Why four thirds? [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

ameerat42

10-08-2018, 9:27am

I guess there's no real explanation for this. It happens with lots of cameras that a certain aspect ratio is
achieved by simply masking off part of the sensor. A cheap 16-9 view on my phone simply trims the long
sides of the sensor and does not afford any wider view. - But, on more expensive cameras that have much
larger sensors, the maximum image size in pixels is the maximum width of the sensor (or pretty close thereto).

But to allay any fear of being at a disadvantage for having to "waste" 10% of your pixels, you actually do not
lose any pixel density in the resulting image. You only "lose" part of the image, which, as you imply by your artistic
dislike of the 4:3 ratio you didn't want anyway. (How many advertisers push a loss as a gain or make a gain out of
a lack! :rolleyes:) - Just use the 3:2 aspect ratio if you prefer and consider it as an 18 MPx camera instead.

Pixel number is an often-overrated paramater of image quality, and some manufacturers/sellers/users have at some time
or other paraded it as the paragon of their product. It is often touted as being the same as "resolution", which is totally
incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: For this model there is another curious coincidence - that the "micro four-thirds" sensor size
happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

MissionMan

10-08-2018, 10:10am

I love mirrorless cameras, but I am confused as to why the 4/3 format was chosen. Any thoughts?

Just to be clear, this isn't mirrorless, other brands like Fujifilm and Canon use 3:2 on their mirrorless cameras, this is a micro 4/3's thing

Tannin

10-08-2018, 10:53am

Point and shoot cameras have always used 4:3. No idea why, they just have. And SLRs have always used 3:2 - for the same reason. They just do. Except Olympus ones, which use 4:3.

Note that "four thirds" is NOT the ratio, it has nothing to do with the ratio. "Four thirds" is merely a bizarrely stupid name chosen by some brainless marketing person for the sensor size used by Olympus (and some others) instead of APS-C. The fact that 4/3rds cameras also happen to have a 4:3 aspect ratio is entirely coincidental.

(As a matter of detail, I like the 3:2 ratio. Always have. Except for computer screens, which should always be 3:2.)

ameerat42

10-08-2018, 10:59am

...for the sensor size used by Olympus (and some others) instead of APS-C...
I'd accept APS < C :D

...(As a matter of detail, I like the 3:2 ratio. Always have. Except for computer screens, which should always be 3:2.)
Did you mean 4:3?

MattNQ

10-08-2018, 11:19am

Blame this bloke ...
In 1999, Olympus engineer Katsuhiro Takada selected the 4/3"-type sensor as being the optimal size to allow smaller cameras capable of high quality images. Olympus developed the lens mount and communication protocols and was joined by other makers including Kodak, Fujifilm and Panasonic.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9877975278/olympus-brings-down-the-curtain-on-the-four-thirds-system

I believe the original idea was that the light hit the sensor more perpendicularly for greater resolution.
But this was or course off-set by the smaller sensor having less overall sensor area ( and less megapickles) than a bigger one.

Quote of Japanese m4/3 page (translated by google:D )
Micro Four Thirds' sensor size was determined from judgment of the size limit of the lens made according to the principle "high image quality that people can walk with." In a sense, it is also the limit to making a wide variety of lenses without compromising image quality and productivity.

So basically they just scaled up from a 4:3 ratio compact camera sensor to a size that brought the best compromise between body/lens size and image quality.
Possibly didn't give the ratio a lot of thought

One interesting thing I stumbled on is that sensors are cut out of a circular wafer.
The most efficient ratio sensor would be 1:1 square.
The next most efficient use of the surface area is 4:3 ratio, making them cheaper to make for high volume cameras & phones

arthurking83

10-08-2018, 12:33pm

Actually, the question should be "why not!"

A more square format sensor in theory makes more sense than a rectangular aspect ratio.
While it may appear nicer to the eye, the rectangular aspect ratio is a waste.
The image circle of a lens is just that .. a circle. So a rectangular sensor misses a lot of 'imaging' on the upper and lower portions of what the lens actually projects.

My personal preference would be a square format sensor capturing as much of what a lens could project properly, with the choice offered to the user to either capture the entire image(ie. the full square format), or various cropped modes .. all done in camera.

Note sure about most other cameras, but some Nikon's offer the choice to shoot in a cropped mode(or image area, or aspect ratio).
The options aren't huge, but they do give you something.

There was one unique 4/3 sensor that Panasonic did a while ago that allowed various aspect ratio options, with less pixel loss than traditional fixed aspect ratio sensors allowed.
That is, the sensor wasn't a fixed aspect ratio, it varied according to what you set in the camera.
I can't remember the actual numbers, but as an example: lets assume that the full 4:3 sensor aspect ratio was 15Mp, and a 16:9 cropped version of that same image area was 11Mp, with this Panasonic camera, the sensor was laterally larger than a std 4:3 sensor, so when 16:9 aspect ratio was chosen, you gained an additional 2Mp or so(ie. up from 11 to 13Mp).

For me, the most sensible sensor format would be to make them all 1:1 aspect ratio, and allow user preferred aspect ratio options in camera for those that prefer a specific ratio.
I have many 1:1 aspect ratio old photos sitting on my desk right at this moment(after a huge cleanup of lots of carp in my study) .. and they look great.

When I first got the D800 (full frame format) ,y preferred landscape lens up to this point was always the Sigma 10-20mm APS-C lens.
I continued using this APS-C lens on the full frame camera, at first choosing to use cropped(APS-C) mode, but then after a few shots, changing the camera back to full frame area capture.
The APS-C only lens, still captured a full image along the horizontal edges of the sensor, only vignetting massively at the sides.
So instead of capturing a 15mp APS-C(out of 36Mp for the full sensor area), I got closer to 20 or so Mp images of cropped to a square format with the APS-C lens.
I remember making quite a few square format landscape images using this lens .. then I got a full frame wide angle lens to replace the little Sigma.

So as to why 4:3 and not 3:2 .. I ask why 3:2 and not 4:3!! less waste, more copping options .. etc, etc.(and even more importantly why not 1;1 which makes the most sense.

Tannin

10-08-2018, 1:02pm

Cheers Matt, good info. Have to laugh at some of the marketingmoron claims they make though.

"Olympus engineer selected the 4/3"-type sensor as being the optimal size to allow smaller cameras capable of high quality images" ... Yer right. As if it was somehow better. Which it wasn't. It was (and is) clearly inferior to (for example) APS-C without offering any substantial benefit in terms of size or weight. On the other hand, it was (of course) better than all the even smaller ones. But it was Olympus' great mistake. It was the decision which finished them as a maker of serious cameras. Olympus wound up being the worst DSLR or the biggest, best, most expensive point and shoot. Not really a happy place - too big to play with the little kids, and not grown up enough to play with the big kids. Sad.

(Disclaimer #1: I'm not given to fanboyism these days, but all through my younger years I had a big teenage crush on Olympus SLRs. (Film cameras in those days.) I used to dream about owning one. Some of that feeling remains to this day. I couldn't find any justification for their DSLRs, of course, but when I recently bought a pocket P&S camera, a really, really cute little Olympus was the one I wanted. Sadly, common sense prevailed and I wound up buying a Canon which was not as tough, nothing like as cute, cost about the same, and had a sensor about five times bigger.)

