Olympus UK E-System User Group
Olympus UK E-System User Group

Join our unique resource for Olympus Four Thirds E-System DSLR and Pen and OM-D Micro Four Thirds photographers. Show your images via our free e-group photo gallery. Please read the e-group.uk.net forum terms and conditions before posting for the first time. Above all, welcome!


Go Back   Olympus UK E-System User Group > Out of Focus area > The lounge

The lounge Relax, take a break from photo and camera talk - have a chat about something else for a change. Just keep it clean and polite!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 2nd August 2019
blu-by-u blu-by-u is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Selangor, Malaysia
Posts: 1,984
Thanks: 227
Thanked 107 Times in 93 Posts
Likes: 368
Liked 708 Times in 377 Posts
If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Was reading this on the fstoppers.com, I got several questions. Maybe some who have the luxury to own both FF and mft can enlighten.

1) Are not smaller sensors a tat sharper? Evidence in the small handphone sensors against the mft. If so, won't the mft sensors show some difference as compared to the FF?

2) Wide angle, would the 7mm of the mft not look the same as that of a 14mm from a FF?

3) Shallow Depth of Field, Won't it be the same? a 50mm of a mft and that of a 25mm of a FF


if sensor size doesn't matter why buy bigger one
__________________
* Henry
* Location: Subang Jaya, Selangor
* Malaysia


All my garbage so far.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 2nd August 2019
Walti Walti is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: !
Posts: 3,555
Thanks: 334
Thanked 238 Times in 204 Posts
Likes: 269
Liked 1,802 Times in 668 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Hi Henry

There are differences in performance between the 4/3 and 35mm sensors and systems.

Focal length, as you know there is a crop factor of 2 meaning that a 4/3 lens focal multiplied by 2 gives the equivalent field of view to the 35mm equivelent.

Depth of field, because you are using a shorter focal length to get the same field of view the depth of field also changes and this is easiest thought of as a crop factor too, so an f stop on a 4/3 system will give a depth of field the same as the f stop on a 35mm multiplied by 2, which for sport and wildlife is great, but for portrait work is a problem, so you can now get f0.9 lenses for the 4/3 system to compensate for this. So a photo taken on a 4/3 system at f2.8 gives the same DOF as one taken at f5.6 with a 35mm system

Sharpness, I really don’t know whether the smaller pixels give a sharper image or not, someone else will have to advise!

Low light performance, the performance of the 4/3 system does lag behind the 35mm system for low light but is catching up. That’s all to do with pixel size and the amount of light actually focussed onto the sensor, but it’s a personal choice as to whether the performance is good enough for you! It certainly is for me! Interestingly some of the comparisons of sensor performance put the current 4/3 devices in the same league as 35mm so it’s not going to be long before there’s equivalency between the two systems.

Defraction. The smaller pixels mean that diffraction is a potential issue with the 4/3 system, and I note that Olympus have changed their advice since the recent firmware updates for the OM1ii changing from f8 to f11 as their recommended defraction free f stop!

I think I’ve covered everything, but I’m sure others will chip in!

Last edited by Walti; 2nd August 2019 at 07:49 AM. Reason: little mistake corrected!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Walti For This Useful Post:
blu-by-u (2nd August 2019)
  #3  
Old 2nd August 2019
Walti Walti is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: !
Posts: 3,555
Thanks: 334
Thanked 238 Times in 204 Posts
Likes: 269
Liked 1,802 Times in 668 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Don't know how that happened - but it's not worth saying twice!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 2nd August 2019
MJ224's Avatar
MJ224 MJ224 is online now
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Carmarthenshire
Posts: 14,142
Thanks: 990
Thanked 762 Times in 707 Posts
Likes: 7,114
Liked 4,002 Times in 1,832 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walti View Post
Hi Henry

Sharpness, I really don’t know whether the smaller pixels give a sharper image or not, someone else will have to advise!
I have been led to believe that the pixels are about the same density in both FF and MFT sensors...….Unsure actual size tho'

