Niles H.

Does anyone have a good sense of exactly when it would be better to have the larger sensor size (larger than micro 4/3) of the compact APS-C cameras, such as the NEX-7 or the NX200?, or when and how the differences would be noticeable, and worthwhile?

pathlesspedaled

Niles,
I've shoot m43, APS-C and full frame professionally. The advantage of the larger sensor is primarily:

-less noise at higher ISOs
-ability to have a real narrow depth of field for isolating the subject

I've been traveling with a DSLR for the last three years and have just become tired of carrying it around. I haven't been pulling it out as much on the last trip. The new m43 has gotten me excited about photography again. Lots of the ability of a dslr system but at a fraction of the weight, size, cost.

For most shots while on tour, the m43 should be more than enough. Daylight landscape, riding shots in good light, portraits, etc., Don't quite need the fast AF and burst for sports or wedding photography.

My 2 cents atleast. One added benefit of the m43 system is that there is a good selection of lenses right now.

Best,
Russ
www.pathlesspedaled.com

Niles H.

Thanks for the reply and good points.

I'm wondering if you or someone else out there might be able to tell me if the most compact of the newer (mirrorless) APS-C cameras (Sony NEX-7, Samsung NX200 are examples) are significantly larger or heavier than the micro 4/3 cameras?

I suppose the lenses would be larger, and you wouldn't want to carry a bunch of them (if you wanted to stay light and compact, at least). But if you just had one versatile lens (or maybe two), wouldn't you have a fairly compact setup with these sorts of APS-C cameras? Or do the micro 4/3 cameras have a significant advantage even over the most compact of the APS-Cs? (It is clear enough that the full-sized APS-C DSLRs are significantly bulkier and heavier than the micro 4/3 cameras -- I'm just wondering how the most compact of the APS-Cs fare in comparison with the micro 4/3s in weight and bulk.)

Bacciagalupe

I like my m4/3 stuff, but I do have to say for most people it's overkill.

Compacts like the LX series, Canon S95, Oly XZ-1 etc are more than sufficient for most users. They're much smaller too.

Tourist in MSN

To expand on the comment from pathlesspedaled, sometimes you want a really small depth of field because the out of focus foreground or background makes the picture look better. The bigger sensor cameras can do that much better than the smaller sensor cameras.

This was taken with a Pentax K100D DSLR at f7.1. I do not think that the smaller sensor cameras could have taken a photo that looks this good. By having most of the photo out of focus, your eye is naturally drawn towards the in-focus subject.



But, as I noted in post 19, the smaller sensor cameras can take great landscape photos. So, it is an issue of how artistic you want to be. If you are looking to document a trip, almost any camera will do. It is a question of what types of photos do you want to take.

A friend of mine has a medium format digital that I think is something like 40 megapixels. If I had one of those, I would store it in the safe deposit box at the bank.

sstorkel

I believe you're mistaken: bokeh is mainly a function of the lens, not the sensor...

Tom Spohn

The principal difference between Micro 4/3 and APSC sensors seems to be low light performance. Yes there may be some difference in image quality, but for me, not enough to matter. In the mirrorless APSC group the Sony outperforms the Samsung. If this camera is going to be carried on the bike in all kinds of weather that should be taken into consideration as well. If the cameral will be used for video that should be checked out as well. All of these cameras have been tested on this site:
https://www.dpreview.com/

rjl33

Actually sensor size does play an important role in depth of field, which does affect how out of focus a background appears. The same focal length, at the same aperture, on a compact point & shoot vs. micro 4/3 vs. aps-c vs. full frame will have shallower depth of field as the sensor size increases. Bokeh is the quality and characteristics of the out of focus areas, but not the amount of blur(out of focus). Hope this helps.

sstorkel

I have to admit, I dropped out of college physics before we got to optics. It seems to me, though, that the DOF should be the same if the focal length is the same. I certainly can't see any difference in DOF when swapping lenses between my Digital Rebel XT (APS-C) and my EOS 5D (full-frame), for example.