(Disclaimer #2: having rubbished Olympus for doing something different, I am all in favour of doing things differently and presenting the buyer with a choice between things which really are different, not just different brands of the same thing. (Cough cough, Nikon Canon.) I just wish they'd done something different-and-better instead of different-and-worser.)

"I believe the original idea was that the light hit the sensor more perpendicularly for greater resolution." Wow! This would be an original idea as invented by someone sitting in a cosmic pyramid, eating vitamin supplements, and admiring his degree from the Uri Geller School of Advanced Physics. Nice one!

"Micro Four Thirds' sensor size was determined from judgment of the size limit of the lens made according to the principle high image quality that people can walk with." Funny thing ... this was the exact same reason all those other engineers chose all those other sizes!

"One interesting thing I stumbled on is that sensors are cut out of a circular wafer. The most efficient ratio sensor would be 1:1 square."

Just so. I rather like the idea of a square sensor. But it cuts down your width. You get the most pixels from a given wafer with a square, but you get the longest horizontal with a line. For this reason, all the sensors I have ever seen compromise somewhere in between the two.

Come to think of it, why limit it to four sides? (Or two in the case of a line.) Slip down to some popular attraction where the tourist busses line up to disgorge selfie snappers. Wouldn't many of them be better served by a sensor shaped like a star? Or better yet, a heart?

Waiter!

Fetch a cart and take Tannin away. He's gone ga-ga.

MissionMan

10-08-2018, 1:18pm

MattNQ

10-08-2018, 2:01pm

Come to think of it, why limit it to four sides? (Or two in the case of a line.) Slip down to some popular attraction where the tourist busses line up to disgorge selfie snappers. Wouldn't many of them be better served by a sensor shaped like a star? Or better yet, a heart?

You could be onto something there - Software controlled sensor output in different shapes - make the camera look all silly & cutesy like those FUJI Instax cameras.
It then uploads straight to your social media. You could make millions $$ :th3:

swifty

10-08-2018, 3:27pm

Disclaimer: I haven’t read all the replies above so I may be repeating what has already been said.
4:3 is a more efficient use of the image circle than 3:2.
Ie. for any image circle diameter, a rectangle with a diagonal same as the circle diameter will have a larger area in 4:3 ratio compared to 3:2 ratio.

Nick Cliff

10-08-2018, 6:42pm

The thing about micro 4/3 system is it gives you great depth of focus for macro photography that I do a lot of.
For landscapes I think I would err on the side of Nikon for having the most capable cameras especially if you like astro photography and do not want to lose too many stars. Nikon's remarkable new sensors and algorithms with big cat photos in trees with bright backgrounds all perfectly exposed come to mind.
My son can blow up pictures taken with his OMD elite camera big enough to put on the side of medium sized trucks OK. So the system can be surprisingly capable in the right hands with high quality lenses in this case being a 50mm f/1.7 Zeiss planar lens.
With landscapes I agree the 3:2 crop is usually a good one, not always as Am has already pointed out.
In rain forest environments the 4/3 crop is fine so suits my purposes most of the time.
Using high quality legacy lenses with this system is very easy too re the focusing and live preview when changing settings on the camera.
Nikon can have problems here of course with adapters when using some legacy glass.
Really we decide were our interests lie in photography and find the best system that suits our purpose.
I recall one person saying the best camera is the camera you can take with you anywhere and not miss the great photo opportunity, for me this has been a big part of the micro 4/3 systems appeal to me,

cheers Nick

arthurking83

11-08-2018, 8:01am

The thing about micro 4/3 system is it gives you great depth of focus for macro photography that I do a lot of.
....

This is kind'a true .. in a simplistic sense.
But the overall reality is that it's not.

That is: due to the current level of 'marketing vs tech' we have cropped sensor camera manufacturers that feel a need to keep up with the marketing side of selling products.
So (as said prior) the number of pixels that the camera needs to have is a strong sales pitch. Hence they pack in more and smaller pixels into the cropped camera sensor.
The larger frame manufacturers also have to keep one eye on the pixel count on the sensor, but also the other eye on the cost of those pixels on their larger sensors.

Both the number of pixels and the size of the sensor have an impact on the cost of a sensor, but of course manufacturers always want the highest number of pixels for their marketing advantage.

So brand A makes a 1/4 sized sensor with 20Mp and they deem that to be sufficient to push to market, and maker B make a 4x larger sensor camera with 30Mp.

A thinks that 20Mp is marketable, and stuffing more pixels just adds more cost, lowers SNR, or alternatively additional cost in software to counter the higher noise level for a given sensitivity setting.
B thinks, our sensors cost 4x the price already, and 30Mp is plenty enough so there is literally no incentive to add too many more over that number. They need less $ for software in camera to fight the SNR/noise issue, butt herer's no dodging the fact that heir sensor costs 4x more than the 1/4 frame brand A model. So brand B simply sells their larger frame camera at a higher price but strongly pushes the 50% additional pixel count as the incentive to pay more .. for more.

In this hypothetical situation there's nothing stopping brand B from making an 80Mp, larger sensor(compared to the 1/4 frame sensor) quite easily .. but brand A with the 1/4 sized sensor is going to struggle to pack it's smaller sensor with the same pixel density.
The problem with the 80Mp large sensor is simply cost. It'd surely cost 8x that of the smaller sensor, most likely more than that for the final product.
All the sensors come off the same sized wafer(I think they're 300mm, or 12inch) from which all sensors come.
.
If brand B ever made this hypothetical 80Mp large frame sensor, then the only model at a disadvantage in any way (other than cost) is always going to be the smaller framed brand.

ie. what you described above is simply 'cropping'.
A cropped sensor has no more or less DOF for any form of photography than any other sensor size. with the larger sensor size you crop to the same size as the smaller sensor using the same focal length lens.

eg. for the smaller sensor camera, you choose a 50mm lens to get a specific magnification. Using that same 50mm lens on the larger frame camera gives exactly the same magnification, but you get a wider FOV on the larger sensor. Crop that larger sensor to the same FOV as the smaller sensor and you have(technically) achieved the exact same result. (this assumes any micro variances in specific model gear).

The other aspect that is important to note: at macro levels DOF is basically the same irrespective of the lens used in terms of focal length. the magnification factor is a high level determinant in terms of DOF.
The issue around this that lulls people to misunderstand this is that not all gear(ie. mainly lenses) are created equal. Those inequities cause a bit of confusion as to what happens at the macro level.

as an example again with the above comparison between smaller brand A and larger brand B:
With brand A you use a 50mm lens to achieve a similar FOV that brand B will give with a 100mm lens. Doing that gives the same FOV as a start point.
Problem is 50mm has a much lower magnification level than a 100mm lens does. It's vital to fully grasp that magnification has nothing to do with the sensor ... ever! It's all about the lens.
This is basically true for all photography, but seen more easily in close up situations. The 100mm lens requires more focus distance than the 50mm lens does, so the 100mm's advantage is greater working distance.
To achieve the same magnification with the 50mm you require smaller focus distances(forget FOV, think now only in terms of magnification!!) this is a disadvantage. Obviously the 50mm is physically smaller in length than a 100mm, so in some respects the gear can be made smaller.
But by the same token for non closeup photography where faster lenses are sometimes wanted for subject separation, the disadvantage is the smaller system.

etc, etc ...

ameerat42

11-08-2018, 8:16am

The thing about micro 4/3 system is it gives you great depth of focus for macro photography that...
Your idea about this could be expanded on, Nick :nod:

This is kind'a true .. ...
But the overall reality is that it's not.