A you tube video if I remember correctly...……..
__________________
Mark Johnson

My Sailing Page

My Flickr
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 2nd August 2019
Walti Walti is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: !
Posts: 3,555
Thanks: 334
Thanked 238 Times in 204 Posts
Likes: 269
Liked 1,802 Times in 668 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ224 View Post
I have been led to believe that the pixels are about the same density in both FF and MFT sensors...….Unsure actual size tho'

A you tube video if I remember correctly...……..
They can’t be at the same density if you are comparing the same number of pixels, a 20MP 4/3 sensor has to have the pixels more densely packed than a 20MP 35mm sensor.. multiply the number of pixels by the area difference then they’ll be at the same density - a 35mm sensor is roughly 4 times the area of a 4/3 sensor giving 80MP at 35mm for them to be the same.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
blu-by-u (2nd August 2019)
  #6  
Old 2nd August 2019
MJ224's Avatar
MJ224 MJ224 is online now
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Carmarthenshire
Posts: 14,142
Thanks: 990
Thanked 762 Times in 707 Posts
Likes: 7,114
Liked 4,002 Times in 1,832 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Yes, I see your logic...……..
__________________
Mark Johnson

My Sailing Page

My Flickr
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 2nd August 2019
wornish's Avatar
wornish wornish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,260
Thanks: 353
Thanked 562 Times in 441 Posts
Likes: 2,977
Liked 1,647 Times in 813 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

If you want to get into the details here is a good explanation.

https://clarkvision.com/articles/doe...l.size.matter/

For most users the difference between a FF and M43 image in typical use is unnoticeable.
It's only when you get to extremes that things may be different.

What is different though is the size and weight of the lenses!
__________________
Dave

My Flickr
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
blu-by-u (2nd August 2019)
  #8  
Old 2nd August 2019
TimP TimP is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Deepest Darkest Dorset
Posts: 2,082
Thanks: 60
Thanked 76 Times in 75 Posts
Likes: 375
Liked 763 Times in 523 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wornish View Post

What is different though is the size and weight of the lenses!
That’s exactly what brought me to m43. Camera is a good bit smaller too. For my needs the pixel count is fine, obviously more is better but it is more than made up for by the size / weight thing.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 2nd August 2019
MikeOxon MikeOxon is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: oxford
Posts: 616
Thanks: 61
Thanked 108 Times in 94 Posts
Likes: 64
Liked 249 Times in 156 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

As Wornish has said, the size and weight of lenses is an important factor, especially for tele-lenses.

There are, however, other factors that can enhance smaller lens designs. Most MFT lenses are 'telecentric', which mean that the rear element is as large as the sensor and allows all the light rays to strike the sensor at a perpendicular angle. This feature improves image quality at the edges, especially for wide-angle lenses. Some old lenses for film cameras perform very poorly on digital sensors because the light rays are oblique.

It is also possible to use different construction techniques for smaller lenses. The lenses used in phone cameras often exploit the possibility of using extremely aspherical designs which enables these lenses to provide higher resolution than is feasible for lenses that cover large sensors.

Already, many sensors have sufficient pixels to out-resolve lenses for their format.

There is an article by Zeiss which explains these aspects and shows some designs for phone lenses. Download from:
lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-Tessar-2011-EN.pdf
__________________
Mike
visit my Natural History Photos website:
http://home.btconnect.com/mike.flemming/
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 2nd August 2019
pdk42's Avatar
pdk42 pdk42 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 5,710
Thanks: 370
Thanked 1,257 Times in 942 Posts
Likes: 150
Liked 6,007 Times in 1,955 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

There are really only two differences in theoretical terms:

- Larger sensors give shallower DoF for a given field of view. A 50mm lens on FF gives a similar field of view to 25mm on m43. Point them both at a subject a metre away and set them both at f2.8. The FF shot will give you a DoF of about 6cm, whilst the m43 shot will give you nearer 13cm. To get the same DoF on m43 you'd need an f1.4 lens. (Calculations using a CoC of 0.03mm on FF and 0.015 on m43 - the frame diagonal/1500).

- Larger sensors (given similar technology) yield lower noise. The difference will be about 2 stops (for regular photo use rather than astro where things change). So, you'll get the same noise shooting on FF at ISO 3200 as you would on m43 at ISO 800, all other things equal. Sometimes that won't matter. Other times it will. Depends on what you're shooting, how much you're cropping, what the final output medium is, what the lighting is like (poor lighting will generally make noise worse even when exposed correctly), ...

