why I don't need full frame

[the black fox]

I often here the excuse as to why people buy 60mp full frame cameras ,its because you can crop in more .. o.k so this is from my 20mp olympus omd1-mkiii and the crop I have used is from the top right hand corner edge of the photo .
hhmmmmmmmmmm
as shot by jeff cohen, on Flickr

the two of us by jeff cohen, on Flickr


kinda shows up the truth a bit I think

 

[tijuana taxi]

Not only crop, more dynamic range and detail as in the blacks of those birds

 

[woof woof]

Lovely pictures Jeff

I don't know what your file dimensions are but when looking at FF high MP count camera reviews I've seen some amazing pixel peeping.

For my own kit, I've been with MFT since the GF1 and currently have two 16mp cameras and two 20mp ones and for me cropability is probably going to be about the same as I only have a 24mp FF camera which gives a file 6000 x 4000. A picture from my 20mp MFT cameras is 5184 x 3888.

When looking only at file quality if I go looking for the differences I can't see any evidence of MFT matching FF and that should hold true for crops too. DR seems to be the most obvious difference for me.

PS.
I've posted a lot of MFT crops over the years, flowers and the like, and if conditions are good I'll go to 100% and for me they're fine for fill screen viewing but I don't think they can match FF.

None of that says everyone needs high mp count ff though, but for some of us file quality and cropability are a part of the enjoyment.

 

[Stephen L]

I think that broadly (and I hate putting people in boxes) photographers either seek technical perfection or aesthetic - if that’s the word - quality with absolute pixel peeking not necessary. I’m of the latter persuasion and thoroughly enjoy Jeff’s photos for what they are - stunning ornithological depictions. I put the picture first and absolute sharpness and dynamic range a definite second. Not to say Jeff’s photos aren’t sharp. (Note to self - stop digging ) others think differently. That’s fine.

 

[ajophotog]

If I need to crop too much I just send them to the bin on the desktop as I am already cropped at 50% of a full frame sensor. I happily crop to 50% on my M4/3 camera as i'm not making massive prints. Full frame is overkill for my type of photography TBH. I'm happy with the extra DOF I get with my m4/3 sensor too as I shoot mainly a lot of telephoto and macro images.
The original image above is great but the cropped version would be a bin job for me as it has pushed cropping to far for my liking. Each to thier own though and as long as the owner is happy then so am I for them.

 

[woof woof]

I think that broadly (and I hate putting people in boxes) photographers either seek technical perfection or aesthetic - if that’s the word - quality with absolute pixel peeking not necessary. I’m of the latter persuasion and thoroughly enjoy Jeff’s photos for what they are - stunning ornithological depictions. I put the picture first and absolute sharpness and dynamic range a definite second. Not to say Jeff’s photos aren’t sharp. (Note to self - stop digging ) others think differently. That’s fine.

I think one problem with MFT is that if FF can match the bulk and weight but provide additional image quality over and above what MFT can provide then MFT begins to look a bit redundant, unless costs come into it but some MFT bodies and lenses are expensive. As I mostly use 28 to 50mm lenses some MFT body and lens combinations just don't offer enough bulk or weight savings so I might as well use FF. Others who may be into longer lenses may still see advantages for MFT.

 

[steveb]

I think that broadly (and I hate putting people in boxes) photographers either seek technical perfection or aesthetic - if that’s the word - quality with absolute pixel peeking not necessary. I’m of the latter persuasion and thoroughly enjoy Jeff’s photos for what they are - stunning ornithological depictions. I put the picture first and absolute sharpness and dynamic range a definite second. Not to say Jeff’s photos aren’t sharp. (Note to self - stop digging ) others think differently. That’s fine.

Generally though, photographers all have different requirements. Some will seek perfection with full size images viewed at 100% for varied reasons, others are quite happy with smaller images suited for forum viewing or social media. Camera and sensor size then usually matches the images intended use.