...
ie. what you described above is simply 'cropping'.
A cropped sensor has no more or less DOF for any form of photography than any other sensor size. with the larger sensor size you crop to the same size as the smaller sensor using the same focal length lens.

eg. for the smaller sensor camera, you choose a 50mm lens to get a specific magnification. Using that same 50mm lens on the larger frame camera gives exactly the same magnification, but you get a wider FOV on the larger sensor. Crop that larger sensor to the same FOV as the smaller sensor and you have(technically) achieved the exact same result. (this assumes any micro variances in specific model gear).

The other aspect that is important to note: at macro levels DOF is basically the same irrespective of the lens used in terms of focal length. the magnification factor is a high level determinant in terms of DOF.
The issue around this that lulls people to misunderstand this is that not all gear(ie. mainly lenses) are created equal. Those inequities cause a bit of confusion as to what happens at the macro level.

as an example again with the above comparison between smaller brand A and larger brand B:
With brand A you use a 50mm lens to achieve a similar FOV that brand B will give with a 100mm lens. Doing that gives the same FOV as a start point.
Problem is 50mm has a much lower magnification level than a 100mm lens does. It's vital to fully grasp that magnification has nothing to do with the sensor ... ever! It's all about the lens.
This is basically true for all photography, but seen more easily in close up situations. The 100mm lens requires more focus distance than the 50mm lens does, so the 100mm's advantage is greater working distance.
To achieve the same magnification with the 50mm you require smaller focus distances(forget FOV, think now only in terms of magnification!!) this is a disadvantage. Obviously the 50mm is physically smaller in length than a 100mm, so in some respects the gear can be made smaller.
But by the same token for non closeup photography where faster lenses are sometimes wanted for subject separation, the disadvantage is the smaller system.

etc, etc ...
...

The points are essentially true, but in relation to DOF with [smaller, crop-sensor systems], the DOF arises sigNIFicantly from the
smaller lenses > smaller apertures* needed for same light intensity at the sensor (exposure value) > smaller circle of confusion :crzy:

* For the same f-stop (eg, f/8) the actual aperture is smaller for smaller FL lenses. But the light intensity remains the same.
(Of course, there are T-values to measure the exact light intensity, which varies with the lens transmission capabilities.)

arthurking83

11-08-2018, 9:29am

Your idea about this could be expanded on, Nick :nod:

The points are essentially true, but in relation to DOF with [smaller, crop-sensor systems], the DOF arises sigNIFicantly from the
smaller lenses > smaller apertures* needed for same light intensity at the sensor (exposure value) > smaller circle of confusion :crzy:

....

Not wanting to take this 4/3rds thread off topic, I still had to reply to this:(ie. coz it's still kind of relevant).

Aperture size doesn't change on a lens. You change the aperture ratio. That's why light intensity stays the same at f/8 for both a 100mm lens and a 50mm lens.
Aperture is the size of the front lens(objective) and aperture variance(ie. the f/8 bit) is the change in diaphragm size. The intensity remains the same, even tho the diaphragm is smaller on the 50mm at f/8 simply becasue the objective of the 50mm lens is smaller too.
So light intensity always remains the same with respect to that part of the topic.

As for DOF, it remains the same at f/8 on the 100mm as it does with the 50mm at f/8 .. at macro or closeup photography.
No the physicis of the lens doesn't change, why people get confused about the topic is that the three things that affect lens DOF are:
Focal length, focus distance and aperture value.
Breaking this down to simpler, or fewer terms: focal length and focus distance = magnification!
So DOF is affected by magnification and aperture value. Those are the simplest terms on how to understand DOF.

So in reality, focal length in isolation doesn't really affect DOF. The magnification factor does.

simple thought experiment: (because anyone reading my last comment thinks I'm an idiot!)

25mm on a 4/3rds sensor is equivalent to 50mm on a 135 sensor, so naturally we assume that for landscape or portrait or general imaging, the 25mm lens at any given aperture value will naturally have a greater DOF for the same focus distance.
Problem is the focus distance. By maintaining the focus distance you've changed the magnification(by half) using the 25mm lens compared to the 50mm lens.
In those 'general' photography applications, we don't really bother with unimportant considerations such as magnification! all we think of is compositions, aperture and DOF for a given situation.

for closeup imaging, magnification is the important consideration in a technical sense!

ie. in simplest possible terms:

the notion that DOF is a product of focal length, focus distance and aperture value is derived from the technical point of view that magnification(focal length+focus distance) and aperture determine DOF.

As said before tho, this assumes 'simple' lenses, and not designed lenses.
as an example of a designed lens. Nikon's 105/2.8 macro(or micro) lens, when set to 1:1(noting that magnification is the important element here) isn't a 105mm lens!, it's closer to an 85mm lens at 1:1. It's 105 at infinity.
Very few lenses in this realm are not designer lenses .. that is manufacturers had to design certain aspects within the lens to accommodate some marketing advantage. In the case of this lens, they wanted it sealed and non extending .. hence it's really an 85mm macro lens!

hopefully this little bit helps to make sense of how a cropped sensor makes zero difference to DOF, in the sense that is usually portrayed by common acceptance. back on the topic of 4/3rds now

I think the 4/3rds folk really missed the opportunity to produce a truly unique product in terms of photography workflow.
I think they should have forgone the 4/3rds 4:3 aspect and made a 4/4ths 1:1 aspect ratio sensor. Among many advantages that such an aspect ratio would have achieved, the main one I can readily think of is the lack of any need to orient the camera in any other manner other that what is most comfortable to each user.
One thing I'm really not a huge fan of, is the 'portrait' orientation of the camera(not the format). That is, flipping arms and hands and all that because the portrait orientation appears to suit a specific situation is uncomfortable.
I do it very rarely due to the point that its an uncomfortable position .. arm over head, elbow in ear, etc, etc. A 1:1 format is the same oriented either way .. just shoot normally(and comfortably) and crop to suit or whatever is felt necessary.
AND .... had 4/3rds marketing stooges thought of it, it would have given them an even greater Mp marketing tool to work with!

John King

11-08-2018, 9:50am

I use an Olympus OMD EM1 Mark 2. I am overall very happy with the camera but I don't really understand the reason for the 4/3 aspect ratio of the sensor.

Back in the early days of digital photography, microlenses weren't used on sensors, maybe not even thought of. This caused most 3:2 aspect ratio cameras to exhibit "weak corners" and sometimes edges on the ends of the long side. Many lenses were legacy film designs, and film is not particularly sensitive to the angle of incidence the way digital is. In any case, some like "a nice little vignette". Personally, I can't stand vignetting ...

The Four Thirds standards sought to address this weakness using telecentric lens designs (those with a very narrow angle of incidence) and by using a squarer format. The angle of incidence problem remains today in cheaper 3:2 format ratio cameras that are using cheaper sensors. Software correction in camera has also mitigated the effect in many cases, allowing for lens designs such as the Olympus 12-100 f/4, with its stunning sharpness at all FLs and apertures (up to f/11, somewhat less stellar at f/16 and f/22 ... ).

I don't find the four by three aspect ratio all that attractive in images. I think 3x2 is more pleasing to the eye, and closer to the 'Golden Ratio' of 1.6. Most ready-made picture frames tend to be of a 3x2 ratio, which is in common with the aspect ratio of a full size sensor. I can select a 3x2 ratio for my pictures, but in so doing, I'm wasting ~ 10% of my pixels. I love mirrorless cameras, but I am confused as to why the 4/3 format was chosen. Any thoughts?

We are all different ... I prefer a squarer aspect ratio. But then, I also come from a long film history that included 4x5", 6x6cm along with 35mm. Composition becomes harder with squarer formats IMHO. One needs to pay great attention to what one is doing.

On quite another tack, my E-M1 MkII + 12-100 weighs in at just 1,258.9 grams. You would be well aware of its other attributes - outstanding IBIS and sync-IS with lenses that support it, HQ 4K video, Pro-capture, very high frame rates, focus stacking in-camera, etc, etc. Many of these features are much easier to implement well with the smaller 4/3rds sensor. There is no way that I can match the feature set and general performance of this camera with any 135 format camera, generally at any price ... That's not to say that some 135 format cameras don't do some things better, they patently do. However, for my photography, I'm looking for a certain balance, and my FTs/mFTs gear provides that balance for me. I can also carry it all day ... This latter is very important when considered in the light of my many and varied structural problems, and my on-going heart problems.

BTW, "Four Thirds" is the mount and electronics specification, and the name of the consortium. It is only coincidentally the sensor ratio.

ricktas

11-08-2018, 10:31am

swifty

11-08-2018, 11:32am

Going back to the original question in regards to output ratio and the need to crop, most digital displays are now 16:9 or similar. So we have ‘wasted’ screen real estate when displaying 3:2 and 4:3.
If not for portrait orientation photos, 16:9 sensors might make sense.
Also it’s worth mentioning some of the old monitor resolution standards were 4:3 eg. 1024x768
I think the only common digital displays that are maintaining the 4:3 ratio now is the ipad.

arthurking83

11-08-2018, 11:44am

..... Many of these features are much easier to implement well with the smaller 4/3rds sensor. .....

:confused013
In what sense?
In every review published that I've read, as of yet, no manufacturer does video as well as Sony, Panasonic and Canon(in that order) ... Sony's is 135 and APS-C(in general, as well as 1") format, Panasonic is m4/3rds and Canon is APS-C and 135 format.
From this, thee only conclusion one would come too is that the format has little to do with how well video is implemented. Same with IBIS and high frame rates!
Sensor format is irrelevant, and is entirely dependent on how committed the manufacturer is to implementation.
(at this moment in time) Sony appears to be the most committed to video, and Panasonic's existence is hugely dependent on video(which has always been their primary imaging market niche).

..... There is no way that I can match the feature set and general performance of this camera with any 135 format camera, generally at any price ....
I'm still thinking that you haven't really tried hard enough!

And for all intents and purposes, it's all about marketing and filling niches.

That is, a 4/3rds camera(in this case we'll consider that m4/3rds is still 4/3rds, even tho it is different) uses an equivalent lens set.
There's always a reference to equivalence in terms of focal length(nd range), but never actual effective aperture.

That is, this 12-100/4 lens is commonly referred to as a 24-200mm equivalent range, but never referred to using the more accurate description of 24-200mm f/8(effective) equivalent lens.
For 135 and APS-C formats many lenses about that offer this focal length, BUT in every case of such lenses, the aperture is always faster(effectively).

Therefore I don't think it would be an inaccurate theory to suggest that the manufacturers of the larger formats deem this market segment(of a 24-200mm f/8 equivalent lens) to be one they're not really interested in.
Similarly good lenses abound in the larger format arena, and in the case of the APS-C format can be had as an even lighter weight combination(if this is a priority)!

So the comment that the feature set and performance can't be matched, by the larger formats is not due to the format itself, but in the commitment by the manufacturers to fill specific market voids.
Obviously, Olympus has done this for you more so that the 4/3rds format!

I think if a greater effort is made, all market voids could one day be filled properly.

John King

11-08-2018, 12:22pm

Arthur, I have been through this set of arguments so many times at DPR with the FF trolls there that I do not care to repeat the exercise here ...

As for the lens, it is only an f/8 "equivalent" for DoF. In every other respect it is an f/4 lens, and an exceptional one at that. Nothing made by any other manufacturer even comes close at all FLs and apertures.

Here is a photo taken with this lens at f/8. Do you want to have less DoF? I didn't ...

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/Plants/E-M1_MkII_JAK_2017-_8201876_Ew.jpg

There are technical reasons why the IBIS in 135 format cameras is not as effective, inertia of the larger sensor being one such. There is no equivalent to sync-IS; ProCapture and many other features.

There is no 135 format camera that has a high resolution mode that matches that of any of the Olympus cameras that have it - eight separate frames combined into one, in-camera - for an equivalent to 80 MPx RAW image that is better than that from a 50 MPx MF camera in most respects. One requires a sturdy tripod for this mode as the actual exposure takes around 1/8th second, but 135 format shooters are very well used to that ...

Which 135 format camera will shoot at 60 fps in full resolution RAW mode?

Which 135 format camera will shoot at 18 fps with AF between frames in RAW + JPEG mode?

Which 135 format camera offers a live composite mode?

etc, etc, etc.

You like the cameras you have for your reasons. That is not a good reason or basis for criticising the choices of others that they make for reasons that seem good to them, and are well grounded in the specifications and performance of the equipment they choose.

Sorry to sound harsh, but one gets heartily sick of this sort of condescending attitude.

MissionMan

11-08-2018, 12:42pm

:confused013
In what sense?
In every review published that I've read, as of yet, no manufacturer does video as well as Sony, Panasonic and Canon(in that order) ... Sony's is 135 and APS-C(in general, as well as 1") format, Panasonic is m4/3rds and Canon is APS-C and 135 format.
From this, thee only conclusion one would come too is that the format has little to do with how well video is implemented. Same with IBIS and high frame rates!
Sensor format is irrelevant, and is entirely dependent on how committed the manufacturer is to implementation.
(at this moment in time) Sony appears to be the most committed to video, and Panasonic's existence is hugely dependent on video(which has always been their primary imaging market niche).

I'm still thinking that you haven't really tried hard enough!

And for all intents and purposes, it's all about marketing and filling niches.