In practical terms there are other differences of course:

- Smaller sensor systems generally have smaller and lighter lenses for a given field of view and at a similar f-stop. So, the Oly 300mm f4 is way smaller than the Nikon 600mm f4. However, the Nikon 500mm f5.6 is much closer in size and because the noise performance of an FF sensor is two stops better, you could crop the 500mm to the same field of view and still be better off in terms of total noise than m43.

- Smaller sensor cameras are generally smaller and lighter. Although Olympus are doing their best to equalise this with the E-M1x!

- Smaller sensor cameras and their lenses are generally cheaper than larger systems. Not all cameras and not all lenses - but in general.

- Larger sensors often deliver improved dynamic range. You'll probably get an extra stop or two of DR from a modern FF sensor over the best m43 sensor available today.
__________________
Paul
E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
flickr
Portfolio Site
Instagram
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pdk42 For This Useful Post:
blu-by-u (2nd August 2019), Naughty Nigel (3rd August 2019)
The Following Users Liked This Post:
blu-by-u (2nd August 2019), GyRob (2nd August 2019), Naughty Nigel (3rd August 2019), RobEW (2nd August 2019)
  #11  
Old 3rd August 2019
Naughty Nigel's Avatar
Naughty Nigel Naughty Nigel is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Land of the Prince Bishops
Posts: 10,118
Thanks: 412
Thanked 584 Times in 496 Posts
Likes: 3,490
Liked 2,510 Times in 1,643 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blu-by-u View Post

1) Are not smaller sensors a tat sharper? Evidence in the small handphone sensors against the mft. If so, won't the mft sensors show some difference as compared to the FF?
Not sure about that, but I seem to remember the Four Thirds consortium settled on the format because it was considered the optimum sensor size to match with lenses that would feed light directly into the sensor and not at an angle; thereby minimising diffraction effects and suchlike.

Olympus also made great play of the fact that their lenses were designed and optimised for digital sensors whereas Nikon, Canon et al were using lenses designed for film.

I'm not sure how valid these claims were or whether some of it was marketing bull.

Also, don't forget that mobile phones and compact cameras tend to use a lot of software sharpening and brightening to 'enhance' images for small screens and social media, but these don't stand up to close scrutiny on a 27" monitor.
__________________
---------------

Naughty Nigel


Difficult is worth doing
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 3rd August 2019
pdk42's Avatar
pdk42 pdk42 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 5,710
Thanks: 370
Thanked 1,257 Times in 942 Posts
Likes: 150
Liked 6,007 Times in 1,955 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel View Post
Not sure about that, but I seem to remember the Four Thirds consortium settled on the format because it was considered the optimum sensor size to match with lenses that would feed light directly into the sensor and not at an angle; thereby minimising diffraction effects and suchlike.

Olympus also made great play of the fact that their lenses were designed and optimised for digital sensors whereas Nikon, Canon et al were using lenses designed for film.

I'm not sure how valid these claims were or whether some of it was marketing bull.
Mostly marketing bull I reckon! Apart from size (and cost) I don't see why any of those points wouldn't apply to larger sensors.
__________________
Paul
E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
flickr
Portfolio Site
Instagram
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 3rd August 2019
drmarkf's Avatar
drmarkf drmarkf is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 5,647
Thanks: 360
Thanked 508 Times in 422 Posts
Likes: 2,219
Liked 1,281 Times in 728 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Agree with all of that, however...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdk42 View Post
- Larger sensors (given similar technology) yield lower noise. The difference will be about 2 stops (for regular photo use rather than astro where things change). So, you'll get the same noise shooting on FF at ISO 3200 as you would on m43 at ISO 800, all other things equal. Sometimes that won't matter. Other times it will. Depends on what you're shooting, how much you're cropping, what the final output medium is, what the lighting is like (poor lighting will generally make noise worse even when exposed correctly), ...
If you are actually after a specific and quite large depth of field, such as for wildlife photography, you often end up stopping down the FF, so you may lose one of those ISO stops right away.