 

[Sangoma]

Don't know what focal length you were using, but if I could shoot hand held with a 800mm (35mm eq) lens and fill the frame, what would you need to do that FF?. And still be able to climb across the rocks comfortably.
There are many more factors that make M43 attractive and the solution for a lot of people.

For the crop above, I think it still looks OK up to 8" on the short side (judging by what I see on here), though there are noticeable sharpening artefacts and halo, I have no idea how much of that has been introduced by the forum software.

All in all, very good, and most people would be very happy to get a shot like that, I like it.

 

[mazdaman]

Have to agree with Jeff whilst there is no perfect camera or system I do like shooting micro 4/3rds the IQ is very good and each new camera released in micro 4/3 seems to improve

For me one of its strengths is portability as an example Xmas eve I finally managed to get out after 6 weeks of working went out on the Somerset levels to a local reserve sat in the hide with a couple of toggers who were shooting Canon with the 500 and 600 plus tripods given the hide was a good 2 miles from the car park the freedom to walk the reserve with their setup was much more restrictive than my OM1 and 150-400 which I walked the whole reserve with and managed a far greater range of wildlife shots

As ever it's all about your personal comprise that you are prepared to make in regard to equipment. Micro 4/3 for me given its weight and small form factor is my compromise I am happy to make

I do not miss lugging my heavy Canon gear around anymore as my senior years continue as the saying goes"each to their own"

 

[Topsy]

I've no dog in this fight as I don't shoot wildlife but to me the original shot is fine however the crop looks like one of those old shots where the photographer puts a model in front of a painted backdrop, the birds don't look as if they are in the same shot as the sea behind them.

 

[Topsy]

Others who may be into longer lenses may still see advantages for MFT.

I think Alan @woof woof is right here the big advantage of the smaller sensor camera is the multiplication factor of the lenses which makes longer reach easier and cheaper plus the use of shorter FL generally means more DoFin the same composition as compared to FF or larger.

 

[tijuana taxi]

The thing I don't understand is why some users of m4/3 feel the need to keep defending it.
Seems to be some sort of inferiority complex, no one is saying they should ditch it.

I only own m4/3 gear these days, but if I wanted to would go out and buy something else.
Personally happy with the results, but I daresay they could be bettered in some areas by a larger sensor.

 

[the black fox]

TBH it’s probably a step to far , but I pushed it to the limit normally I don’t have to crop in that far .. it’s a 100-400 f6.3 lens with 1.4 tc so 545 mm x2 focal length .. .. as terry says above MFT can’t be beaten for portability or I.s capability . This was really just a play shot but it does show what the system is capable of despite the claims to the contrary

 

[Brazo]

M4/3 has many benefits such as size and value and it can produce excellent image quality. I don’t see people knocking the system but I don’t look for it either! I have both m4/3 and a ff setup and you can’t beat’ physics but that doesn’t mean m4/3 is bad in any way. As with any system use it to its advantages. It’s no coincidence the m4/3 thread is full almost exclusively of bird on twig shots because reach factor is it’s key strong point.

 

[Plain Nev]

You know you do want full frame. Or you wouldn't have posted.

 

[Stephen L]

You know you do want full frame. Or you wouldn't have posted.

I’ve had full frame. In 3 iterations - Canon, Nikon, and Sony. I didn’t need it, and the weight of the lenses made my back and shoulders agree. I’m now m4/3 and it’s fine for me.

 

[mazdaman]

You know you do want full frame. Or you wouldn't have posted.

Nope been there done it used to lug a canon 1dx and a canon 500mm plus a tripod my back thanked me a few years ago when I switched loved my canon gear but I changed in what I wanted from a system as I said in my original post each to their own when it comes to camera system choice

 

[the black fox]

You know you do want full frame. Or you wouldn't have posted.

been there done that etc etc etc

 

[SFTPhotography]

I am glad you're happy with your rig.

