As I mentioned in my earlier post, any attempt to compare the APS-C with the MFT format to have a serious debate on which is better, is very likely to take a very long time and most probably will incur the wrath of both sides of supporters of APS-C and MFT.
In fact, the highly controversial APS-C vs MFT debate has been ongoing in the photography universe for so long that it would be impractical for me not to waste any more bandwidth here... Haha. Well, Full Frame is still the best but only if my pocket does allow it. For smaller formats like APS-C and MFT, there are pros and cons to each system and whichever format is better, really depends on one's intended use of the system , the individual's goal, shooting style and preference.
By the way, whatever I am going to share in this blog are purely based on my knowledge and user experience. While I am no expert in digital photography, image production or lens construction, I try my best to research and learn. If I have made any mistakes in doing so, please do enlighten me through the comments below.
Anyway these are some of the findings that I have come up with regarding the Micro Four Thirds format.
1. Sensor Size
By the way, whatever I am going to share in this blog are purely based on my knowledge and user experience. While I am no expert in digital photography, image production or lens construction, I try my best to research and learn. If I have made any mistakes in doing so, please do enlighten me through the comments below.
Anyway these are some of the findings that I have come up with regarding the Micro Four Thirds format.
1. Sensor Size
With a crop factor of 2.0 for the MFT, a Full Frame Sensor is twice as big as an MFT. The size of the APS-C ( 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor ) were much closer ( 30% smaller ) to Micro Four Thirds instead, as seen from the illustration below. I have tried my best to keep the dimension in proportion and this is the best I can come up with.
So what is this all about?
In layman's term, the Field of View of a MFT lens is the same as a Full Frame lens with twice the focal length. In other words, this means that a 45 mm lens mounted on a MFT body would have a Field of View equivalent to a 90 mm lens on a Full Frame camera and a 17mm lens on MFT would have a equivalent 34mm Field of View on a Full Frame.
Image the image below was a physical piece of paper and with Full Frame, you get the entire piece of image. Using an APS-C or MFT is like using a pair of scissors to snipe off the corresponding borders.
There are also situations where the crop factor comes into use. We can get a far better reach with the same lens on an MFT than on a Full Frame.
Secondly, a bigger sensor will have a broader dynamic range. Dynamic range in photography is defined as the ratio of maximum light intensity measurable to the minimum light intensity measurable. A wider dynamic range will ensure that dark and bright signals with all details are captured within the same image. No image information is lost and at the same time, very bright signals as well as black background are all captured without missing details.
Besides a wider dynamic range, the bigger Full Frame sensor will also translates into a smoother image quality taken at higher ISO. So at the end of the day, Full Frames or APS-C will always perform better under low light than MFT due to their bigger sensors.
Full Frame sensors will also be the preferred choice for architectural photography as having a wider angle is useful with tilt/shift lens.
2. Weight & Dimension
Besides a smaller sized sensor, the main characteristic of a mirrorless setup are the removal of a mirror box and the AF sensor and as a result, we have a lighter and smaller MFT camera body as well.
Having a lighter camera setup does come useful for the average photographer who have at least 3 lens ( wide angle + portrait + telephoto ) with them all the time. When you have to lug around with a bag full of photographic gear, you'll start to appreciate a lighter setup that will accomplish the job minus half of the weight. This is especially true for travel photography, where each kilogram counts.
With a smaller camera, I also appreciate the increased opportunities to bring it to places that I have never brought my EOS60D to before. I also love the ability to shoot discreetly without attracting much attention in situations where wiping out a DSLR would have been very obtrusive. Having a light weight camera around me most of the time, I notice that I am shooting much more frequently. Its just so light and easy to carry around.
3. Depth Of Field
As I do not have a Full Frame, I cannot explain in pictures. However I have found a very good thread from an MFT Forum for a more detailed comparison.
You may also refer to the Depth Of Field Calculator at www.dof.com for a deeper analysis. For me, I think while its good to know and understand how the concept works, however its way too much to spend a three month research into the theory behind Depth of Fields where the time could have been better spent on actual photography field work.
There are also some really fast prime MFT lens such as the Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm F1.8 or the Panasonic Leica 25mm F1.4 with wide apertures that can still create nice out of focus background for a great portraiture look.
