Fujitsu
Well-known
This is one question especially for film photographers who also use m4/3 cameras. Does the 2x crop factor bother or "limit" you in any way? Do you miss the full frame? Or would you say it doesnt matter?
Sometimes I see photographs from m4/3 that do indeed have a "cropped" look to them. Then there are others like this (found in a parallel thread here on rff) that do look pretty much "full frame". http://www.flickr.com/photos/xy9z/4511891839/in/set-72157623833941864/
What do you think?
Sometimes I see photographs from m4/3 that do indeed have a "cropped" look to them. Then there are others like this (found in a parallel thread here on rff) that do look pretty much "full frame". http://www.flickr.com/photos/xy9z/4511891839/in/set-72157623833941864/
What do you think?
Finder
Veteran
No. I also use the full m4/3 frame.
A normal lens on a m4/3 camera is 21.5mm. I use 12mm, 17mm, 21mm, and 90mm lenses on my camera. A since wide, normal, and telephoto are dependent on image area, there is no difference using an m4/3 camera than any other camera--I don't see a 35mm camera as a cropped medium-format camera.
A normal lens on a m4/3 camera is 21.5mm. I use 12mm, 17mm, 21mm, and 90mm lenses on my camera. A since wide, normal, and telephoto are dependent on image area, there is no difference using an m4/3 camera than any other camera--I don't see a 35mm camera as a cropped medium-format camera.
peterm1
Veteran
I have had a 4/3 camera for a while and also shoot fllm but have never had it bother me - perhaps because I prefer medium telephoto lenses anyway. This means I am in heaven when I use a cropped sensor like a 4/3.
sienarot
Well-known
I'm a wide angle shooter, so yeah it does.
Jonas Adolfsen
Architect & photographer
Bothers me a little bit since i prefer wide angle lenses. I shoot with the GF1 & 20mm and its nice for its use, but i miss a good wide angle. The 7-14mm is just too expensive. i hope the Olympus 9-18mm will be good so i don't have to wait for the 14mm f2.5 in the autumn.
Ronald M
Veteran
Full frame digital is what I like and I use it just like a film camera.
APS C if I go a little light and use zooms or three primes, 24/35 /60. I don`t want anything smaller.
APS C if I go a little light and use zooms or three primes, 24/35 /60. I don`t want anything smaller.
JonasYip
Well-known
I've always moved between 35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, APS and now m4/3 without thinking of any format as the crop of another.... I just grab the lenses that are appropriate for what I'm using at the time, and use them.
Though I can see how it could be frustrating for people who prefer to go really wide. I'm generally in the slightly-wide/normal to short telephoto range
j
.
Though I can see how it could be frustrating for people who prefer to go really wide. I'm generally in the slightly-wide/normal to short telephoto range
j
.
count_zero
Established
I actually prefer the 2x magnification. The price on the 7-14mm is comparable to other manufactures, and the 9-18mm will be cheaper (pre-order is $700). The Nikon 14mm is nearly $2,000, but much faster. My main gripe is not enough fast lenses.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
With the large EVF on the Pany G1-G2 what does it matter? Those viewfinders are competitive with a full frame digital.
As for the 4x3 proportion, it's OK, like 6x7 or 8x10 or any of the others -- the world isn't 2x3 either.
As for the 4x3 proportion, it's OK, like 6x7 or 8x10 or any of the others -- the world isn't 2x3 either.
Yes, it does bother me a little... but I'd use one anyway.
Yes, as far as using non-m4/3 lenses, no as far as using m4/3 lenses. It is what it is.
Federico Alberto
Member
Not at all with any lens
Not at all with any lens
Take, for instance, this portrait I just took with my E-P1 and an adapted Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron-R:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21122418@N07/4519561862/
At a 100mm equivalent focal length, it allows for precisely the distance required for shooting portraits comfortably.
How about this one, taken also with my E-P1 and the extremely lightweight Leica 180mm f/4 Leitz Elmar-R?
At a 360mm equivalent focal length, it has a pretty good reach for capturing landscape shots at infinity.
Not at all with any lens
Take, for instance, this portrait I just took with my E-P1 and an adapted Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron-R:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21122418@N07/4519561862/
At a 100mm equivalent focal length, it allows for precisely the distance required for shooting portraits comfortably.
How about this one, taken also with my E-P1 and the extremely lightweight Leica 180mm f/4 Leitz Elmar-R?