That is, a 4/3rds camera(in this case we'll consider that m4/3rds is still 4/3rds, even tho it is different) uses an equivalent lens set.
There's always a reference to equivalence in terms of focal length(nd range), but never actual effective aperture.

That is, this 12-100/4 lens is commonly referred to as a 24-200mm equivalent range, but never referred to using the more accurate description of 24-200mm f/8(effective) equivalent lens.
For 135 and APS-C formats many lenses about that offer this focal length, BUT in every case of such lenses, the aperture is always faster(effectively).

Therefore I don't think it would be an inaccurate theory to suggest that the manufacturers of the larger formats deem this market segment(of a 24-200mm f/8 equivalent lens) to be one they're not really interested in.
Similarly good lenses abound in the larger format arena, and in the case of the APS-C format can be had as an even lighter weight combination(if this is a priority)!

So the comment that the feature set and performance can't be matched, by the larger formats is not due to the format itself, but in the commitment by the manufacturers to fill specific market voids.
Obviously, Olympus has done this for you more so that the 4/3rds format!

I think if a greater effort is made, all market voids could one day be filled properly.

I don't believe it's correct to say that format has nothing to do with it. it is easier to stabilise a small sensor than a large sensor. This is one of the reasons that having fast AF in a large lens is more expensive than a small lens, bigger motors required to move bigger lens elements and in the absense of an unlimited size and budget when pricing a camera, size of the sensor is very much of an contributing factor. So, yes, like FF has advantages of micro 4/3, it also has disadvantages believe it or not.

ameerat42

11-08-2018, 12:55pm

MissionMan

11-08-2018, 12:56pm

Sometimes we spend to much time thinking about the technical than actually going out and enjoying our gear and taking photos. Olympus has a long history of producing some great camera equipment, but it is not worth anything, unless you take photos with it.

The photos are what create the memories and what people like to look at. If you put up 5 photos, each taken with a different camera, without any mention of the camera involved, people will talk about the photos and what is in them etc. The camera is incidental.

So stop being to concerned about your gear, if it gets you the photos you want, enjoy it.. and keep taking photos

Agree Rick. I think many people mistake photography with photographic gear obsession.

There are two kinds of people I notice on photography forums (not everyone, but the gear obsessed ones):

The vast majority of people who spend their lives as evangelists for full frame aren't actually good enough for it to make a difference. They aren't pushing the envelope from a full frame vs apsc perspective. They aren't good enough for the DOF to make a difference and they aren't shooting in challenging enough conditions for the 1 stop extra of dynamic range or the 1 stop extra of low light performance to actually make a difference. For them, the selection of full frame is nothing more than a choice rather than a necessity, so they can take bad photos of their cats at ISO12800 to post to photography forums and boast about the technical capability of their cameras
There are a set of people who switch brands every couple of years chasing perfection, and much like the above, it doesn't actually impact them. Many of them have poor glass, largely because the cost of changing systems every 2 years is so high that they can't actually invest in glass. They switch from Canon to Nikon to Fuji to Sony, chasing miracles they see in other people's photos and wondering why their crap choice in lenses on A7iii doesn't perform as well.

ameerat42

11-08-2018, 1:03pm

MM.
3. Me - and my ilk.:D

John King

11-08-2018, 1:26pm

JK. A pertinent proposal post a persuasive paean :D
(Olympus sounds quite a system.)

I think the general thrust of this thread regarding the "4/3 of the 4/3" has been a
well-rounded "as you like it"*, with lots of sub-plots, and palace intrigues to keep the
interest going.

* The titles of some other works may sound disingenuous :D

Am, I do my own printing on my Epson R3880 because I'm not prepared to accept what the "professional" print shops do.

So I often print at A2 size, then examine the print with a 4x magnifying glass ...

Leaving a little larger shooting envelope aside, I'm yet to see a 135 format image that is noticeably better than what I can produce.

Theoretical differences are often just that - theoretical ...

Once one gets over about ISO 200, DR and other advantages tend to vapourise. No camera has good DR at ISO 6400! However, if one is experienced, one can often get acceptable, printable images above this. I would suggest it often has more to do with the photographer's knowledge and experience than the size of their ... sensor ... :nod: :lol:.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree Rick. I think many people mistake photography with photographic gear obsession.

There are two kinds of people I notice on photography forums (not everyone, but the gear obsessed ones):

The vast majority of people who spend their lives as evangelists for full frame aren't actually good enough for it to make a difference. They aren't pushing the envelope from a full frame vs apsc perspective. They aren't good enough for the DOF to make a difference and they aren't shooting in challenging enough conditions for the 1 stop extra of dynamic range or the 1 stop extra of low light performance to actually make a difference. For them, the selection of full frame is nothing more than a choice rather than a necessity, so they can take bad photos of their cats at ISO12800 to post to photography forums and boast about the technical capability of their cameras

Are these bad enough, MM? :o

All with E-M1 MkI. My E-M1 MkII is about one stop better for both DR and noise.
Rosa at ISO 6400 ... All from OoC JPEGs, with just automated PP (automatic PS action), all hand held without support:

With my 12-50 macro kit lens in macro mode:

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/cats/E-M1_JAK_2016-_2112448_Ew.jpg
https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/cats/E-M1_JAK_2016-_2112446_Ew.jpg
With FTs 14-54 MkII with adapter:

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/cats/E-M1_JAK_2015-_7140932_Ew.jpg
Poor light test shot with 40-150 "plastic fantastic":

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/Photography/em1/E-M1_JAK_2015-_3290193_copy.jpg

There are a set of people who switch brands every couple of years chasing perfection, and much like the above, it doesn't actually impact them. Many of them have poor glass, largely because the cost of changing systems every 2 years is so high that they can't actually invest in glass. They switch from Canon to Nikon to Fuji to Sony, chasing miracles they see in other people's photos and wondering why their crap choice in lenses on A7iii doesn't perform as well.

Totally agree. Would add another - Those who appear to take delight in rubbishing the choices of how ohters choose to spend their (usually) hard-earned readies ...

Ross the fiddler

11-08-2018, 10:45pm

Getting back to, "Why Four Thirds". It allows me to crop 3:2 when & where (vertically) I want. Since I save both JPEG & raw I can set the camera to the 3:2 ratio if I want, but there is still the whole 4:3 image in raw to play with. Actually, I've noticed when cropping a wide (12mm) image in Capture One there is an extra amount of image available that was cropped with the lens distortion compensation & I can use that extra amount, particular when cropping for 3:2 & 16:9 output, so I end up with a wider image than was designed & intended with that lens (12-40).