On the positive side, a deeper Depth Of Field / less blur / less bokeh might just be what we need for landscape photography. With a deeper Depth Of Field, shooting landscape for a sharp front-to-back shot has never been easier.
So what is this all about?
In layman's term, the Field of View of a MFT lens is the same as a Full Frame lens with twice the focal length. In other words, this means that a 45 mm lens mounted on a MFT body would have a Field of View equivalent to a 90 mm lens on a Full Frame camera and a 17mm lens on MFT would have a equivalent 34mm Field of View on a Full Frame.
Image the image below was a physical piece of paper and with Full Frame, you get the entire piece of image. Using an APS-C or MFT is like using a pair of scissors to snipe off the corresponding borders.
There are also situations where the crop factor comes into use. We can get a far better reach with the same lens on an MFT than on a Full Frame.
Secondly, a bigger sensor will have a broader dynamic range. Dynamic range in photography is defined as the ratio of maximum light intensity measurable to the minimum light intensity measurable. A wider dynamic range will ensure that dark and bright signals with all details are captured within the same image. No image information is lost and at the same time, very bright signals as well as black background are all captured without missing details.
Besides a wider dynamic range, the bigger Full Frame sensor will also translates into a smoother image quality taken at higher ISO. So at the end of the day, Full Frames or APS-C will always perform better under low light than MFT due to their bigger sensors.
Full Frame sensors will also be the preferred choice for architectural photography as having a wider angle is useful with tilt/shift lens.
2. Weight & Dimension
Besides a smaller sized sensor, the main characteristic of a mirrorless setup are the removal of a mirror box and the AF sensor and as a result, we have a lighter and smaller MFT camera body as well.
Having a lighter camera setup does come useful for the average photographer who have at least 3 lens ( wide angle + portrait + telephoto ) with them all the time. When you have to lug around with a bag full of photographic gear, you'll start to appreciate a lighter setup that will accomplish the job minus half of the weight. This is especially true for travel photography, where each kilogram counts.
With a smaller camera, I also appreciate the increased opportunities to bring it to places that I have never brought my EOS60D to before. I also love the ability to shoot discreetly without attracting much attention in situations where wiping out a DSLR would have been very obtrusive. Having a light weight camera around me most of the time, I notice that I am shooting much more frequently. Its just so light and easy to carry around.
3. Depth Of Field
Due to a smaller sensor size, the Depth Of Field on a MFT would be deeper ( less blur / less bokeh ) as compared to a Full Frame. In other words, you will not be able to get as shallow Depth Of Field as you will on a Full Frame.
"Bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur in a photograph."
Because of the x2.0 Crop Factor, F1.8 on a Full Frame camera body will have twice the aperture of an equivalent lens at F1.8 on an MFT body ( That means F1.8 at MFT = F3.6 on a Full Frame ) and twice as deep a depth of field ( less blur / less bokeh ) as Full Frame cameras. This is simply because the smaller MFT format camera uses shorter focal lengths for the same Field of View, and therefore similar f-stops mean a smaller aperture and you get a deeper Depth Of Field ( less blur / less bokeh ).
As I do not have a Full Frame, I cannot explain in pictures. However I have found a very good thread from an MFT Forum for a more detailed comparison.
You may also refer to the Depth Of Field Calculator at www.dof.com for a deeper analysis. For me, I think while its good to know and understand how the concept works, however its way too much to spend a three month research into the theory behind Depth of Fields where the time could have been better spent on actual photography field work.
There are also some really fast prime MFT lens such as the Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm F1.8 or the Panasonic Leica 25mm F1.4 with wide apertures that can still create nice out of focus background for a great portraiture look.
On the positive side, a deeper Depth Of Field / less blur / less bokeh might just be what we need for landscape photography. With a deeper Depth Of Field, shooting landscape for a sharp front-to-back shot has never been easier.
So we can see that the above are the limitations of the Micro Four Thirds format. However as they always say,
" Know what you don't know, then don't do it "
Irregardless of the format that we choose to use, we need to understand the pros and cons behind the system toaximise their potentials and minimise the limitations. Whether its APS-C or MFT, this would be the best way to make the best use out of whatever gear that we are holding.
No comments:
Post a Comment