L-MOUNT Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Fullframe vs. MFT - size of lenses
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
Yep.
robin0112358
Well-Known Member
Not gonna watch 20 minutes but presume this simply says that M43 lenses are smaller?
Or are there any other insights?
Or are there any other insights?
cascadian
LMF-Patron
Here are two of my film zooms that compete decently with μ43 on size. No one wants to sell low-margin lenses in today's Full Frame environment, so my L-mount options are 28-200 or 70-300.. or manual lenses .
For now, on my thin budget, I'm waiting the lens manufacturers out. Help me, Samyang!
For now, on my thin budget, I'm waiting the lens manufacturers out. Help me, Samyang!
Attachments
-
EXIFScreenshot_20241124-212041-772.png
L-mountainclimber
New Member
The comparison is somewhat misleading. Of course, apples and oranges are being compared here. The full-frame sensor has much more resolution, if you zoom back in on the pixels of the small MFT sensor, the result is roughly the same weight and size. Not quite, but the difference is no longer very big.
Example Sigma fp L (440g, 61MP) + Panasonic 100mm f2.8 (298g), at 2x zoom I am at 200mm f2.8 and still at 15MP and thus reasonably in the range of the MFT cameras (20- 25MP) and with much less noise.
With the 100-400 the difference is even bigger!
Example Panasonic Leica DG Vario Elmar 100-400mm 4.0-6.3 II ASPH Power OIS with 985g and 1500€!
And in comparison the Sigma Contemporary 100-400mm 5.0-6.3 DG DN OS with 1.14kg and 900€. With the digital zoom of the fpL, this becomes a 100-800mm (again at 15MP) and the zoom range is much larger by starting at 100mm and up to 400mm I have the full 61MP.
On paper MFT is smaller and lighter, but in practice the difference is not very big! Or it depends very much on the lenses you choose!
Example Sigma fp L (440g, 61MP) + Panasonic 100mm f2.8 (298g), at 2x zoom I am at 200mm f2.8 and still at 15MP and thus reasonably in the range of the MFT cameras (20- 25MP) and with much less noise.
With the 100-400 the difference is even bigger!
Example Panasonic Leica DG Vario Elmar 100-400mm 4.0-6.3 II ASPH Power OIS with 985g and 1500€!
And in comparison the Sigma Contemporary 100-400mm 5.0-6.3 DG DN OS with 1.14kg and 900€. With the digital zoom of the fpL, this becomes a 100-800mm (again at 15MP) and the zoom range is much larger by starting at 100mm and up to 400mm I have the full 61MP.
On paper MFT is smaller and lighter, but in practice the difference is not very big! Or it depends very much on the lenses you choose!
If you argue with cropping, this is misleading because a cropped image is a different image, independent from resolution.
Otherwise you could buy a 21mm wideangle and put it on a 200MP sensor and forget longer FL.
MFT and fullframe have advantages and disadvantages. You only have to choose which compromise is best for you.
I use MFT, APS-C and fullframe cameras. Among those 3 different formats and its native lenses, APS-C is the format, which is the most "unnecessary" sensor size, as soon as you use APS-C cameras with more than 26MP.
Why? Because (in my example Fuji) a 40MP APS-C sensor requires such a good lens design to use that resolving power to the best, that these new lenses become almost as big and sometimes bigger than equivilant fullframe lenses with equivilant aperture.
Look for example to the Fuji 18/1.4 or the new 23/1.4 WR and compare these with Sigma i-series lenses.
In the Fuji system, there are no alternative with smaller apertures like F2.0, which are good enough. The old F2.0 lenses of Fuji are not good enough for the 40MP sensor, except maybe the XF 50/2.0.
With MFT lenses this is different. They are in most cases significant smaller then fullframe lenses, if you do not need the highest aperture of F1.2. All are good enough for the 20MP/25MP sensors in MFT. I do not think that there will ever be more than 25MP MFT sensors because
a) you get the same problem like Fuji with its 40MP sensor
b) The MFT users are not the target group for such high MP cameras.
c) The few who still want higher MP in MFT will use high-res shots, which is a lot easier to achieve with MFT than with bigger sensors.
This is why I think the sensor combination of Panasonic with MFT and fullframe is a way better product line strategy for the end user than APS-C & fullframe.
The only downside is the incompatibility of the lenses. But this is because the difference in size is so big.
In comparison Nikon Z APS-C is a joke, if you look at the lens size. No difference to Nikon Z fullframe.
Otherwise you could buy a 21mm wideangle and put it on a 200MP sensor and forget longer FL.
MFT and fullframe have advantages and disadvantages. You only have to choose which compromise is best for you.
I use MFT, APS-C and fullframe cameras. Among those 3 different formats and its native lenses, APS-C is the format, which is the most "unnecessary" sensor size, as soon as you use APS-C cameras with more than 26MP.
Why? Because (in my example Fuji) a 40MP APS-C sensor requires such a good lens design to use that resolving power to the best, that these new lenses become almost as big and sometimes bigger than equivilant fullframe lenses with equivilant aperture.
Look for example to the Fuji 18/1.4 or the new 23/1.4 WR and compare these with Sigma i-series lenses.
In the Fuji system, there are no alternative with smaller apertures like F2.0, which are good enough. The old F2.0 lenses of Fuji are not good enough for the 40MP sensor, except maybe the XF 50/2.0.
With MFT lenses this is different. They are in most cases significant smaller then fullframe lenses, if you do not need the highest aperture of F1.2. All are good enough for the 20MP/25MP sensors in MFT. I do not think that there will ever be more than 25MP MFT sensors because
a) you get the same problem like Fuji with its 40MP sensor
b) The MFT users are not the target group for such high MP cameras.
c) The few who still want higher MP in MFT will use high-res shots, which is a lot easier to achieve with MFT than with bigger sensors.
This is why I think the sensor combination of Panasonic with MFT and fullframe is a way better product line strategy for the end user than APS-C & fullframe.
The only downside is the incompatibility of the lenses. But this is because the difference in size is so big.
In comparison Nikon Z APS-C is a joke, if you look at the lens size. No difference to Nikon Z fullframe.
Lsake
Active Member
MFT is good for super small setups or very long telephoto reach economically.
FF will generally give better IQ, lower noise, and be a bit more versatile.
The real comparison for the Lumix 100-400mm is something like the canon 200-800mm. FOV is more important with super telephoto lenses.
The S5 with 100-400 is my preference due to its ISO performance. In winter months we only get 8 hours of daylight. And that’s with the sun low on the horizon.
The best solution would have been to release the G9II in L mount with an APSC sensor.
FF will generally give better IQ, lower noise, and be a bit more versatile.
The real comparison for the Lumix 100-400mm is something like the canon 200-800mm. FOV is more important with super telephoto lenses.
The S5 with 100-400 is my preference due to its ISO performance. In winter months we only get 8 hours of daylight. And that’s with the sun low on the horizon.
The best solution would have been to release the G9II in L mount with an APSC sensor.
Nomad Nate
Active Member
If I went full into mft, I'd arrive at the same weight and size because I'd get a gh7 and 10-25 and 25-50.
The video from the gh7, I dare say, looks better than the s5ii though. It's really a value king when it comes to video.
The video from the gh7, I dare say, looks better than the s5ii though. It's really a value king when it comes to video.
Nomad Nate
Active Member
Also the sensor readout is way faster
pdk42
Moderator
This m43 vs FF size comparison argument is as old as m43 itself.
It seems to me that whilst you can cherry pick to prove almost any point you want to make, in practical terms m43 gear is generally smaller, lighter, and cheaper than FF when it comes to building a practical, real-world, general purpose system. Sure, the m43 lenses will have a smaller "DOF and light gathering equivalent" f-stop (i.e., an f2.8 m43 lens will deliver the same DOF and "total light" as an f5.6 FF lens); but most of the time that doesn't matter since there is enough light to use a low ISO and few scenes require wafer-thin DOF.
But there will be specific use cases where one or the other will be the better choice.
For example, if you really need to shoot in low light and/or deliver wafer-thin DOF, then FF will win out. Just look at a size/weight comparison between the Olympus 25mm f1.2 and the Lumix 50mm f1.8 - and the Lumix lens is still a half stop faster in equiv terms; and the FF sensor will deliver lower noise. It's really game over.
For wildlife/sports then reach and speed become the issue. When it comes to reach, the cropping argument works to some degree, but until we get to an 80Mp FF sensor, 20Mp m43 still wins in terms of pixels on the bird. Now try getting an 80Mp FF sensor that will pump out frames at 120 fps (which is what the stacked sensor in the OM-1 will do). Frame rates are just as important for wildlife and sports as Mp, possibly more so.
In fact, I think it's reasonable to say that an OM-1 with a really top-class lens like the 150-400 f4.5 is a better platform for wildlife etc than any FF system if you look at the overall package in terms of size, weight, performance, speed, and cost. The closest you'd get today in L-mount to that would be an S5ii with the Sigma 150-600 - but it will be bigger, slower (frame rates), heavier, and probably worse at AF. But it will deliver a better ISO performance.
For landscape, whilst FF will deliver better IQ, the size/weight of m43 is hard to beat. For example, the Olympus 12-100 f4 Pro is a spectacularly good lens with great IQ, amazing stabilisation, and a fantastic range. At f5.6, it's sharp from one end to the other. To get the same quality, stabilisation, and range on FF, I need two lenses which together weigh 3-4 times what the Oly lens weighs. Now, size/weight might not be a problem for most landscape togs, but OTOH on long hikes you sure notice an S1R + 24-105 + 70-200 f4 on your shoulder. The big achilles heel of m43 in landscape is the relatively low Mp count and the more limited ability to do heavy PP on the files. But the difference isn't as big as some make out and I think excellent landscape images can be made with m43.
It seems to me that whilst you can cherry pick to prove almost any point you want to make, in practical terms m43 gear is generally smaller, lighter, and cheaper than FF when it comes to building a practical, real-world, general purpose system. Sure, the m43 lenses will have a smaller "DOF and light gathering equivalent" f-stop (i.e., an f2.8 m43 lens will deliver the same DOF and "total light" as an f5.6 FF lens); but most of the time that doesn't matter since there is enough light to use a low ISO and few scenes require wafer-thin DOF.
But there will be specific use cases where one or the other will be the better choice.
For example, if you really need to shoot in low light and/or deliver wafer-thin DOF, then FF will win out. Just look at a size/weight comparison between the Olympus 25mm f1.2 and the Lumix 50mm f1.8 - and the Lumix lens is still a half stop faster in equiv terms; and the FF sensor will deliver lower noise. It's really game over.
For wildlife/sports then reach and speed become the issue. When it comes to reach, the cropping argument works to some degree, but until we get to an 80Mp FF sensor, 20Mp m43 still wins in terms of pixels on the bird. Now try getting an 80Mp FF sensor that will pump out frames at 120 fps (which is what the stacked sensor in the OM-1 will do). Frame rates are just as important for wildlife and sports as Mp, possibly more so.
In fact, I think it's reasonable to say that an OM-1 with a really top-class lens like the 150-400 f4.5 is a better platform for wildlife etc than any FF system if you look at the overall package in terms of size, weight, performance, speed, and cost. The closest you'd get today in L-mount to that would be an S5ii with the Sigma 150-600 - but it will be bigger, slower (frame rates), heavier, and probably worse at AF. But it will deliver a better ISO performance.
For landscape, whilst FF will deliver better IQ, the size/weight of m43 is hard to beat. For example, the Olympus 12-100 f4 Pro is a spectacularly good lens with great IQ, amazing stabilisation, and a fantastic range. At f5.6, it's sharp from one end to the other. To get the same quality, stabilisation, and range on FF, I need two lenses which together weigh 3-4 times what the Oly lens weighs. Now, size/weight might not be a problem for most landscape togs, but OTOH on long hikes you sure notice an S1R + 24-105 + 70-200 f4 on your shoulder. The big achilles heel of m43 in landscape is the relatively low Mp count and the more limited ability to do heavy PP on the files. But the difference isn't as big as some make out and I think excellent landscape images can be made with m43.
Markuswelder
Well-Known Member
Where is the m4/3 weather sealed autofocus f0.9 9mm, 17mm 25mm, and 43mm primes? My S 20-60mm shocks the hell out of me on a regular basis, and it's nearly free in a kit. The closest thing would be my PL 8-18mm, I'd line my 20-60 up against it without hesitation any day of the week. Same with my S 14-28mm.
Don't get me wrong, I love my extensive kit of m4/3 gear, but it's not all one sided. In fact, the size of the G9mkII was the deciding factor in picking up my S5 and a few of the more compact lenses for it
Don't get me wrong, I love my extensive kit of m4/3 gear, but it's not all one sided. In fact, the size of the G9mkII was the deciding factor in picking up my S5 and a few of the more compact lenses for it
Pete_W
LMF-Patron
Paul, have you been reading the DPR m4/3 forum and drinking the OM Kool-Aid??
I do not follow the mentioned forum, but I agree with Paul.
What I hear from OM1ii users is, that the OM1ii is a really great camera for sports and wildlife. Excellent AF, excellent buffer, excellent EVF with 5.7MP, excellent handling & grip and the file size is half the size of the Lumix G9ii (20 vs. 40MP)
I was thinking a lot about that OM1ii for my sport photography, but prices are too high. New and second hand.
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
The GH7 can hardly be considered a small camera, especially when it is caged out and decked out for actual video work. But I'm headed for a video shoot tomorrow, and it sure was nice to throw some extra M43 lenses in the bag, instead of full frame lenses. One doesn't usually think of the GH7 in terms of M43 versus full frame - the old comparisons don't make much sense with this high dynamic range multi-featured video centric camera. But I was happy to pack smaller lenses.
Pete_W
LMF-Patron
Having spent considerable time in the DPR m4/3 forum in the past, I would not trust the comments made by Olympus/OM users. They are fanatical and prone to exaggeration about the camera's capabilities. I think it goes back to the original Olympus marketing that essentially said that their m4/3 cameras were as capable as any full frame camera.
When the OM1 was released the forums were filled with comments about how excellent the AF was. Until the OM1-II was released with improved bird tracking and better human face/eye detection at which point the users all complained about the problems with AF in the original OM1 and were aggrieved that OMS did not provide a firmware update to bring the original up to the standard of the Mark II.
If you need a sports photography camera Dirk, I'd suggest Canon or Sony.
I did not read/hear it there. It was only regarding the newer OM1ii, not about the OM1.
I use the Olympus EM1 iii and that is a really good MFT camera. In some areas better than the Lumix G9.
Only the EVF is not "up to date" anymore. There the old G9 shines. Plus the top display.