FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Is micro 4/3 dead?

Page  <1234>
Author
beautiophile View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 December 2014
Country: Vietnam
Location: HCM City
Status: Offline
Posts: 216
Post Options Post Options   Quote beautiophile Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 01:56
Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

If you expose for the same ISO, FF will provide 4 times as much light energy for the same AoV and aperture and will thus provide a 2 times better signal-to-noise ratio.

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

A m4/3 set to f/2, 1/400 and a FF set to f/4 1/100 does not have the same SNR although they have identical apertures. The FF system will have captured 4x the light energy, precisely as I stated above.

That's true if you expose for the same ISO, as you said earlier.

AFAIK, 4-time-energy is always true, not "if the same ISO". The light energy is the amount of photons hitting on the sensor/pixel and depends on the aperture (T-stop precisely), exposure time and surface area. It's a pre-processing quantity while ISO is a post-processing notation. The latter is the amplification of the signal produced by the photoelectric phenomena on the sensor.
Also to correct Jonas, the aperture doesn't need to go with AoV (a.k.a. focal length) because the focal length is already included in the aperture value.
A330 ~ 16-80ZA
Alpha 7, Alpha 807si, Alpha 99 ~ Min 17-35G, 24-85, 28f2, 100Macro; SAL35F14G, SAL50F14. SAL70300G
F20AM, F42AM, F58AM.
 



Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 3515
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 03:03
The idea that say F4 and ISO 100 would be used by the same photographer on cameras of different formats to take the same picture is just wrong because those settings will produce different images.

If the photographer selected F4 on full-frame, they would have selected F2 on Four-Thirds because they would be aware of the depth-of-field that setting gives.

ISO 100 may not even be an option on Four-Thirds, so likely the photographer has to have a much shorter exposure on Four-Thirds unless they have an ND filter. But they might choose to take a bunch of photos for an equal total exposure time which would effectively reduce the ISO to 25. Some Four-Thirds cameras do something similar automatically and even shift the sensor for each frame resulting in much higher resolution.



Edited by QuietOC - 02 November 2018 at 03:10
Sony A7RIV NEX-5T HVL-F45RM LA-EA5 Metabones-IV Sigma MC-11 Yongnuo EF-E II TLT ROKR MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14428
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 03:13
Originally posted by beautiophile beautiophile wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

If you expose for the same ISO, FF will provide 4 times as much light energy for the same AoV and aperture and will thus provide a 2 times better signal-to-noise ratio.

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

A m4/3 set to f/2, 1/400 and a FF set to f/4 1/100 does not have the same SNR although they have identical apertures. The FF system will have captured 4x the light energy, precisely as I stated above.

That's true if you expose for the same ISO, as you said earlier.

AFAIK, 4-time-energy is always true, not "if the same ISO". The light energy is the amount of photons hitting on the sensor/pixel and depends on the aperture (T-stop precisely), exposure time and surface area. It's a pre-processing quantity while ISO is a post-processing notation. The latter is the amplification of the signal produced by the photoelectric phenomena on the sensor.

See the words 'exposure time' in your paragraph? If the aperture is a fixed value, you change the 'amount of photons' by changing the exposure time and you change the exposure time depending on the ISO (or the degree of PP boosting you intend to apply if shooting ISOless). I don't think you've said anything of importance there.

And why did you cut off the rest of my post where my main point was? Here it is again:

If you instead keep shutter speeds the same and let ISO float as needed, then everything - including motion blur and camera shake - remains equal, right?

Also to correct Jonas, the aperture doesn't need to go with AoV (a.k.a. focal length) because the focal length is already included in the aperture value.

Huh?
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 2789
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 03:44
Originally posted by BearairCactus BearairCactus wrote:

Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

Four thirds is the aspect ratio.
It is more the sensor size then - which includes the aspect ratio, but not every four thirds aspect ratio is four thirds.

Anyway, here is a curious observation by Thom Hogan. I think he is spot on, m43 needs to find its USP and that is size.


There are other advantages to a smaller sensor, not least of which is in body stabilisation, the less mass the easier to move, stop and move again. Ironically I would still be using MFT if they made a body big enough for me, not everyone wants small bodies! I would of loved an E30 sized Olympus MFT. Well I would of until I discovered Sony A Mount!

it's not just the size of the sensor or size of the camera. My wife gave up her A57 for an OM-D EM-5 for better out of the box JPEG's to go with a smaller lighter camera. For me, i never warmed up to my OM-D EM-1. I got it to still be able to use my 4:3 lenses but find myself going back to my E-5 for the sheer joy of it. If Olympus had released the 16MP E-7 DSLR i would have been quite happy.

   
Back to Top
beautiophile View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 December 2014
Country: Vietnam
Location: HCM City
Status: Offline
Posts: 216
Post Options Post Options   Quote beautiophile Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 04:38
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by beautiophile beautiophile wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

If you expose for the same ISO, FF will provide 4 times as much light energy for the same AoV and aperture and will thus provide a 2 times better signal-to-noise ratio.