GAS and FOMO is a most terrible affliction and one I wish I didn't suffer with.

 

[1dmouse]

I have always owned crop sensor cameras but this year I bough my first FF body OK, it's the Canon R3. It is very very expensive but as a sports shooter I am impressed how it handles low light with the 24mp something which helps at this time of year. It has made a big difference to me in terms of being able to even get anything compared to before. From my understanding FF sensors are better than cropped in that respect and having 60mp like the Sony cameras is not necessary a good thing with image quality in low light/poor conditions . Please correct me if I am wrong.
Like with everything there are always trade offs. I can certainly understand why MFT cameras are popular as they offer a lot in a small package and a good price and if you are a wildlife shooter then more reach is important and at the end of the day we are all different with different needs.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I have always owned crop sensor cameras but this year I bough my first FF body OK, it's the Canon R3. It is very very expensive but as a sports shooter I am impressed how it handles low light with the 24mp something which helps at this time of year. It has made a big difference to me in terms of being able to even get anything compared to before. From my understanding FF sensors are better than cropped in that respect and having 60mp like the Sony cameras is not necessary a good thing with image quality in low light/poor conditions . Please correct me if I am wrong.
Like with everything there are always trade offs. I can certainly understand why MFT cameras are popular as they offer a lot in a small package and a good price and if you are a wildlife shooter then more reach is important and at the end of the day we are all different with different needs.

The high res bodies in low light are not terrible, not as good as the low res FF ones but a D850/Z7 A7RV is very clean in low light - if not at high ISO. For shooting at dusk/dawn they're fine. Where they suffer is at the higher ISO's - badly.

 

[stickytape]

been there done that etc etc etc

Don't even tell me... I've had the 1", micro 4/3, 4/3 APS C and full frame. The worst of it?










I've still got all those formats still.

 

[ajophotog]

Don't even tell me... I've had the 1", micro 4/3, 4/3 APS C and full frame. The worst of it?

I've still got all those formats still.

I like my two 1" sensor cameras

 

[woof woof]

The high res bodies in low light are not terrible, not as good as the low res FF ones but a D850/Z7 A7RV is very clean in low light - if not at high ISO. For shooting at dusk/dawn they're fine. Where they suffer is at the higher ISO's - badly.

Don't take this as gospel but I'm pretty sure I've read that the newer higher mp count FF cameras perform well. You may not think so if you view pictures at 100% but if you were to take two files, one from a Sony A7s (low mp count FF camera) and one from a higher mp count camera and if you downsized the high mp count file to match the low mp count file the results could in fact favour the high mp count camera.

Or so I'm pretty sure I've read

 

[SFTPhotography]

Don't take this as gospel but I'm pretty sure I've read that the newer higher mp count FF cameras perform well. You may not think so if you view pictures at 100% but if you were to take two files, one from a Sony A7s (low mp count FF camera) and one from a higher mp count camera and if you downsized the high mp count file to match the low mp count file the results could in fact favour the high mp count camera.

Or so I'm pretty sure I've read

The key in that is dowsized. Makes having an 8k stills camera silly if you just resize to 4k resolution. The files take up more room, need more powerful PCs/MACs to process etc and the camera costs more, and you have to use the very expensive lenses to make the most of the resolution. Lower res camera's do make life easier, you can use cheaper zooms, plastic fantastic amateur lenses and their imperfections don't show up, and even use older adapted optics - and you'll get very passable results this way and quite a lot of fun using older stuff too. 24mp, or 12mp FF body - use what you like on it - it'll look good. On the new high res stuff, you really wind up using the pricey zooms, exotic primes and all that stuff costs a fortune. I think it's worth it - but for the more casual photographer it's a lot of money.

Money no object I'd shoot Phase One. I am a resolution junkie - technical perfection, pixel peeping, perfect corner sharpness really matter to me. I hate any technical imperfection. The idea of scaling back a 8k file horrifies me. I want to see it, and display it to its very best.

