BETTER HERE? Or there?” Anybody who has had a full eye-exam has heard this, or variations of this phrase. I am not an Optometrist (and I don’t play one on TV, although I do know one). 😊 I just used the name and phrase for a “catchy” byline, although “catchy” is obviously in the eye of the beholder. See what I did there? And I liked the use of the “specs” to frame the two cameras. Usually, it is pretty apparent whether “1” or “2” or “A” or “B” is better. But sometimes – even when you can see a difference – it is just not possible to say one is definitively “better.” Like maybe here. Read on to see what I conclude. I think it is important to note that this is an opinion post, and that I can only comment and write from my own experience. That includes cameras I have owned (or at least used). I cannot really comment critically about cameras or systems I have not used, owned, or at least researched (though I still do so, on occasion). I also think it’s important to note that my observations and choices of gear are as much personal as they are technical. For example, I have appreciated and used the familiar “SLR-like” camera body (with “pentaprism” viewfinder and dial controls) for most of my photographic “life.” I just like their “look and feel.” Those factors certainly strongly influence my conclusions, here. I know there are some who are just the opposite, and fully appreciate – and use – features like the rear screen and touchscreen. I have often repeated here, that cameras are tools, and their selection and use should be primarily governed by their usefulness to the craftsman. But I also think shooting should be fun; and fun partly includes shooting with something you like. Something that “feels” good.
sometimes – even when you can see a difference – it is just not possible to say one is definitively “better.”
IN THIS post I will comment about camera and sensor size and make some comparisons. They will be empirical but based on my own experiences. I am not a pixel peeper, nor a particularly deeply technical digital analyst (though I am told I can be anal). 🙂 I have had a fair amount of “hands-on” experience. Enough that I think I can comment – and maybe inform somebody who is on the fence about acquiring a “system.” Let me start by saying that of the systems I have owned and used, I think that as I write this post, the 35mm-equivalent SLR-like, “full-frame,” medium to high resolution cameras are still the best and most practical system for most of us. Today, this has expanded from the now “old-school” DSLR to the “new and improved” mirrorless offerings – primarily by the new “big three”: Sony, Canon and Nikon. The only reason for this comparison between m43 and “full frame” is size. Size does matter.
SINCE THE “digital revolution” began, I have owned and used a pretty good handful of digital capture cameras. I came from the film genre. I think most of us who did used 35mm SLR cameras, as 35mm still seems to be the “yardstick” against which we measure sensor size and lens matchups. My own cameras have ranged from very small, to so-called “full-frame” sensors (the latter being that 35mm equivalent size), and several in between (including APS-C). They have ranged from around 1 megapixel to my current +/- 45 megapixel “full frame” Sony A7rii. More recently, I have embraced the m4/3 system for travel (currently maxed at 20mp). I have used them all in a variety of conditions, including night shooting, handheld shooting, both on and off a tripod. I have numerous different cameras represented in the images on my LightCentric Photography website.
35mm still seems to be the “yardstick” against which we measure sensor size and lens matchups
LATELY, I have subscribed to several m4/3 pages on Facebook and read a lot about the m4/3 system. These are smaller sensor cameras (third from the right in the illustration table above) that have a popular following. Mostly, Olympus seems to dominate. They have a lot of discussions about noise, focus tracking, bird photography, and some of the bells and whistles of the system (mostly related to jpg shooting). The posters are often very opinionated – often to the point of being “fanboys.” But there is also a lot of good information out there, and a few commenters who are very knowledgeable about the system. I find that occasionally helpful when trying to get a handle on my own Olympus camera system.
FOR ME, my system choice has been a bit of an odyssey. It has been driven by technology, availability, budget, and my own photographic “needs.” In the early 2000’s, we bought our first digital camera, the 3-plus megapixel, Canon Powershot S20. Chunky, with its rangefinder style viewfinder, I never warmed up to it. As a tool, there was nothing wrong with it. But going back to those aesthetic considerations that I noted earlier, it wasn’t long before I had something different. In those days I was a pretty much dedicated Nikon guy, and I moved to one of their point and shoot “digicams” (the 5-megapixel Coolpix 5000). Neither of these cameras were what I considered a “serious” camera at that time (though as you can see from the illustration, the Coolpix had more of the look and feel I was accustomed to). They were what we have referred to (not always kindly) as “point and shoot” (P&S) cameras. No lens interchangeability. A “rangefinder-like” viewfinder. And the sensors were small. But they were the only digital alternatives to film that were remotely affordable at the time. Prior to these digital capture cameras, I had already begun the process of converting my film images to digital images, using a slide film scanner. By then, we were posting images online on places like America Online forums. All my “serious” photography was still done with my Nikon 35mm SLR film cameras. The only thing close to that for digital shooting in those early days was the Kodak/Canon/Nikon collaborative 35mm SLR style bodies (still only a couple megapixels), which were costing around $10,000. In 2000, Both introduced their own “pro” DSLR Cameras (Nikon D1 and Canon EOS 1-D). Both were more than $5,000.
MOST OF us prosumer enthusiasts waited anxiously for Nikon and Canon to release an “affordable” DSLR body. Finally, in 2002, our hopes were realized, as Nikon released the 6-megapixel D100, and Canon, the 3-megapixel EOS 60D, DSLR bodies. Both were priced at the $2,000 mark (still a chunk of $), and many of us made the switch at that time (kind of amazing when you compare what $2,000 will buy you today).
IN TODAY‘s terms, they were really pretty rudimentary cameras. But for the times, they were a breakthrough and proverbial “game-changing” development. For the next several years, they leapfrogged each other with newer, higher megapixel models and better and better sensors. At the same time the other major camera companies (and a newcomer or two – notably, Sony) all jumped on the bandwagon. All of these original DSLR cameras (pro and prosumer alike) featured the so-called APS-C sized sensors. At some point, sheer numbers of megapixels were less a big thing, and the industry shifted focus to larger sensors with better ability to handle things like signal noise. As the “yardstick,” the goal was a 35mm film rectangle size sensor, which became known as “full frame.”
OPTICS DICTATED that the APS-C sensors would present a different focal length for lenses, the vast majority of which had been designed for 35mm film. The new bodies accepted the old lens mounts, but it caused some angst, particularly as we lost some of the advantage of our wide-angle lenses (an approximate 1.4 – 1.5x magnification). So, of course, manufacturers began to produce new APS-C mount-specified lenses. Then, when they finally released the “full frame” sensors, there was again a demand for the 35mm lens specification. But over time, even they have evolved, due to the different physical specifications and capabilities of digital sensors (particularly in the case of the newest “mirrorless” configurations).
THEN THE next “revolution” happened. Sony had been a major player in the P&S market since the inception of digicams. In 2006, they joined the fray with their first Sony Alpha (APS-C) DSLR. But they were quietly pursuing a completely new direction – the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. The mirrorless design would change a lot of things somewhat radically, including the ability to make smaller components. In 2010, Sony debuted their NEX line, a pair of very similar, small footprint, 14-megapixel APS-C cameras with interchangeable lenses (Sony NEX-3 and NEX-5). Just a year later, they introduced the NEX-7, with a 24-megapixel successor. Sony has long been noted for its quirky numbering system, and they didn’t introduce the 16-megapixel “little brother” NEX-6 until 2013. In my case, for various reasons, the NEX-6 was the one I chose, as my first mirrorless camera. I really fell in love with its small size and relatively easy handling. It was what eventually moved me away from the DSLR camera – and away from Nikon. Neither Nikon nor Canon appeared to have strong interest in this market at that time. They have more recently gone full-on mirrorless with what might be expected: some very good offerings. But they do have a new big kid on the playground today that they didn’t have before: Sony. Today, they are the 1-2-3 industry leaders in sales (Canon, Sony, Nikon). While they still offer a few APS-C sensor models, All 3 offer “full frame” models as their flagship cameras.
WHILE ALL of this was happening, another phenomenon was quietly developing. The ability to make smaller, lighter, and sometimes cheaper components has a real appeal and following. In 2008, Panasonic introduced the Lumix, a m4/3 (“micro-four-thirds”) sensor camera. In 2009, Olympus released its first of many m4/3 offerings. They pretty much went all in on the m4/3 sensor from there forward and today, offer a pretty broad selection of cameras – mostly very traditional look and feel, DSLR-like boxes. The distinct advantage of this camera is the ability to provide good quality images at much smaller sizes. It was this size and weight component that won me over to a set of Olympus gear for my travel needs. A long-time quality player in the photography business, Olympus produces not only very high-quality lenses (and of course, Panasonic and Leica joined in a partnership to offer Leica designed and branded lenses), but some pretty advanced technology, including perhaps the best in-body image stabilization available. Olympus recently sold its photographic division off, but the new company, OM Systems, has pledged to maintain the level of quality and R&D on to new products. Time will tell.
KIND OF a long history. But I think necessary to put my comments and comparisons in context.
Only in the world of the camera industry would “medium” be larger than “full”
WHY DO I only compare the m4/3 system with the so-called “full frame” system? For an interchangeable lens system, the m4/3 is as small as I personally will comfortably go for “serious” photography at this time. While there is a sensor larger than “full-frame” (confused by the terminology yet? 🙂 ) known as “medium format” (only in the world of the camera industry would “medium” be larger than a “full”), it is neither developed enough, affordable enough, nor common enough for my personal consideration. “Medium Format “is now offered by Fujifilm, Hassleblad, Leica, and Pentax. They range from $3500 to $50,000. They offer anywhere between about 50m to just over 100mp sensors. Interesting, but not in my wheelhouse at this point. Presumably the body and lenses are going to be even larger and heavier (though I recently shot with my friend, Rich Ennis in Vermont, who was shooting one of the Fujis and was pleasantly surprised to see that the body was not appreciably larger than a “full frame” DSLR).
I SEE my personal “bookends” at m4/3 and 35mm-equivalent “full frame.” For the moment. What about the APS-C system? In my view, it sits pretty squarely in the middle between the bookends. Looking at the sensor size comparison chart above, the difference between the m 4/3 and APS-C sensors is not that much. Especially when you compare them with the difference between the APS-C and “full frame” sensor. I don’t really consider APS-C, primarily for the reasons I do consider m4/3. It’s really all about size, in my opinion. Given the modest sensor size increase, the size of lenses and bodies are currently too big in my view. Not worth the tradeoff. m 4/3 lens and body size differences (compared with “full frame”), on the other hand, are significant. Having now shot a lot of images with my Sony 35mm-equivalent and with the Olympus m4/3 camera, I feel comfortable in making comparisons between them. And while the image quality for the m4/3 is very good, I don’t think it holds a candle to the Sony sensor’s image quality. Indeed, I wouldn’t even be talking about Olympus – or m4/3 – here, but for the sole consideration of size! Note that I am only considering Olympus’ so-called “entry-level” camera, the OMD-EM10 series. Again, the primary reason is size. It is their smallest body (maybe the smallest SLR-like body available from any major brand). OM Systems has some higher-end cameras out there. But they immediately begin to get physically bigger, and more expensive. And if I am going to go there, why not focus the “better” and more expensive factor on my Sony system (which I have already stated I think is superior)?
BY THE same token, if size is my “only” criteria for a travel camera (and if you read carefully, I haven’t said that – just that it is a very significant factor), why not choose an offering from Olympus (my own choice for the best m 4/3 camera system) that is equivalent in specs (actually, even better) than the EM10, and noticeably smaller? In an even smaller package, the Olympus Pen F has some high-end features that make it very attractive, including the 20mp sensor (the EM10iv I now carry also has the newest 20mp sensor and chip), the high-resolution feature only available on the higher-spec OMD models, and a fully articulating rear screen. Well, at the moment, it comes down to two things. Most importantly is what I say in the first paragraph here. There is some personal, whimsical part in my decision-making. The EM10 is not that much larger, and it has a look and feel that makes it fun to shoot. Secondly, the Pen F is about $400 more expensive, new. A factor – however significant or not. But if size matters for you, it might be something for you to consider, also.
I wouldn’t even be talking about Olympus – or m4/3 – here, but for the sole consideration of size
BACK TO APS-C for a moment. I expect those images to be “better” than the m4/3, but not as good as the “full frame.” And what I know about the APS-C gear is that it is not appreciably smaller than the Sony A7r (especially when you consider lenses). Yes, it is smaller (particularly the mirrorless offerings like their XT series from Fuji – and maybe the current Nexus bodies from Sony). But as you get into better quality lenses, things begin again to get bigger. But there are really two reasons I don’t pay much attention to APS-C here. First, the difference between the m4/3 and the APS-C is much less than the next step up to 35mm-equivalent (see the sensor size comparison chart above). In my mind, there is not enough improvement from m4/3 to APS-C given the size and weight considerations. For me, the “middle ground” just doesn’t give me enough benefit. And second, I couldn’t find a pair of glasses with three lenses. 🙂
Size Matters
Size matters in a number of ways. Probably the most important is sensor size. There are two components to this (there is a third, known as “pixel pitch,” which punches way above my weight class; so I won’t even try to cover it). A larger sensor allows for larger pixel dimensions (as opposed to the number of pixels). It also can allow for a larger number of pixels, less densely packed. Both equate to less digital noise, and greater image details, and therefore, theoretically better, sharper images. As well, the larger number of pixels yields a larger image, and more depth for cropping. In 2021, I made a very distant shot of a hillside while in Vermont for fall foliage season. I was with a friend who shot it with a 300mm lens. My longest was 105mm. But I cropped the 46mp file “as if” I had shot it at 300mm. I was astounded at how the image quality held up in a crop of only 1/3 of the original file. With my smaller, and lower megapixel Olympus (20mp), that is just not going to happen. I am not advocating making huge crops. But it is nice to know the potential is there.
But physical size matters, too. The physically smaller dimensions of the m4/3 sensors allow for a much smaller “box” (my OMD-EM10 body is very small and very light). The same characteristic makes the physics of lens making very different, also. My 70-300 zoom for my Sony is 7 inches long, and 3 inches in diameter, and is substantially heavier than the equivalent m4/3 lens. They are both “consumer” grade, slower lenses, allowing for smaller, lighter design. Believe me, packing and carrying a camera that is 1/2 the size, and a lens that is under 4 inches long and less than 2 inches in diameter, and feather lite, is a world of difference.
Noise Issues
There are some noise issues. This is something that has been noted online frequently, and my own empirical evidence confirms that. I have observed noticeably more noise in my m4/3 images, especially when ISO has been bumped up. Because I am using “slower” consumer lenses, ISO tends to be higher in these shots, particularly in low light conditions. Faster lenses get noticeably larger and heavier, defeating my primary purpose for using the m4/3 system in the first place. I know there are those who will suggest noise is not really an issue, because we now have some really great post-processing software for “de-noising available. Yep. I know. I have tried several of them (including the – not very good in my view – noise adjustment in ADOBE’s ACR raw converter). I use the NIK version myself and find its results the most personally pleasing. But all of them ultimately result in a softening of the image. In some cases, it isn’t a big deal, if the noise is in areas that are not inherently sharp. But all in all, I would prefer to start with a relatively noise-free image before processing. But once again, size matters. For the bulk of my travel shooting, the conditions do not yield these noise inducing conditions. Generally, when they do, I have deemed the levels acceptable. After all, it is pictures I am seeking, not pixel-peeping perfection.
What’s all this noise about noise, anyway? Noise seems to be the current “hot topic” online. When I browse on FB, or read (or at least, used to read) articles on Dpreview.com, it seems like all I see is this or that software purveyor’s “new” Noise Reduction Algorithm. I know a couple people who have bought some of the software, and are using it. As I noted in the blog text above, I am not really uber-impressed with most of it. Like the former “hot-topic,” sharpening, much of it yields what I think are “artificial-looking results. Most of my criticisms around sharpening “breakthroughs” (if they worked at all) were that they looked plasticky (I know, not a word), or digitized. In my experience, they often resulted in more image degradation. And if the original image is not reasonably sharp to begin with, I am still of the school that doesn’t believe it can be made sharp digitally (yet), despite what the Google Pixel Phone advertisement claims about “making your blurry photos sharp.” The noise reduction stuff feels much the same to me. Mostly not really a breakthrough. But perhaps more to the point, not really as much a problem as the software sellers would have us believe. There is a certain amount of “softness,” and a certain amount of “noise” that is naturally occurring. With the exception of night images (and certain very low light images), I don’t generally look at my images and say: “jeez, that’s noisy. I better apply NR software.” In other words, a certain amount of “noise” is acceptable (just like a certain amount of grain was acceptable – and even sometimes desirable – in a celluloid photograph).