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

A m4/3 set to f/2, 1/400 and a FF set to f/4 1/100 does not have the same SNR although they have identical apertures. The FF system will have captured 4x the light energy, precisely as I stated above.

That's true if you expose for the same ISO, as you said earlier.

AFAIK, 4-time-energy is always true, not "if the same ISO". The light energy is the amount of photons hitting on the sensor/pixel and depends on the aperture (T-stop precisely), exposure time and surface area. It's a pre-processing quantity while ISO is a post-processing notation. The latter is the amplification of the signal produced by the photoelectric phenomena on the sensor.

See the words 'exposure time' in your paragraph? If the aperture is a fixed value, you change the 'amount of photons' by changing the exposure time and you change the exposure time depending on the ISO (or the degree of PP boosting you intend to apply if shooting ISOless). I don't think you've said anything of importance there.

And why did you cut off the rest of my post where my main point was? Here it is again:

If you instead keep shutter speeds the same and let ISO float as needed, then everything - including motion blur and camera shake - remains equal, right?

Hi, sybersitizen, I trimmed that part to give my opinion only on the-same-ISO idea, and didn't disagree with what was cut and what you bold here. Sorry if that made you uncomfortable.
Also to correct Jonas, the aperture doesn't need to go with AoV (a.k.a. focal length) because the focal length is already included in the aperture value.

Huh?

Av = (Focal length) / (Size of entrance pupil)?
A330 ~ 16-80ZA
Alpha 7, Alpha 807si, Alpha 99 ~ Min 17-35G, 24-85, 28f2, 100Macro; SAL35F14G, SAL50F14. SAL70300G
F20AM, F42AM, F58AM.
Back to Top
Jonas A-R View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 December 2007
Country: Denmark
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Posts: 1645
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jonas A-R Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 06:06
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

Originally posted by BearairCactus BearairCactus wrote:

1. MFT is not a sensor size, tony is simply wrong with what he says about sensors being cheaper originally. Four Thirds was introduced specifically with digital photography by Olympus with the E-1! Four Thirds is the sensor size not MFT which is the mount.

Four thirds is the aspect ratio. The size of the sensor was nearly identical to 110 film. Kodak likely thought it made sense to continue with that format in digital. mFT is simply a FT mount positioned closer to the sensor because it was repurposed for mirrorless.
Olympus clerverly marketed it (the original FT) as ďmade for digitalĒ

Four-Thirds is a size. It is a vacuum tube size. Same with One Inch.

"Four Thirds is a reference to the size of the image sensor. The image sensor for Four Thirds cameras is what is commonly referred to as a 4/3 type or 4/3 type sensor. These describe the type of sensor not the actual size of the light sensitive area, which is normally much smaller

The sensor measures approximately 22.3mm diagonally, not four-thirds of an inch, which would be about 33.87mm. Traditionally, the nominal size of image-sensing devices has been based on a method of calculation that was introduced when vacuum image-sensing tubes were first invented.

At the time, the outer diameter of these early 'vidicon' tubes was used to indicate their size. Unfortunately, this convention has remained despite the many advances in imaging technology that have since been made, and so the designation, "a four-thirds-inch sensor," can be a source of confusion. For this reason, many people now prefer to use the word "type" instead of "inch" when discussing the size of digital image sensors."


You are correct, although I still think the reference to the Kodak 110 film format might have some merit in why they chose this particular size
a9 a6300
21/2.8 Loxia 35/1.4Z 50/1.4Z 85/1.4GM 90/2.8G Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro 100/2.8GM 135/1.8GM
12-24/4G 24-105/4G 100-400/4-5.6GM 2x TC
 



Back to Top
Jonas A-R View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 December 2007
Country: Denmark
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Posts: 1645
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jonas A-R Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 06:14
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

A m4/3 set to f/2, 1/400 and a FF set to f/4 1/100 does not have the same SNR although they have identical apertures. The FF system will have captured 4x the light energy, precisely as I stated above.

That's true if you expose for the same ISO, as you said earlier.

If you instead keep shutter speeds the same and let ISO float as needed, then everything - including motion blur and camera shake - remains equal, right?


Indeed. and the effect of diffraction will also be the same if you wish to include all blur sources

However, nobody forces you to use the same shutter speed and under many circumstances it is possible to use longer shutter speeds or increase the amount of light. Thats why I objected to the statement in bold below which implicitly had the same shutter speed and scene brightness as a condition (let's keep pixel size out of it for now )

(3) If you keep the angle of view the same and also the optical aperture then the sensor collects the same amount of light whatever the sensor size you use, provided that the FL and F no. is altered to suit. FF has no more or worse dynamic range nor noise level than APS-C or micro 4/3 over the whole frame. Of course the sensor size does affect the relationship between pixel density and Mp size, and for the highest Mp it may well be easier and more effective to get this in a larger sensor. But if we stick with (say) 12Mp for low light use then the sensor size makes no difference provided we can get lenses designed to suit.

