New Camera - APS-C vs. m43

[valleyguy]

I am in the market to get a new camera, seems there are some good photographers here, so would like some thoughts. Years ago I shot film with a Canon and did some darkroom work, now I want to move into the modern age, my iPhone has become limiting.

I want an external microphone jack (which eliminates many models), would PREFER a fully articulating back screen, would PREFER a viewfinder, and would like a mirrorless.

It seems now that the big choice is sensor size. I like the smaller, lighter cameras that are not full size. Any ideas on the APS-C versus the micro four thirds? is there much difference in the quality of the fotos? I don't plan on blowing up pictures, but you never know. Also, I know that the larger sensor will give me an advantage in low light situations.

I've been looking at the Canon M50 (APS) and the Panasonics, Lumix GX8, GX85.

On the other hand, I've had friends pushing me to the smaller 1' sensor size cameras, that have a great zoom lenses built in. Their theory is you'll carry the smaller camera with you more often, and the best camera is the one you have with you.

Too many decisions.

[raysachs]

There's a difference but in my experience (which was pretty extensive up until about two years ago, pretty limited since), there was a much bigger difference between APS and full frame and a pretty small difference between m43 and APS. And to the extent that there's a difference, it primarily shows up in very low light or extreme high dynamic range situations. But, frankly, the quality of sensors has gotten SOOOOOO good that even m43 is as good or better than full frame was just a few years ago. So unless you're really pushing boundaries (in which case you still probably want full frame), I'd say you should decide on m43 or APS more based on which aspect ratio you prefer. APS and full frame shoot natively at a 3:2 aspect ratio, while m43 shoots natively at a 4:3 ratio, so a bit closer to square. I personally preferred 3:2 most of the time, but that's purely a matter of personal preference. Any sensor can be cropped to almost any ratio, but then you're losing pixels so I'd go on what you most often like to shoot at. Although if you're shooting APS and crop down to 4:3, you're still probably at about the quality of m43, so that argues for going APS.

But m43 is sooo good these days and the cameras and lenses are so much more compact that there's not a lot of downside left in going for that format if size and weight are a priority. I went from m43 to APS to full frame between 2010 and 2014 and still have a subset of my full frame gear. But if I was buying today and wasn't as particular as I'd gotten, I'd probably do m43 again. Hell, these days I shoot with my iPhone more than anything. But I was pretty into it for a while there and full frame made a big difference, particularly in low light, maybe a bigger difference than it would today.

-Ray

[Dirk Hofman]

No direct experience. This seemed like a good writeup: https://www.slrlounge.com/11-key-dif...ro-43-vs-dslr/

For me the one limiter on Micro 4/3 would be the focal length, I shoot a lot of work at really low focal lengths (on a full frame DSLR) that can't be replicated on APS-C or M 4/3 systems due to the multiplication factor of crop sensors. My most used lens is a Canon 50mm 1.2, and I use it at 1.2 - 1.8 a LOT. You can't get that shallow a DOF with the smaller crop sensors. This isn't a consideration for a lot of folks.

Other than that, they're lighter, cheaper, focus great, great for video, and have great lens options. Street and travel photographers love the smaller platforms.

[valleyguy]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

For me the one limiter on Micro 4/3 would be the focal length, I shoot a lot of work at really low focal lengths (on a full frame DSLR) that can't be replicated on APS-C or M 4/3 systems due to the multiplication factor of crop sensors. My most used lens is a Canon 50mm 1.2, and I use it at 1.2 - 1.8 a LOT. You can't get that shallow a DOF with the smaller crop sensors. This isn't a consideration for a lot of folks.

Not sure I understand this. Why wouldn't any fast lens give you the same DOF on a smaller sensor?

Are you saying that the bokeh is not as nice on the smaller sensors?

[HHP]

I went with a Canon APS-C mirrorless couple years ago and have been very pleased with it. I might lean more towards the M6 with an EVF over the SLR-styled M50. Canon also offers these in "video maker" kits with shotgun mics.

The lenses are quite good and you can adapt EF-s and other lenses to the mount. They have a really great 28mm macro with built-in ring light. I use that a lot and I also heavily rely on the 11-22mm zoom lens.I am thinking of adding one of the fixed lenses, either the 22mm f/2 or the new 35mm f/1.4.

My favorite feature of mirrorless is that when you add effects, you see the effect in the EVF while you shoot. I shoot a lot of monochrome and its cool to view the image that way while shooting.

What I like best is carrying the camera, 4 lenses, and misc. accessories in a case the size of a small ladies handbag.

[raysachs]

Originally Posted by valleyguy

Not sure I understand this. Why wouldn't any fast lens give you the same DOF on a smaller sensor?

Are you saying that the bokeh is not as nice on the smaller sensors?

An actual 50mm lens at the same aperture will give you the same DOF. BUT, a 50mm lens on an m43 camera is effectively a 100mm focal length, or more of a portrait length lens. So if you want something like a typical 50mm field of view, you need a 25mm lens on an m43 body, which Panasonic has made for years and I think Olympus may make one as well. But f1.4 on a 25mm lens will not give you the same shallow depth of field as f1.4 on a 50mm lens. So you have to go to an even wider aperture on an m43 body to get similarly shallow DOF for a given field of view. BUT, that's not to say you can't get very shallow DOF and very nice bokeh on a 25mm f1.4 on an m43 body - it just won't be AS shallow as it would be on an actual 50mm lens at f1.4. The quality of the bokeh is actually a different thing than the narrowness of the depth of field. DOF can be mathematically calculated - bokeh quality is a subjective judgement.

-Ray

[Jeff Scott]

Originally Posted by valleyguy

Any ideas on the APS-C versus the micro four thirds? is there much difference in the quality of the fotos [sic]?

IME (with older cameras that I compared - Canon 30D and Olympus E1), yes there was a significant difference, with APS-C winning by far. I have not compared recent models, though so things may have improved on the M4:3 front, but than, things have also improved on the APS-C front at the same time.

Given all the specific requirements you have, how many cameras are still on your shortlist?

My needs are different than yours but I finally went FF (Canon 6D) as I wanted the full use of my 17-40/4L.

Someday I may look into a mirrorless camera, but I really prefer an OVF to an EVF.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by valleyguy

Not sure I understand this. Why wouldn't any fast lens give you the same DOF on a smaller sensor?

Are you saying that the bokeh is not as nice on the smaller sensors?

Honestly don't totally understand it but here is another article on it: https://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/th...ckground-blur/

I see @raysachs has a good explanation above.

What I have experienced is that I get more bokeh, resolution, and light sensitivity with a full frame sensor vs. an APS-C sensor given a particular focal length and aperture. I've never had an M43 camera.



^^^ That was shot at f/1.8 with a 50mm Canon f/1.2 lens. I'll actually go down to f/1.2 but it can be hard to control focus. When you get it right, it can be very dramatic–really quite amazing. But mostly I shoot here for portraits as most people don't want that much blur.

I don't think it matters much to most photographers. Basically you're going to lose some resolution (doesn't matter for most printing sizes now), some bokeh, and mostly low-light performance. Always the tradeoff with cost, no matter if it's the sensor or the lens. They make the good stuff more expensive, but the smaller formats are so good now, you can do amazing work with any of them.

Originally Posted by Jeff Scott

My needs are different than yours but I finally went FF (Canon 6D) as I wanted the full use of my 17-40/4L.

That's what I have as well.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by HHP

I went with a Canon APS-C mirrorless couple years ago and have been very pleased with it. I might lean more towards the M6 with an EVF over the SLR-styled M50. Canon also offers these in "video maker" kits with shotgun mics.

The lenses are quite good and you can adapt EF-s and other lenses to the mount. They have a really great 28mm macro with built-in ring light. I use that a lot and I also heavily rely on the 11-22mm zoom lens.I am thinking of adding one of the fixed lenses, either the 22mm f/2 or the new 35mm f/1.4.

My favorite feature of mirrorless is that when you add effects, you see the effect in the EVF while you shoot. I shoot a lot of monochrome and its cool to view the image that way while shooting.

What I like best is carrying the camera, 4 lenses, and misc. accessories in a case the size of a small ladies handbag.

You should always post-process effects for more than one reason.

[valleyguy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Scott

Given all the specific requirements you have, how many cameras are still on your shortlist?

My brother in law has offered to lend me his Lumix GX8 to try for awhile. It ticks off all the things I want and it allows me to test out the files from the m43 sensor. However, new, it is a bit more than I want to spend. My son in law has a Canon M50 and I hope to try it out to compare the larger APS-C sensor.

I'm also curious how the size and rangefinder shape will work in every day usage vs. the SLR shape.

I'm really torn between getting a small sized camera that fits in my pocket that I could take anywhere and always have with me versus the larger sensor camera that delivers better quality. Guess like with guitars, one of each is best......

[Dirk Hofman]

Just ran across this video in my YouTube feed, thought it addressed the depth of field question as per sensors quite well.

[valleyguy]

Originally Posted by HHP

I went with a Canon APS-C mirrorless couple years ago and have been very pleased with it. I might lean more towards the M6 with an EVF over the SLR-styled M50. Canon also offers these in "video maker" kits with shotgun mics.

The lenses are quite good and you can adapt EF-s and other lenses to the mount. They have a really great 28mm macro with built-in ring light. I use that a lot and I also heavily rely on the 11-22mm zoom lens.I am thinking of adding one of the fixed lenses, either the 22mm f/2 or the new 35mm f/1.4.

My favorite feature of mirrorless is that when you add effects, you see the effect in the EVF while you shoot. I shoot a lot of monochrome and its cool to view the image that way while shooting.

What I like best is carrying the camera, 4 lenses, and misc. accessories in a case the size of a small ladies handbag.

Thanks for the info, I had not considered the M6, because of the lack of a EVF, but I see that an optional one can be added (for $200). I like its smaller size. It's half the price of the Lumix GX8.

[imwjl]

I would say think about how you will use it and consider if a whole lot of specialty, rental and used options are important. That's kept me with a more old school SLR platform, nice little specialty camera for in water use, and then more and more capability from a smart phone.

With my commitment to one of the major SLR platforms it's easy to share gear, rent, you name it. So much capability comes from flash. For years I've shared or borrowed items with others who have the same system. My more traditional setup can hold a superb flash unit and control others as an example.

As far as brands I think all the leaders are great. At this point I think too much concentration on the camera body is stupid. It's your film these days. You'll replace it with something better. I feel I've had far more capability buying my platform's better lenses and flash units than if I got the top vs mid-level bodies.

The upside for my having a more old school setup has a downside of bulk but wow is it nice to handle either a big camera or the iPhone.

[Jeff Scott]

Originally Posted by valleyguy

I'm also curious how the size and rangefinder shape will work in every day usage vs. the SLR shape.

4:3 vs. 3:2 is something you will have to decide what you prefer. Most of us grew up with a 35mm camera so we are used to the 3:2 aspect ratio (AR), and most modern computer monitors are similar in their AR, too, mine is 1920x1200 so it gets really close to 35mm AR. Personally, my preferred format in the film world is 4x5/8x10 having used a 4x5 camera for my photography for 30 years, or so.

One advantage to 4:3 cameras is that it is easy to determine the focal length of the lens in use compared to it's equivalent in 35mm.

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Just ran across this video in my YouTube feed, thought it addressed the depth of field question as per sensors quite well.

As stated in that video, DOF is related to focal length and aperture settings more so than it is to film/image sensor size. The fact that small digital cameras seem to have greater apparent DOF is due to their using much shorter focal length lenses.

A good rule of thumb here is that, at any particular aperture setting, say f16. for example, doubling the focal length will produce 1/4 the DOF, just as reducing the focal length by half will quadruple the DOF. So, these tiny lenses, especially, on small, pocketable cameras have, seemingly, much greater DOF.

However, once images/prints from different camera format sizes (M4:3, APS-C, 35mm, 6x9 roll film, 4x5, etc.) are enlarged to the same size, let's say, 16x20 print size) the DOF will be the same from all formats, assuming the same aperture setting and FOV was used in all cases.

Originally Posted by valleyguy

...I had not considered the M6...

Every time I see a reference to M6, I see only this:

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Scott

However, once images/prints from different camera format sizes (M4:3, APS-C, 35mm, 6x9 roll film, 4x5, etc.) are enlarged to the same size, let's say, 16x20 print size) the DOF will be the same from all formats, assuming the same aperture setting and FOV was used in all cases.

I'm confused by this, can you help me out? I don't understand why enlarging an image or print would affect the DOF. It would seem to me that once the image is taken, DOF is set. No?

Do you mean cropping the image or print to get the same FOV? At which point the downside would be that you will lose some resolution or in the case of a print, size.

Still a bit fuzzy here without reviewing the video.