The high res cameras (I only exclusively have high res cameras) are fine in low light, you can pull oodles of shadow out and they are clean. But this applies at Base ISO only. The medium format is more flexible, you can get to ISO400 and have very clean files, even with significant processing. A D850, ISO200 is emergency use only, IMHO.

But look who they're aimed at. They aren't press/event cameras, they're for landscapes/travel/tripod use and they excel at this.

 

[stickytape]

I like my two 1" sensor cameras

They're good aren;t they! Nikon V3 and the FZ2500, V Lux 114, FZ1000 and ZS200...

 

[woof woof]

The key in that is dowsized. Makes having an 8k stills camera silly if you just resize to 4k resolution. The files take up more room, need more powerful PCs/MACs to process etc and the camera costs more, and you have to use the very expensive lenses to make the most of the resolution. Lower res camera's do make life easier, you can use cheaper zooms, plastic fantastic amateur lenses and their imperfections don't show up, and even use older adapter optics - and you'll get very passable results this way. 24mp, or 12mp FF body - use what you like on it - it'll look good. On the new high res stuff, you really wind up using the pricey zooms, exotic primes and all that stuff costs a fortune. I think it's worth it - but for the more casual photographer it's a lot of money.

Money no object I'd shoot Phase One. I am a resolution junkie - technical perfection, pixel peeping, perfect corner sharpness really matter to me. I hate any technical imperfection. The idea of scaling back a 8k file horrifies me. I want to see it, and display it to its very best.

The high res cameras (I only exclusively have high res cameras) are fine in low light, you can pull oodles of shadow out and they are clean. But this applies at Base ISO only. The medium format is more flexible, you can get to ISO400 and have very clean files, even with significant processing. A D850, ISO200 is emergency use only, IMHO.

But look who they're aimed at. They aren't press/event cameras, they're for landscapes/travel/tripod use and they excel at this.

OK. Maybe you don't have to downsize the files, maybe try only looking at them the same. For example if they both fill the frame/screen.

You can download file for the A7rIV (I couldn't see a comparison for the A7RV) A7III and A7s here.

Sony a7 IV review

The Sony a7 IV is the fourth generation of the company's core a7 full-frame mirrorless camera model, and it's the most advanced yet. Click through for an in-depth look at Sony's latest full-frame mirrorless ILC.

www.dpreview.com

I'm going to do it, just for fun.

 

[ajophotog]

They're good aren;t they! Nikon V3 and the FZ2500, V Lux 114, FZ1000 and ZS200...

I have the FZ2000 and the tz100 as walkaround with family non photography days and holiday trips. Days of carting lots of heavy gear around are long gone for me.

 

[sk66]

kinda shows up the truth a bit I think

Are you kidding? That crop is terrible; there is next to no detail... if I had to crop that image much to get a good composition it would be in the bin.

OK. Maybe you don't have to downsize the files, maybe try only looking at them the same. For example if they both fill the frame/screen.

Yes, for the most part *image noise in a modern camera is due to photon shot noise... i.e. low light is a weaker/noisier signal. Recording it with a higher resolution just allows you to see it better. Of course there are some small differences between cameras.
(*other than long exposure/heat noise)

I like my two 1" sensor cameras

I still like/use my Nikon 1 V2 and my even smaller sensor Fuji X20... There's a lot of reasons why one might not need want FF, but image IQ isn't one of them.
When I do things right with the high res FF cameras I can zoom to 400% or more and still have detail. I'll never come anywhere close to that with my little cameras.

 

[ajophotog]

Are you kidding? That crop is terrible; there is next to no detail... if I had to crop that image much to get a good composition it would be in the bin.