Edited by Jonas A-R - 02 November 2018 at 06:18
a9 a6300
21/2.8 Loxia 35/1.4Z 50/1.4Z 85/1.4GM 90/2.8G Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro 100/2.8GM 135/1.8GM
12-24/4G 24-105/4G 100-400/4-5.6GM 2x TC
Back to Top
ABDurbs View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 October 2011
Country: South Africa
Location: Durban
Status: Offline
Posts: 1016
Post Options Post Options   Quote ABDurbs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 09:18
I have used 1", MFT, APS-C and FF sensor cameras, and every single one of them produced an image that was "perfect" for what I use the majority of my images - Social Media, Club Competitions and the occasional large canvas or A4 print. I don't think I am unique.

The single biggest MFT drawcard for me (at my stage in life) is its size, because the better MFT cameras out there are more than capable of producing excellent images. I spent a week with an OM-D E-M1 Mark II & 12-40 zoom and I was extremely impressed with the quality of body, lens and images. The downside IMHO, is that the better MFT bodies and lenses are not necessarily good value for money, although compared to a top of the range FF camera and pro lens, they are still better priced.

I for one, sincerely hope Olympus sticks around, because I love their well built, well speced bodies and lenses. I agree that Olympus, for instance, needs to capitalize on their USP which I believe, like others, is the size of their bodies and lenses.

Unfortunately I think they have an uphill battle because the technical "babble" could drown out their well earned capabilities.

Edited by ABDurbs - 02 November 2018 at 10:27
Regards
Allan
A99 + VG, A77ii + VG, 70-400G, Zeiss 85mm f1.7, CZ16-80, Tamron 70-200 USD Tamron 24-70 USD, HVL-43AM, Godox TT685S & X1T-S, Minolta 8000i, Minolta 50mm f1.7
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12951
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 09:41
Yes, as I thought, this ended up in a equivalence discussion again, we had those so many times before and they always go the same. The topic was about the strengths and weaknesses of the m43 system. Thankfully some people still have an opinion on this!

@QuietOC: you're partly right. Sometimes the tool used dictates the outcome. Case in point: I take different pictures with the A77m2 then with the A6000, let alone the A99m2. There is more that influences my pictures. That why I think the equivalence discussion is not that relevant for most photographers.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
ABDurbs View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 October 2011
Country: South Africa
Location: Durban
Status: Offline
Posts: 1016
Post Options Post Options   Quote ABDurbs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 09:46
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

That why I think the equivalence discussion is not that relevant for most photographers.


+1
Regards
Allan
A99 + VG, A77ii + VG, 70-400G, Zeiss 85mm f1.7, CZ16-80, Tamron 70-200 USD Tamron 24-70 USD, HVL-43AM, Godox TT685S & X1T-S, Minolta 8000i, Minolta 50mm f1.7
Back to Top
adhox View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2016
Country: Australia
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Posts: 314
Post Options Post Options   Quote adhox Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 11:10
I hate equivalence arguments. If I'm using my Pen F @ 12mm, I don't think of it as being like my A77ii @ 16mm, or my A99ii @ 24mm (I can't go wide enough on my 'blad to make the comparison there). It is what it is. Each size has pros and cons.

As for whether m43 is DEAD? No. I don't know its long term future, but it ain't dead yet. Maybe it won't survive, but either way, this video is about clicks rather than adding to the discussion.
For sale - various A-mount lenses

See Dyxum exclusive sales forum for details
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 33736
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 11:41
I think equivalence arguments and discussions have their merit in trying to figure out the strength and weakness of the different sensor formats.

However the strenth and weakness of camera systems go very far beyond only the sensors, so in my opinion in the discussion if micro 4/3 is "dead" it's only a minor aspect (or even off-topic).

I don't think MFT is "dead", it might lose some market share to FF due to the fact these cameras are getting cheaper, however the size advantage as well as the sheer quality of many MFT offerings make them far from obsolete.
You can see the April Foolishness 2021 exhibition here Another great show of the talent we have on Dyxum
Back to Top
Jonas A-R View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 December 2007
Country: Denmark
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Posts: 1645
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jonas A-R Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 11:45
A lot of equivalence hate going on here

Itís a simple framework describing the shooting envelope of systems across different formats in terms of the visual properties of the photographs.
It does not deal with other important aspects of a system such as size, ergonomics, AF quality etc etc etc which very well may be more important for a purchasing decision.
Nevertheless, I find it useful in discussions on the relative merits of different formats and donít get why itís controversial or worthy of hate
a9 a6300
21/2.8 Loxia 35/1.4Z 50/1.4Z 85/1.4GM 90/2.8G Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro 100/2.8GM 135/1.8GM
12-24/4G 24-105/4G 100-400/4-5.6GM 2x TC
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12951
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 November 2018 at 13:52
It is not so much hate for equivalence - it is hate for the never ending discussion clogging up potentially interesting threats like this while not offering any insight in the question at hand. By all means, start a seperate thread to discuss equivalence.

Back to m34: Panasonic made a good decision to go full frame and skip APS-C, that makes their m43 cameras still relevant in this market. There is a USP for m43, I saw several mentioned in this thread!

Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > Other camera systems Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.