I think it all goes back to the very first advertising for the Four Thirds sensor, when Olympus explicitly said that by making the sensor smaller, compactness and economy was gained, but nothing was lost. In fact, it was a free lunch. Quite a few Olympus users bought into this, and as we know, once you've bought into a myth it's hard to shed.
March 29, 2024
189
-
handouts for their respective brand loyalty. its very obvious to me.
-
Thank you so much for explaining this! I had to read it a few times for it to sink in, but it makes sense to me now!
I thought it was particularly egregious the way you were sandboxed after that thread. It was TC and Janet who were being rude and patronising which is breaking DPR's Rule #1 - Be nice!
Has the sandbox finished yet or is it still going?
Yes, they characterise the situation as FF owners "invading" their forum and starting an equivalence war. The fact is that most if not all of these threads are started by m4/3 owners making outlandish claims about their gear. The mods then protect those who made the dumb claims and punish those who are trying to clear up the misconceptions.
It's just like primary school. The naughty kid pokes you with a pencil, you yell "hey", the teacher then busts you for making a noise when all you were doing was responding to what just happened.
I agree it's fine to like your gear and believe it's best for you, but I do think there is a superiority complex going on with a number of the frequent posters who own Olympus gear in the m4/3 forum.
-
they have nothing on this guy www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67630043
BTW what is image fidelity 😏 when i posted a comparison the mods deleted my post . -
Thanks for the history, Nigel. It does provide context to the prevailing attitude in the DPR m4/3 forum.
You are so right about finding out for yourself. After about 6 years of shooting only with m4/3, I bought into FF and it was a real eye-opener. FF is now what I use the most. I kept a GX85 for casual walkaround shooting (with a small prime so it's pocketable).
For context, I actually had two SLRs back in the film era (i.e. pre-digital), first was an East German Praktica (completely manual) and later a Nikon F90x. When digital started, I had a young family so dropped down to using point & shoots for many years and only got back into serious photography when I took up m4/3 in 2016.
Yes, very good points to remember. While it can be annoying participating in DPR forums, it's not really important life or death stuff.
-
Yes, I do think that Olympus marketing has been very effective in establishing a mindset among its customers!
-
Just as well that I deleted my account over there a year ago, so there is no danger of my being sucked into such pointless "discussions". 😁
David
-
Yeah, that is not a term I've seen used in photography! Usually it's used in relation to sound (i.e. recordings).
-
thanks for the read, just about any current FF can equal MF. unless sony added some magic pixie dust to
there MF sensors 🙄 -
Are you sure you dont mean pixel dust?
David
-
It's not really about the sensors - it's about the available lenses. All the major FF systems have f/1.2 lenses available. To do the same job you'd need f/1.6 on the MF systems. None of MF systems have any f/1.6 lenses. Moreover, if you use Nikon you have 64 as a sanctioned ISO. That's the same noise-wise as 110 on MF, so really they don't have a significant advantage there, either.
-
You divide focal length by 4; not f/4.
Yes. This is the elephant in the room that often gets forgotten. Using max zoom as a reference point, as you zoom out wider, the maximum size of the entrance pupil plummets. This is actually worse with constant-f-ratio zooms, than with variable ones. However, people can get tricked more easily with the variable-f-ratio ratio zooms into zooming out wider than necessary. Sometimes people will opt to "zoom out" in low light, taking a wider composition than wanted with more cropping expected, to get a lower f-ratio, which is completely counter-productive for the captured subject, if one was looking for maximum background blur and minimum DOF, more total subject light, and minimal diffraction.
Of course, if a person is also getting closer to the subject as they zoom out, then the greater proximity can improve those characteristics, regardless of the fact that the pupil has gotten smaller.
A good policy is to get as close as you can first (unless you want a more distant perspective), and then zoom in as far as you can without the AOV getting too narrow to work with, and that will give the "large, close pupil" effects mentioned above.
-
Every large sensor can emulate a smaller one through cropping, so for the underlying analog image (which is what equivalence is concerned with), a FF sensor can do everything an m43 can do and more. The other "meta-equivalence" details about sensor and camera performance could favor the M43, though, in certain situations.
-
Yes, I get, the fact it is a pretty thankless unpaid job. Amazon and now the new owners have been pretty shrewd getting people to work for free. I suppose it might be a good pastime for a bored pensioner, fed up with watching the TV all day, . It is certainly not something I would want to do. I guess most do it with healthy motivations, but I can imagine some like to be in a position to bully others.
-
Absolutely; with the right and wrong optics, respectively, FF can equal or surpass a Medium Format.
-
Can't speak for other manufacturers, but Canon has this "sensor shake" thing that makes "pixel dust" a non-issue. 😉
-
After a power cycle, but if dirt gets on the sensor while the camera is operating, you can still get in photos, and may jump around if you use mechanical shutter.