Yes, for the most part *image noise in a modern camera is due to photon shot noise... i.e. low light is a weaker/noisier signal. Recording it with a higher resolution just allows you to see it better. Of course there are some small differences between cameras.
(*other than long exposure/heat noise)


I still like/use my Nikon 1 V2 and my even smaller sensor Fuji X20... There's a lot of reasons why one might not need want FF, but image IQ isn't one of them.
When I do things right with the high res FF cameras I can crop to 400% or more and still have detail. I'll never come anywhere close to that with my little cameras.

View attachment 377381

Here one from my Panasonic G3 at 400%. Sorry it is me from my passport image lol
I think yours is more than 400% Steven!

 

[woof woof]

Here one from my Panasonic G3 at 400%. Sorry it is me from my passport image lol
I think yours is more than 400% Steven!
Screenshot 2022-12-30 at 16.18.14 by Ajophotog, on Flickr

I could be wrong... but I don't know what's going on here. I don't know Lightroom or what the numbers mean but that doesn't look like a 400% crop to me, to me it looks like maybe a third to a quarter of the width of the picture and maybe 1/5 or 1/6 or so of the height of the picture and maybe more like something between 100-150%. I'd expect 400% would be maybe an eye.

 

[delb0y]

I've never understood crop numbers - to me a 100% crop suggests you've cropped 100% of the image, therefore leaving nothing...

 

[Sangoma]

I could be wrong... but I don't know what's going on here. I don't know Lightroom or what the numbers mean but that doesn't look like a 400% crop to me, to me it looks like maybe a third to a quarter of the width of the picture and maybe 1/5 or 1/6 or so of the height of the picture and maybe more like something between 100-150%. I'd expect 400% would be maybe an eye.

It relates to the number of image pixels to your screen display pixels ie a 100% crop means one picture pixel to one screen pixel

 

[tijuana taxi]

I've decided what will make all my photos look sharper.

Weigh a few quid in on some new specs rather than any camera gear.
Current pairs are scratched to buggery, lasted well since I got them in 2018 and not had an easy life.

 

[ajophotog]

I just set the zoom to 400% and that’s as big as it goes at 400 lol, the box on Steven navigator looks tiny compared to mine lol
you should be able to crop a lot more on a larger sensor. Cropping zooming and percentages….what have we started

 

[woof woof]

It relates to the number of image pixels to your screen display pixels ie a 100% crop means one picture pixel to one screen pixel

Looking at the Panny G3 picture above I think there's something off. That portion of a picture doesn't look like I'd expect a 400% portion of that picture to look. It looks more like 100-150%, but I don't know lightroom. I would not expect a 400% crop from a G3 to look like the one above.

As I said I may be wrong.

A picture...

100% in CS5.

Just to show that as a part of the whole picture, just guessing, could be off by a bit...

 

[Sangoma]

I just set the zoom to 400% and that’s as big as it goes at 400 lol, the box on Steven navigator looks tiny compared to mine lol
you should be able to crop a lot more on a larger sensor. Cropping zooming and percentages….what have we started

There are less pixels across the photo, so therefore a bigger piece of photo

 

[Ed Sutton]

It's not a 400% crop, it's a 400% view. You could make the image full screen (which would show more of the frame) but it would still be a 400% view despite being less of a crop.

 

[Sangoma]

Looking at the Panny G3 picture above I think there's something off. That portion of a picture doesn't look like I'd expect a 400% portion of that picture to look. It looks more like 100-150%, but I don't know lightroom. I would not expect a 400% crop from a G3 to look like the one above.

As I said I may be wrong.

A picture...

100% in CS5.

Just to show that as a part of the whole picture, just guessing, could be off by a bit...

For the purpose of explaining, you screen displays 1000 pixels horizontally

If you have a picture 1000 pixels wide, a 100% crop would display it exactly across the screen

If you had a picture 4000 pixels wide, a 100% crop would display 1/4 of the width of the picture across the screen

 

[ajophotog]

and 50% is half the image so 400% is 4x the image which is correct so I am therefore viewing at 4x the image size? I think that is how I see it but who knows lol