BTW, in response to a comment above, Olympus DSLR's were fine except for the limits with those Panasonic sensors (particularly the small range of ISO) that was being used then. The E-3 was a favoured camera for many users (including some pros).
The other thing that sometimes gets misunderstood with the less aware is that the Four Thirds sensor is used in Micro Four Thirds camera, not the sensor being 'Micro'. I think they should have named the later system as "Mirrorless Four Thirds". :rolleyes: ;)

Nick Cliff

12-08-2018, 5:13am

Rick and MM are correct about not obsessing about your gear we just need to get out and enjoy the world around us.
I have seen photos taken by a young Italian lady with a Canon S95 that are very humbling of birds that I am left wondering about the gear obsession many of us have.
Her superb composition and processing skills can create photos that can compete with guys with $5,000 setups at the very minimum who really struggle to match this artistry and skill set.
I sometimes wonder how many potentially great photos are ruined for the want of a good tripod and ball head with the heavier professional camera systems.
If you can concentrate on your composition skill set and master your cameras settings you can and will produce beautiful photos.
Go to art galleries and look at the work of the great impressionist and landscape artists who often do not give a flying fig about sharpness and are more concerned with composition and color palette.
There is an American photographer with a little point and shoot camera in North Dakota (I often see his photos on display on Flickr) that sells photos.
Having spent almost a year working in North Dakota on the prairie lands I would not call this an easy spot to take great landscape photos yet this guy does it all the time and I am left with great admiration for his artistic eye and skill set.
Most of us if we visit the USA would go to Oxbow bend to photograph the Grand Tetons for example, I am not sure this guy can afford to do this.
I would not be too concerned about the 4/3-2/3 crop bit, it is a very capable system and should deliver you wonderful photos consistently.

cheers Nick

arthurking83

12-08-2018, 7:22am

Rick and MM are correct about not obsessing about your gear ....

My personal opinion of gear obsessiveness is that it's good for the community as a whole.

If we didn't have 'gear obsessives', we wouldn't have the geeks that hack lenses, hack camera firmwares, hack camera sensors .. etc. etc.

So to say ... "don't obsess about gear", I think, is to understate the value of what some gear can do for you.
Not obsessing over gear wouldn't have given us IR sensor capture, Canon's Magic Lantern firmware hack,(Nikon also have firmware hacks, but much limited(and harder)), obscure lens combinations.

My belief is that obsessing over gear can only be a good thing! It improves the breed!
And for the most part, we all obsess over gear in one way or another anyhow! Whether an individual prefer to admit it or not is entirely up to them.

BUT!(think of it this way!)
Have you made more than one camera gear purchase? If not, then you truly haven't obsessed over any gear .. ever.
You may have purchased your first camera at some point in your photographic endeavours, and never thought to buy anything else .. ever again. You may still be shooting with the old P&S from 1999 maybe.

But if you bought a camera system, and then either updated that camera system with additional gear, like flashes, lenses, tripods .. etc, etc .. or even changed formats from whatever to whatever else .. then you have in a way obsessed about gear.

Your last system was probably too large. Or maybe too small, maybes it wasn't giving you good high ISO results, or dynamic range. Quite possibly your first lenses weren't giving you the shallow DOF you craved, or the wide FOV you really wanted!
Any of those excuses used for justification on the acquisition of additional 'gear' ... makes for a 'gear obsessive'!

@ John!! No point trying to convince me otherwise of the points I was trying to make in my previous post.

So for the sake of 101% clarity, I'll say this again: I don't have any issue with your choice of gear. That you found your nirvana is great to read about.

My point was simple. The 12-100 f/4 lens appears to be a great 12-100 f/4 lens.
I have the issue that it's NOT a 24-200 f/4(eq) lens tho when the ignorant claim it to have "such and such" equivalence. I'm not a big fan of selective equivalence. The equivalence factor of that lens to the 135 format is as a 24-200mm f/8 .. pure and simple.

In fact, the entire notion of 'equivalence' is stupid IMO!
It should never have started in the first place. But now that it seems to be so pervasive in the photography gear arena, it would be better practise for it to be used in it's entirety, and not selectively. Otherwise, just don't use it(which would be the best path forward).

ameerat42

12-08-2018, 7:52am

AK, we're on an equivalent footing with our views on "equivalence".

- - - Updated - - -

--:D-- or --:eek:--

Nick Cliff

12-08-2018, 8:47am

Arthur I agree you do want to research your camera systems capabilities before you purchase a new camera system and then enjoy taking photos:)

MissionMan

12-08-2018, 10:51am

My personal opinion of gear obsessiveness is that it's good for the community as a whole.

I disagree. I've seen gear wars erupt more regularly than political wars. Gear obsession is good when it doesn't result in degrading other users selections or an obsession to the point that having the gear is more important than what you can do with the gear.

In the past I've seen numerous Nikon and Canon fans degrade other choices as if their choice in gear entitles them to be part of a special club of "I am better than you", when in all honesty, their photos are crap and nothing special. Sometimes it's brand wars, sometimes it's full frame vs APSC, but the one question I always love to ask them is "Show me a photo YOU TOOK that couldn't have been taken with X" and 99.9% of the time you hear crickets or they produce some second rate photo. Why? Because the really good photographers who can produce those photos don't need to sit on forums whining about how good their gear is, they are out actually taking photos.

More recently, it's the Sony users that have joined a special clan of what I refer to as "born again Sony users", people who feel the need to switch and then annoy everyone else into switching on forums the basis that if they don't convert their colleagues, they'll find themselves heading to photography hell like some modern day photography equivalents of religious fanatics. Obscure functionality like eye detect that photographers have lived with for years suddenly becomes the differentiator in their photography because they couldn't be bothered to learn how to use their previous AF system on a pro body.

John King

12-08-2018, 11:20am

@ John!! No point trying to convince me otherwise of the points I was trying to make in my previous post.

So for the sake of 101% clarity, I'll say this again: I don't have any issue with your choice of gear. That you found your nirvana is great to read about.

arthurking83, I haven't found "Nirvana", in photography or elsewhere! I'm actually an Atheist ... My (digital) cameras of choice suit me, and what I photograph. They do not have to suit anyone else. Nor do I consider them "perfect", whatever that might mean ... merely suitable for my wants/needs.

My point was simple. The 12-100 f/4 lens appears to be a great 12-100 f/4 lens.
I have the issue that it's NOT a 24-200 f/4(eq) lens tho when the ignorant claim it to have "such and such" equivalence. I'm not a big fan of selective equivalence. The equivalence factor of that lens to the 135 format is as a 24-200mm f/8 .. pure and simple.

The 12-100 f/4 has an angle of view that is (approximately) equal to a 24-200 lens on a 135 format camera (I flatly refuse to call this "full frame", because this term is meaningless in the context it is usually used, and very often forms the basis of a subtle put down to those who choose to use other formats ... ). However, except for its apparent DoF, it is and remains an f/4 lens for all other purposes (e.g. light gathering, exposure calculations). Apparent DoF may be an aesthetic parameter in a photograph, but plays no part whatsoever as an exposure parameter (see further below).

Having fought in the DPR "equivalence wars" for over 10 years, I'm pretty well versed in the convolutions of that "theory". As I said before, I have no desire to revisit those things here! However, a few points should be made.

1) Leaving aside the obvious things, a photograph is an amalgam of two completely different sets of parameters - aesthetic and exposure. DoF is an aesthetic parameter. Exposure consists of the aggregate of the settings and features of the camera that are used to acquire the 'correct' exposure ("correct" = the exposure that the photographer desires to achieve). One of these is the angle of view of the lens. For convenience, most of us abbreviate this to an effective FL expressed in 135 format terms (when talking about these things), even though this is incorrect. There also needs to be an adjustment for aspect ratio as well as sensor size. This is only rarely even attempted. Other factors that contribute to the exposure set used are the relative aperture and shutter speed, as well as contemplating how our particular camera responds to its ISO setting.

2) While the FL of any given lens never changes (or range for a zoom), its angle of view changes markedly depending on the aspect ratio and size of the sensor it is in front of. Its absolute and relative aperture does not change, but the apparent depth of field (distance of apparent focus) does change.

3) Also, if a "correct exposure" is ISO 200, f/5.6 @ 1/100th for my Rolleiflex 2.8f 6x6 camera, this will also be the correct exposure for my 135 format cameras, a 4x5" camera, my FTs/mFTs cameras, or my 8mm Minox. Exposure does not change with format. If it were otherwise, light meters would be useless ...

4) There is no such thing as "equivalent aperture", except for apparent DoF, and this is a function of the AoV of the lens, not its aperture. By definition, all lenses will deliver the same light intensity per unit area at the same f-stop (I will leave the arcane discussion about t-stops and f-stops out of this, other than to mention that I am aware of the difference ... ). My f/1.4 (etc) OM 135 format lenses do not magically become some other f-stop when put in front of my FTs/mFTs sensors. They remain exactly the same (except for apparent DoF ... For those not aware of this fine distinction, a lens does not actually have any DoF. All lenses focus at one distance and one distance only when focused. The apparent DoF arises because our eye/brain system cannot perceive accurately when something is in precise focus, so accepts things that are relatively close to being in focus as being in focus).

5) As I previously demonstrated with the shot of the prunus blossom, achieving sufficient apparent DoF in any given situation is much more often a problem than the converse.

6) There is a Nikon USA directive regarding using their high MPx count sensor cameras at apertures smaller than f/8 due to the encroachment of very visible diffraction effects by f/11 and smaller. I have a link to this bulletin somewhere. From my own experience, different lenses exhibit the same level of diffraction at differing apertures, even within the same sensor size cameras. My 14-54 MkII starts to exhibit noticeable diffraction at around f/7.1, but whether this diffraction is noticeable is also highly dependent on the subject. My 12-100 is good to f/11, but starts to soften noticeably by f/16.

In fact, the entire notion of 'equivalence' is stupid IMO!
It should never have started in the first place. But now that it seems to be so pervasive in the photography gear arena, it would be better practise for it to be used in it's entirety, and not selectively. Otherwise, just don't use it(which would be the best path forward).

Totally agree. It is used mainly as a tool for denigrating both smaller and larger formats than 135 format ...

As I mentioned initially, I have no desire whatsoever to repeat what has already been flogged to death and beyond on DPR. The whole subject of "equivalence" is plain nonsense IMHO.

I apologise in advance for any errors or omissions here. I have very serious health issues ATM, and these are also causing minor cognitive deficits.

arthurking83

12-08-2018, 11:45am

.... Gear obsession is good when it doesn't result in degrading other users selections or an obsession to the point that having the gear is more important than what you can do with the gear.

....

There are argumentative, disruptive, ignorant zealots in every walk of life. You learn to ignore those types rather quickly.

For me, on a personal level, the talk about gear is more so about accuracy of discrepancies(as I noted earlier).

Agree with your comment re producing a shot with Brand Y vs Brand X, or Format A vs Format B or whatever. Some folks are fanatically pedantic and just want what they want.

But, with that point in mind and trying to maintaining some balance, there are just some things you can't do with some gear that you can with others.
Hence why most of use here, that is the type of photographer that is attracted to specialised discussion sites, whether that's AP, or DPR, or brand X specific sites ... we are, to varying levels, all obsessed with gear.
The fact that we are here, asking questions(and trying to produce coherent answers) as to what/why/how .... in itself, is proof that gear and how it relates to one's output matters.

This obsession doesn't need to be of a high order, that it only describes an obsessive compulsive.
To me the use of the term obsession can be regarded as a mild curiosity, that compelled the person to do something about it.

as an example: Person A becomes curious on close up or macro imagery, having seen some interesting output. At first they're just curious, and do the normal thing of focusing closely and then cropping heavily to produce OK results.
Then the obsession overwhelms them and so Person A takes the next step above 'focus close and crop' .. they go out and purchase a macro lens.
This basically defines the start of an obsession .. that they took the curiosity to the next level.
At the extreme end of the scale you will find the overly obsessives, and obsessive compulsives and finally the argumentative zealots! ;)

.....the really good photographers who can produce those photos don't need to sit on forums whining about how good their gear is, they are out actually taking photos.

an interesting aside: .. I do find that many of the photographers that can produce the images to highlight differences in gear types, do take the time to enlighten those of us that don't know but are afflicted by the obsession.

swifty

12-08-2018, 12:43pm

Yikes.. dunno whether to reply more to this thread.
But I think I have to make the distinction that aperture is not the same as f-number.
IMO equivalence is an important concept worth taking the time to understand.
Also great understanding of technical aspects of photography is not mutually exclusive to being a great photographer.
People like Jim Kasson geek out at the technical aspects (he’s an engineer by profession) whilst still being an excellent photographer.

arthurking83

12-08-2018, 12:53pm

....

4) There is no such thing as "equivalent aperture", except for apparent DoF, and this is a function of the AoV of the lens, not its aperture. By definition, all lenses will deliver the same light intensity per unit area at the same f-stop (I will leave the arcane discussion about t-stops and f-stops out of this, other than to mention that I am aware of the difference ... ). My f/1.4 (etc) OM 135 format lenses do not magically become some other f-stop when put in front of my FTs/mFTs sensors. They remain exactly the same (except for apparent DoF ... For those not aware of this fine distinction, a lens does not actually have any DoF. All lenses focus at one distance and one distance only when focused. The apparent DoF arises because our eye/brain system cannot perceive accurately when something is in precise focus, so accepts things that are relatively close to being in focus as being in focus).

....

I have to be honest, I'm not fully understanding what you're trying to convey in your reply, but it came across to me that the implication is that the aperture value is more important for exposure than it is for DoF .. or something to that effect.

I'm not bothered whether equivalent aperture is a 'thing' or not, but it's a real concept for various reasons:
(in fact I do know that aperture equivalence is actually a thing, as it's commented upon many times by many sources in many discussion sites).

Anyhow, once again, you mentioned that the 12-100mm gives a FoV equal too a 24-200 on the 135 format.
ps. what you choose to call the format is also irrelevant, I prefer to maintain consistency based on what is the current practise .. minimises confusion! Many people new to photography, having not come from film era simply don't know what the 135 format is. So I'll continue on with FF :p

OK, so again we're back to the same point that the 12-100 is like a 24-200 in FF. Why is this important to anyone? I don't understand why it needs to be stated, remembered or even cared about?