At a 360mm equivalent focal length, it has a pretty good reach for capturing landscape shots at infinity.
porktaco
Well-known
i love my m4/3 and i'm short tele biased so i work with a smaller lens than i otherwise would.
however... i understand sorta kinda what happens with the optics, but i'll ask just to be sure. i know the field of view is cut down in accordance with the sensor size, but does the aperture change as well? i read somewhere in the last week that an m-mount, say, f2 lens on a m4/3 body is effectively an f3.5 due to the crop. this doesn't make sense to me. am i not understanding correctly?
however... i understand sorta kinda what happens with the optics, but i'll ask just to be sure. i know the field of view is cut down in accordance with the sensor size, but does the aperture change as well? i read somewhere in the last week that an m-mount, say, f2 lens on a m4/3 body is effectively an f3.5 due to the crop. this doesn't make sense to me. am i not understanding correctly?
Federico Alberto
Member
F/2 is f/2 regardless of the crop factor. What changes is the depth-of-field achieved.
To go back to your example, an f/2 aperture in a µ4/3 camera would produce the bokeh of an f/4 aperture in a 35mm camera.
Finder
Veteran
"Crop factor" is an illusion--it is what marketing folks use to get folks stuck in a 35mm world up to speed with different formats. I find photographers that are use to working in many formats are not bothered by this. It is odd to think the m4/3 lenses have no crop factor but other lenses do. What is wrong with this as a simple device:
Under 14mm is very wide
14mm - 17mm is wide
20mm - 21mm is normal
35mm - 50mm is medium telephoto
Over 50mm is telephoto
Or break up the classifications any way you like. But I use 24mmx56mm, 6x6, 6x12, and 4x5. Thinking in terms of equivalent 35mm angles of view is really not practical nor useful.
Under 14mm is very wide
14mm - 17mm is wide
20mm - 21mm is normal
35mm - 50mm is medium telephoto
Over 50mm is telephoto
Or break up the classifications any way you like. But I use 24mmx56mm, 6x6, 6x12, and 4x5. Thinking in terms of equivalent 35mm angles of view is really not practical nor useful.
Finder
Veteran
to clarify:
At a given focal length, the depth of field on a m4/3 camera would be less than on a 35mm camera. If you use the lens DoF scales on a 35mm lens on a m4/3 camera, if the aperture is set to f/8, then use the f/4 DoF scales.
At a given angle of view, then the depth of field would be greater as in Federico's example.
porktaco
Well-known
right. thanks.
acheyj
Well-known
No but the sensor size does.
All things equal (now theres a problem for a start) you cant beat size. Dont get me wrong I really have fun with my G11 but to me a photograph doesnt exist till its on paper as print and its so much easier the bigger the sensor or for that matter the film size. I still use 6x9 MF at times. I lust after a full frame digital, at the moment have several APS-C digitals.
So I really thought hard about a G1 or Oly 4/3 for walking trips but in the end settled on a 550d body as a backup.
All this reminds me as a young fella I spent a lot of effort putting twin SU's shaved head BIG exhaust system on a bag top Austin A40 and a wise chap made the observation -- if he wants to do 80mph why not get a Holden six (1950), as the yanks say you cant beat inches (cubic).
He was right.
ron
'
All things equal (now theres a problem for a start) you cant beat size. Dont get me wrong I really have fun with my G11 but to me a photograph doesnt exist till its on paper as print and its so much easier the bigger the sensor or for that matter the film size. I still use 6x9 MF at times. I lust after a full frame digital, at the moment have several APS-C digitals.
So I really thought hard about a G1 or Oly 4/3 for walking trips but in the end settled on a 550d body as a backup.
All this reminds me as a young fella I spent a lot of effort putting twin SU's shaved head BIG exhaust system on a bag top Austin A40 and a wise chap made the observation -- if he wants to do 80mph why not get a Holden six (1950), as the yanks say you cant beat inches (cubic).
He was right.
ron
'
Federico Alberto
Member
Better think in terms of angle of view
Better think in terms of angle of view
You are absolutely right. Better to think in terms of angles of view.
For instance, at 7mm, the Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 ASPH covers an angle of view of 114°.
At the other end, the ZD 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED, at 300mm, covers an angle of view of 4.1°.
Better think in terms of angle of view
You are absolutely right. Better to think in terms of angles of view.
For instance, at 7mm, the Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 ASPH covers an angle of view of 114°.
At the other end, the ZD 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED, at 300mm, covers an angle of view of 4.1°.
DRabbit
Registered
It's never really bothered me. I had the Canon 5D for a little while (my only full frame digital), and it was a nice camera, but I really didn't think much about it being full frame. I've had no problem bouncing between 4/3 or m4/3, the unique 1.3 crop of the M8 or using 35mm film ("full frame"). I'm even playing around a little bit recently with 120, so I'm not exactly sure how 35mm became known as "full frame". Is there a history of that somewhere?
