go with APS-C or full-frame today if I had to do it all over.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up