Your suggestion that the apparent DoF is somehow reliant of FoV is completely inaccurate!
eg. I have two 10mm lenses, one gives a 100° FoV, the other gives a 180° FoV. Are you seriously suggesting that the rectilinear lens has more or less DoF than the fisheye lens of the same focal length?

Stated before, DoF is reliant on two things
1/. magnification(at it's core) which is Focal Length and Focus Distance combined,
2/. aperture.
If you can achieve differing DoF simply by varying FoV, then either your gear is somehow magical, or defective!

But again .. I simply see no reason for equivalence of any kind, be that focal length equivalence or FoV equivalence with respect to the common formats in use, and under discussion here. (ie. 4/3, APS-C or FF)
Why does that FoV compared to the 135 format matter?

Also!
Back in the day aperture was probably equally used for both exposure and DoF purposes, even up until recently in the digital imaging realm.,
But as of recently, the aperture value discussion has gravitated more so towards the DoF aspect of imaging, and further away form an exposure standpoint.

That is, the newer cameras ability to shoot at higher ISOs has seemingly changed the playing field a bit when discussions arise in the form of aperture values.
I've noted this on many photography related discussion sites, where aperture for the purpose of exposure is less important to many, but more important in terms of pictorial results(ie. DoF!)
You read this all too often from 'newbies' who had bought into a system, with a kit lens(eg. 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6) .. invariably the recommendations turn to the nifty fifty type 50mm f/1.8 type lenses.
The curious person never once mentions exposure issues .. quite happy to shoot at ISO 1million. But their curiosity is how to blur out the background more .. etc, etc ad infinitum.

pps. Don't take my reply as to belittle the effect of aperture on exposure. Not saying it's not important in any way shape or form!
I'm trying to clarify the point, that:

The 12-100/4 on 4/3rds giving a FoV equal to approximately 24-200/8 on the FF sensor camera. Never mentioned exposure and how it varies or not, as in the era it's seems to be pretty much a secondary aspect due to current tech.
So in a pictorial sense, the above is true.

ppps. Also .. I get this feeling that you're taking my comments as disrespectful of the smaller formats ? :confused013
If this is the case, then I think I've either somehow mistyped something, or that you've taken an unsubstantiated defensive position to my comments?? .. once again ... :confused013
In no way do my comment above denigrate any format in any way, if they seem to have, then it's just that .. an incorrect perspective by the reader. Never have I said that the the aperture equivalence is a bad thing.

In fact I can see very positive aspects to it, for example in the field of birding.
It's common for the larger format users to shoot a 500mm or more lens with an aperture value of about F/4, but capture their images at f/8 for the purpose of more DoF. In a manner of speaking .. pretty much a waste.
All that weight and bulk, to achieve what a smaller format setup could do .. eg. 300/4 with becomes this equivalent 600/8(in pictorial sense) whilst maintaining f/4 exposure values.

MattNQ

13-08-2018, 7:52pm

my head hurts after reading this whole thread again.....

All I know is I love my Olympus cameras (except they break easily...having broken two out of three...:( )
I'm more than happy with their image quality and I only have had cheap bodies - I have a 30"x40'" canvas on my wall printed from my 12mp EPL1 that looks fantastic. Admittedly canvas is a little more forgiving than paper of course

I also love my near unbreakable FF Nikons. Heavy and old fashioned...but fantastic ergonomics - can shoot literally thousands of sports photos in a day with ease, controls at your fingertips.

One should always pick the tool (or camera system) that feels right for the job a user wants it to do. And bugger what anyone else thinks :D

Ross the fiddler

13-08-2018, 9:15pm

Yeah, my head hurts too! :rolleyes:

Anyhow, I took this selfie (yeah you get to see me) where I triggered it with WiFi (OIShare app) & the centre single focus point was on the distant trees & bush across the lagoon (I forgot to do otherwise) & yet I seem to be in sharp focus in the much closer foreground. It was at 23mm (12-40 F2.8 lens) & wide open at f2.8, so the perceived DoF is quite deep (in front). It's not a large photo I have uploaded but I can assure it is sharp (I can add a crop if not convinced). Maybe there is a chance Face Recognition worked, but it didn't appear that way when using the camera to review the image as it shows the focus point there (I wish computer software could show it in post).

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/851/43197513544_2accb27695_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/28PdxNh)
Glenbrook Lagoon, Blue Mountains. (https://flic.kr/p/28PdxNh) by Ross (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ross-the-fiddler/), on Flickr

Now the other thing (yeah, I had to go back to the top to remind myself what the title of this thread was) is that I think this looks better in a 4:3 aspect that is default for my 4/3's (Oympus) camera than the often used aspect of other cameras.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/932/29934596598_c97c331748_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/MBdCEs)
Waratah (https://flic.kr/p/MBdCEs) by Ross (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ross-the-fiddler/), on Flickr

ricktas

14-08-2018, 7:05am

I wonder if Basophil; is going to come back and contribute more to his discussion. Lobbed a grenade and ran...:lol:

arthurking83

14-08-2018, 7:51am

G'day Ross .. nice to meecha! :D

.... & the centre single focus point was on the distant trees & bush across the lagoon (I forgot to do otherwise) & yet I seem to be in sharp focus in the much closer foreground. It was at 23mm (12-40 F2.8 lens) & wide open at f2.8, so the perceived DoF is quite deep (in front). It's not a large photo I have uploaded but I can assure it is sharp (I can add a crop if not convinced). Maybe there is a chance Face Recognition worked, but it didn't appear that way when using the camera to review the image as it shows the focus point there ....

Kind'a makes sense, AND .. I've always had this theory that cameras may be smarter(or more accurately programmed to be smarter) that we think they already are.

Going back to the DOF/comparative aperture, DOF is a bit of a strange beast, and by that I mean that DOF isn't a linear thing, when you look at it from a tech point of view.
DoF gets deeper, the further out your focus distance ends up at. at with shorter focal lengths, this 'accelerated' focus distance/DOF relationship is even more pronounced.
So, looking at it from the theoretical aspect of a DoF calculator, what you got in your selfie actually makes sense.
Using a 23mm focal length, and setting focus distance to 6.3m(at f/2.8), everything from 3.1m to infinity is going to be "in focus".

Anyhow, my theory is that the manufacturer knows it's gear quite well, and even if a non manufacturer but still automated bit of gear is used in auto mode, then the camera may still do the following process.
The process is, that it may try to maximise the DoF using the knowledge of focal length, and the chosen focus point. If the focus point is set to one that may be a great distance, the cameras AF system has a table of DoF programmed within it's electronics, and sets a focus distance to achieve an appropriately deep DoF. .. that is, it doesn't just use the furthest focus distance that the lens is capable of, probably just a wee bit back from that point.

Also, check your lens for this: I'd say being a 12-40mm lens, I'd say that the focus distance markings probably stop at about the 3-5m range. The reason will be that beyond about that distance, it kin'd makes a lot less difference.

At a guess, you're probably 4(-ish) meters from the camera. If so, then you're within the calculated DoF range for the camera to set focus distance to 6m or so.
Obviously the grassy growth in the foreground is OOF too, at such a deep focus distance.