Furthermore, in real life this isn't just about image quality, is it? FF fanboys conveniently ignore everything else, of course

So, I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the improved IS systems of smaller sensor cameras, allowing handholding of wide angle lenses for ridiculously long exposures, and doing away with tripods/gimbals/monopods for long telephotos, aiding maneuverability.

A friend of mine does a lot of semi-pro low-light concert & stage photography to a very high standard, and currently shoots both a Canon 1DX mkii and an E-M1ii. He's been toying with the idea of switching entirely to Sony and has been testing various combinations of bodies & lenses from the 3 manufacturers, with the conclusion so far that there is still no outright winner. He hasn't yet tried the A7Riv, but everything else available from all 3 manufacturers wins on some swings and loses on other roundabouts.
__________________
Regards,
Mark

------------------------------
http://www.microcontrast.com
Too much Oly gear.
Panasonic GM5, 12-32, 12-35, 15. Laowa 7.5.
Assorted legacy lenses, plus a Fuji X70 & a Sony A7S.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
wornish (3rd August 2019)
  #14  
Old 3rd August 2019
Naughty Nigel's Avatar
Naughty Nigel Naughty Nigel is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Land of the Prince Bishops
Posts: 10,118
Thanks: 412
Thanked 584 Times in 496 Posts
Likes: 3,490
Liked 2,510 Times in 1,643 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

I recently had the pleasure (not) of having to provide expert commentary on a series of technical photographs taken using an Apple iPad. It really was not good.

Somebody from the shipyard had decided to document a procedure by photographing it with the iPad, but they had not stood particularly close when doing so. The photographs look OK on my iPad Mini but their quality on a 27" monitor leaves a lot to be desired. Despite the millions of pixels fine detail is nothing more than a mush! This probably comes down to the small size of the sensor although aggressive sharpening and compression and the lens design won't have helped.

Generally in life bigger is better, but as technology improves the 'critical mass' becomes smaller. iPad sized sensors still have a way to go, but for most photographic purposes the Four Thirds sensors and lenses are more than adequate and actually provide many advantages over full frame and medium format sizes.
__________________
---------------

Naughty Nigel


Difficult is worth doing
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
drmarkf (3rd August 2019)
  #15  
Old 4th August 2019
IPWheatley IPWheatley is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northampton
Posts: 278
Thanks: 49
Thanked 43 Times in 22 Posts
Likes: 76
Liked 35 Times in 20 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

As someone who has bucked the trend so to speak, I recently switched from a crop sensor system to a full frame one. I chose this option for a couple of reasons, the main one being, as the majority of my photography is now landscape focused it seemed the obvious way to go to achieve the best image quality possible. I did not make this decision lightly. I was fortunate enough in that my local camera dealer lent me a Canon 5D Mk3 and three Canon L lenses to try for a week and the results convinced me it was the right move for me. There are disadvantages, as have already been mentioned by others here, the main one being the weight factor, but after a recent trip to The Lakes, lugging around two bodies and six lenses with my old system, the difference is negligible. The advantages are, greatly improved battery life, I used to carry six previously, now only two, and image quality, which to me is a noticeable improvement. Regrets? None on my part. One last point. How many of you here edit in 16 bit, not 8. If not why not? Yes it triples you file size but you can always resize for posting etc. It seems foolish to me not to if you want the ultimate in image quality from whatever camera system you choose to use. Interested to hear other members views on this. As always, regards to all, Ian W.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to IPWheatley For This Useful Post:
blu-by-u (5th August 2019), OM USer (4th August 2019)
The Following User Liked This Post:
blu-by-u (5th August 2019)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Technical perfection doesn't truly matter Ricoh The lounge 51 15th April 2017 11:23 AM
OM-D E-M10 Sensor size in Dim and Bright environments TClement Olympus OM-D E-M10 2 1st August 2015 08:03 AM
Size does matter — or does it? BobS The lounge 6 18th August 2010 11:52 AM
Does glass quality/size matter? Radar Lens focus 8 21st April 2010 08:09 AM
Does Size matter.....? Jon*E Lens focus 0 20th February 2010 02:00 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:45 PM.


© The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger