Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Article on MFT v FF- a professional's view

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

mikehit
mikehit  56298 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2013 - 12:02 AM

There have been a few posts recently along the lines of people wanting to upgrade, go FF or buy a DSLR as their first 'real' camera. I have recently stumbled on these links which makes interesting reading

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/ http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
6 Nov 2013 - 12:02 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315164 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2013 - 12:08 AM

Its becoming a very tiresome subject Smile

thewilliam
6 Nov 2013 - 12:31 AM

Lindsay is a true professional and has chosen the tools that suit her best. Lindsay does know how to get the best out a camera.

I find a larger camera easier to use but I don't enjoy lugging heavy lenses around but this is not usually a problem because most of my work is in a studio.

Some time ago, there was a very interesting FAQ on the Zeiss site about the relative sharpness of 35mm vs medium format lenses. The sharpest Zeiss lenses by quite a margin are the ZM, designed for Leica type rangefinder cameras and the least sharp in terms of raw resolution are the ZV lenses for the classic Hasselblad. But then medium-format images don't need to be enlarged as much for a given print size.

I'd wager that the MFT lenses are a lot sharper than the ZM.

Graham_Rainham
6 Nov 2013 - 12:56 AM


Quote: Its becoming a very tiresome subject Smile

As are the endless arguments on brand superiority.

As soon as any image data leaves the camera it ceases to be attributable to it, by virtue of being processed.

Only the end product has merit, everything else is simply a means to that end...

MichaelMelb_AU

Another micro 4/3 promotional article... yawnSmile I think media overdoes with it - or do we really become dumber? Private opinion of a good professional may be convincing and authoritative, especially if well paid for - but that's just an opinion. Anyone saw true vs thing with images in-depth analysis? Aha... Wink Because it would be too obvious that a larger camera with larger sensor and better optics can do whatever it's "smaller brothers" do - and even some more on the top of it.

Completely different topic would be camera suitability. Here I can agree with what industry does. Lacklustre performance from "professional" FF DSLR is not a new thing, and why they need to make them at higher cost when something smaller and cheaper will be as good (or bad) in amateur's hands?

The one who was into photography long enough to shoot, develop and print B&W film on their own may remember rangefinder cameras. They were quite cheap and advanced, and most used by amateurs who overgrew some sort of Browney. Professional journos used them as well - for they were fast, precise, equipped with decent optics, had the same size "sensor" as any SLR and were reasonably compact. Majority of studio photographers employed 6x8 contact print glass negatives at that time. My friend's dad was in the business retouching them.

M4/3 is a new "rangefinder", and there would be nothing wrong with professional or indeed amateur use of it. Just keep this industrial strength sales fertiliser out of my garden.

Last Modified By MichaelMelb_AU at 6 Nov 2013 - 1:40 AM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315164 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2013 - 1:43 AM

Most full frame users are a bit like Ferrari drivers and will never ever get the best out of there machines, but they do like to dream Smile

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110227 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2013 - 6:03 AM

There's what you need to do the job and then there's what you want that will make you believe you can do the job.

At the end of the day we are talking about a tool to create images so I never understand all the angst and heat that seems to surround the "Mines better than yours" debates

Last Modified By brian1208 at 6 Nov 2013 - 6:04 AM
rogerfry
rogerfry e2 Member 8505 forum postsrogerfry vcard United Kingdom
6 Nov 2013 - 8:10 AM

Excellent articles Mike, with enough sensible arguments to bring these pointless discussions to an end..........but they won't!

djcozzer
djcozzer  5 United Kingdom
6 Nov 2013 - 8:35 AM


Quote: T
At the end of the day we are talking about a tool to create images so I never understand all the angst and heat that seems to surround the "Mines better than yours" debates

Is it not mine's bigger than yours Wink

mikehit
mikehit  56298 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2013 - 8:53 AM


Quote: Another micro 4/3 promotional article... yawnSmile I think media overdoes with it - or do we really become dumber? Private opinion of a good professional may be convincing and authoritative, especially if well paid for - but that's just an opinion. Anyone saw true vs thing with images in-depth analysis? Aha... Wink Because it would be too obvious that a larger camera with larger sensor and better optics can do whatever it's "smaller brothers" do - and even some more on the top of it.

I thought she made it repeatedly clear that it was her opinion for the way she shoots and what many see as 'advantages' of FF are not relevant to her. She even acknowledges that there are times she would like to use those 'advantages' but they not often enough to lug a full DSLR kit around.


Quote: Completely different topic would be camera suitability.

But that's what she is talking about.

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1022904 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna31 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2013 - 9:03 AM

It says something that a photographer feels the need to vindicate their use of a particular camera. Why is that?

franken
franken e2 Member 113098 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2013 - 9:35 AM


Quote: Its becoming a very tiresome subject Smile

It's been that way as far back as I can remember to be honest although it appears to have become a lot worse since the advent of digital.

None of my cameras are the latest models and I've no intention of changing them anytime soon.

I use 4/3rds, Dslr's and compacts and they all do a great job for what's intended.

For me the end result is what matters and not the tools that helped make it.

I can remember my photography tutor stating, " you can have the best camera gear in the world and produce crap and you can have modest gear and produce work that can be admired."

And how right he was.

For some, owning a certain camera brand and the latest models of them is more important than the results from them and I know several people that it applies to.

keith selmes
6 Nov 2013 - 9:55 AM

I thought it was interesting and rather well written. Her photographic work is good too.

Her reason for writing the article appears to be in her words

Quote: Professional photographers are often asked to write about how and why they do things

and

Quote: Aside from existing as a photographer I also help to educate new photographers and this is another thing which prompted me to write my article

And her reason for using MFT is simply

Quote: I have some occupational injuries now and I cannot realistically carry heavy stuff around

her main point seems to be

Quote: equipment choices are often personal. What matters the most is that the photographer is appropriately skilled and uses equipment which is suited to the job at hand

I don't see anything there we would need to disagree with, nor do I see her pushing any particular technology.

MichaelMelb_AU
6 Nov 2013 - 10:00 AM


Quote: ...
I thought she made it repeatedly clear that it was her opinion for the way she shoots and what many see as 'advantages' of FF are not relevant to her. She even acknowledges that there are times she would like to use those 'advantages' but they not often enough to lug a full DSLR kit around.

Completely different topic would be camera suitability.
But that's what she is talking about.

There's not a lot of points I would disagree in the blog. It's in the name actually. "Micro Four Thirds vs Full Frame | The Arguments Continue". I have no idea who started this drivel first, but now seems that it was taken on with the advertisement industry. And the blog makes full impression of paid material written exactly in this key. It is interesting that in second part of it the author takes vindicative approach - as noticed by other member above. Almost like they feel need to convince themselves that Oly OM-D is the best option for a physically limited professional. Well, it is - I agree. Nothing better in the weight category at the moment. But giving the article a name that implies it is capable to compete with full frame DSLR ? Too much, isn't it?

Last Modified By MichaelMelb_AU at 6 Nov 2013 - 10:02 AM
keith selmes
6 Nov 2013 - 11:00 AM


Quote: But giving the article a name that implies it is capable to compete with full frame DSLR ? Too much, isn't it?

Actually MFT is better than FF DSLR - sometimes. And sometimes the other way round. I don't see any need for competing, unless you're selling them of course. I thought her problem was, and a large part of the reason for the article, she's dealing with a persistent dogma that an FF DSLR is always best, and then getting lots of unjustified, and often anonymous, flak when she explains why it isn't.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.