Perhaps what you mean is that the DOF changes if the focal length changes, even though the field of view is the same? Say, comparing a 20mm micro four-thirds lens to the "equivalent" 40mm full-frame lens? In any event, it seems likely that any of the interchangeable-lens cameras being discussed should be able to replicate the DOF of the f7.1 shot that Tourist posted, perhaps at a slightly different aperture.

pathlesspedaled

I believe achieving shallow depth of field is a function of the focal length, aperture and the size of the recording media (sensor). It gets tricky when we try to equate everything in 35mm field of view terms.

For example, a 50mm 1.8 on a full frame camera would generate a pretty narrow DOF.

To get a 50mm equivalent field of view on an APS-C sensor you'd have to shoot a 35mm lens (crop is 1.6ish). Let's say you shot that 35mm lens at 1.8, the field of view would be the same as the 50mm on a full frame, but your depth of field won't be as shallow. You could put on a 50mm lens and get the same shallow depth of field as you did on full frame camera, but the field of view would be a 75mm.

Is that utterly confusing or what?

To get a 50mm field of view for micro 4/3rds you'd have to shoot a 25mm lens. If you shot that lens at 25mm 1.8 you'd get the same field of view, but the depth of field wouldn't be as shallow. To get an exact equivalent in both field of view and DOF on micro 4/3rds, you'd have to shoot a 25mm 1.2 or some other insanely large aperture.

So, in one way, you are right. The depth of field is the same with the lens (a 50mm 1.8 on full frame or APS-C or micro 43 will produce the DOF), but the focal length will be different depending on the sensor (50mm on FF, 75mm on APS-C and 100mm on m43). Having the same DOF does you no good, if you need that DOF in a different focal length.

Sorry for the confusion!

R

mtnroads

I have both the Olympus Pen system and a recently purchased Lumix Gf-1 with the 20mm/1.7 lens for low-light and candids. Coming from years of Nikon semi-pro gear usage I find these new micro 4/3 systems amazing in terms of image quality, creative flexibility and mostly - portability. I took my Oly EPL1 to Costa Rica this year with a couple of (small) lenses, which in sum weighed less than one of my Nikon bodies, and came back with a bunch of nice images.

Wonderful advancement in technology. Highly recommended.

Bacciagalupe

Well, think about it this way.

If you use a 50mm lens on a full-frame sensor, you get a certain DOF. When you shrink the sensor size, it's the equivalent of cropping out a part of the image.

Micro 4/3 sensor is 1/2 the size of full-frame. As such, a focal length of 50mm on m4/3 is the equivalent to a 100mm lens on a FF camera, but retains the same depth of field as the 50mm on the FF.

I.e. you get roughly double the DOF with an M4/3 camera as with full-frame. IIRC it works out to about 2 stops.

You probably just aren't noticing it with the Rebel because it's less of a crop, 1.6x instead of 2x.

Further explanation and examples here: https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/0...-olympus-e-p2/


Depends on the focal length and lens. You might need a specialty lens like the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 to really get shallow DOF.

Of course I happen to think that shallow DOF is kind of overused, trite, and isn't "artsy" at all, but there ya go.

Niles H.

I've played around with this one a bit, and like it:

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSho...0085609&sr=8-1

This one is a great camera at its price point:

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSho...pr_product_top

pathlesspedaled

For those interested, I just did a portrait session with the Olympus PEN cameras today. Great little cams!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/russroc...7628031200078/

Best,
Russ
www.pathlesspedaled.com

Tourist in MSN

Looks very good. I assume that by the time I see the image on my computer screen that it has been downsized and shrunk a lot, but still it looks like the original shots had very good resolution. All but one had very good focus on the eyes and the eyes would have shown it if you did not have a good lens. And no, I do not think the narrow depth of field is "trite" as someone above mentioned.