Stabilization
“Image Stabilization” is a pretty significant factor in today’s cameras. The Olympus m 4/3 cameras all implement “In Body Image Stabilization” (IBIS). In other words, the stabilization mechanism is in the camera, theoretically meaning it works with any lens attached. Some of the close competitors for my “small” setup only use “in-lens” stabilization. Not all lenses have stabilization built in. Sony just released its newest “high resolution” camera body, the A7riv, and its in-body stabilization (IBIS) specs sound very good indeed (they claim 8 stops!). The Olympus IBIS is known, however, to be very, good. Perhaps the best in the business. They use a 5-axis system, where other manufacturers (to the best of my knowledge) use a 3-axis setup. On my older OMD EM10 body, I could hear and feel the stabilization gyro system. It is smoother and quieter on the mark iv, and I have not detected it so far. But I know it is there. I mainly use my Sony system on a tripod, so stabilization rarely comes into my process with that camera system. On the other hand, the Olympus is a travel camera, used for street shooting and travel shooting. It only rarely gets mounted on a tripod. Which makes a really good IBIS system an important consideration for handheld shooting.
[Copyright Andy Richards 2013
All Rights Reserved]
Depth of Field and Bokeh
Physics, again, comes into play here. Several, often interrelated, things create bokeh. Lens focal length is a big determining factor. It is much easier to obtain nice background bokeh with a telephoto lens than with a wide-angle lens. Conversely, it is also more difficult to obtain a wide depth of field for subject-focus with a telephoto lens. Aperture, and subject/background distance also both have significant effect on bokeh. For example, the shot above was made with an APS-C sensor (essentially all I shot with until the late 2000’s when I acquired my first “full-frame” Nikon), and a 32mm (48mm at 35mm equivalent) Carl Zeiss prime lens, at an aperture of f1.8. Even though the lens is not particularly “telephoto,” the very wide aperture (and perhaps the great quality of the lens) creates very nice bokeh. Depending on the focal length and aperture being used, the distance between the subject and the background can also increase bokeh. The effect is much less with a wide lens than with a telephoto.
What about sensor size? At a given focal length, the larger sensor/larger lens circle combination naturally produces narrower depth of field (which can mean more bokeh). Conversely, the smaller sensor generally means that it is much more difficult to produce nice bokeh backgrounds. This is not to say it cannot be done. It is just more difficult. Other factors – which often compete with your goals – have to be adjusted. Very wide apertures (think f2 or wider) can help, especially if you are able to separate background in conjunction. But wider aperture means bigger, heavier lens designs. This competes with the “small” factor that is important to me for travel. Enough so that I don’t even bother with wide-aperture (“fast”) lenses for my travel kit. My “go to” aperture range for about 90% of my shooting during travel is f8 – f11. Given the small m 4/3 sensor size, physics tells me I should be able to get pretty sharp results as large as f3.5 – 4 (wide open on my consumer lenses). But I think of the f8-ish aperture as an insurance policy. Of course, lens construction and characteristics also weigh in here.
I am generally looking at bokeh in images for shots like the one above. I normally will be using my “full frame” gear and lenses. I do own a couple prime, wide aperture lenses in the “full frame” kit. I generally don’t see any point in duplicating that in the m4/3.
IN THE end, I think this all comes down to something I have harped on here fairly often. Cameras are tools. You pick the tools for the job. And in every case, you compromise. You also think about what you are trying to accomplish. I have shot birds, and some limited sports/action. But that is not what I gravitate toward. My comments here are going to be biased in favor of what I do shoot. In my landscape work, it is almost all nature stills. While I use AF all the time, sophisticated tracking, phase detection, and face detection algorithms are not particularly important – or useful – to me. If I were shooting action subjects, they would be. My “stills” are 95% made from a tripod. So (in spite of the rather impressive current specs on Sony’s newest iteration of my camera of choice), image stabilization for that camera/system is not of particular concern for me. For the same reasons, I don’t really need a long, fast (and big and heavy) telephoto lens. I carry a 70-300 zoom, but it is a variable aperture and not very fast. It is quite small and very light, which is what I am seeking. I use it for landscape – not for wildlife. What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand? It simply means you have to make your decisions based on your photographic goals.
IF I had to choose only one system, I would say that the full frame system wins the “better here” visual/image quality test without much of a challenge. But it loses the “convenience” test handily. In practical terms, what this means is that for the foreseeable future, I will maintain two very different sets of photographic gear. But if forced to choose just one, I would stick with my Sony setup – today. I don’t know what the longer-term future holds. Sensor technology and quality continues to rapidly improve. Just look at the smartphone industry, with its tiny sensors and what they can produce today. As unequivocal as I am about my statement that currently, “full-frame” wins the IQ test, I am just as confident that when smaller sensors reach equivalency with larger ones, I will be one of the first to go completely “small.” We’re just not there yet, in my opinion.
LightCentric Photography Blog 