A great article by Ming Thein on a complex subject:



Format equivalence, engineering and practical envelope ? Ming Thein | Photographer


Be sure to read the comments!

[surfar]

Mings writings are always quite interesting,i've long thought that M43 is the ideal "extra" system to compliment FF.

[Rondec]

I think probably the biggest thing (to me) is that it is awfully handy to have different sensor sizes, but that use the same mount. This is the biggest reason that I shoot with APS-C and full frame. Sharing lenses, for those of us who don't have unlimited resources is a big deal. And honestly, all of my lenses become manual focus, short to long telephoto lenses on a micro four thirds camera (except the DFA 15-30 which is amazingly big normal zoom).

I like full frame a lot. It provides sort of compromise -- cheaper than medium format, but better image quality (dynamic range/high iso) than smaller formats. Lenses are relatively reasonably priced. If I was shooting with Sony/Nikon/Canon, I still wouldn't go with micro four thirds as a second camera, but rather would use an APS-C camera with the same mount. Basically you have a little smaller camera that typically would have faster frame rates, but would take the same lenses.

[UncleVanya]

I've shot m43 and apsc together for years. I have thought that moving to full frame might be better to stretch the format differences.

[stevebrot]

Shoot the format to suit the subject, style of photography, and field conditions and don't worry about equivalence. I seem to be equally happy with my cell-phone photos as with the 4x5" stuff.


Steve

(...easily pleased, I am...)

[SteveinSLC]

Yeah, I'm with Rondec. m4/3 would be good, except it requires all new lenses or adapters and reduced performance. With my K-70 and K-1 I can share lenses.

Plus from an ergonomic standpoint, there's a limit to how small the grip can get for me and still feel good, particularly if I have a big lens on the front.

Yeah, I'm with Rondec. m4/3 would be good, except it requires all new lenses or adapters and reduced performance. With my K-70 and K-1 I can share lenses.

Plus from an ergonomic standpoint, there's a limit to how small the grip can get for me and still feel good, particularly if I have a big lens on the front.

I really like the small sensor Qs I have. The APS-C bodies I have are really a great value but the sensors and lenses between those sizes seem kind of awkward for a system camera and cost as much or more than the APS-C lenses. A full frame or MF system would be nice, but out of my price range.

[LensBeginner]

Mings writings are always quite interesting,i've long thought that M43 is the ideal "extra" system to compliment FF.

First Theorem of Photographic Freebies: any complimentary camera system is the perfect one...

[btnapa]

I think probably the biggest thing (to me) is that it is awfully handy to have different sensor sizes, but that use the same mount. This is the biggest reason that I shoot with APS-C and full frame. Sharing lenses, for those of us who don't have unlimited resources is a big deal. And honestly, all of my lenses become manual focus, short to long telephoto lenses on a micro four thirds camera (except the DFA 15-30 which is amazingly big normal zoom).

I like full frame a lot. It provides sort of compromise -- cheaper than medium format, but better image quality (dynamic range/high iso) than smaller formats. Lenses are relatively reasonably priced. If I was shooting with Sony/Nikon/Canon, I still wouldn't go with micro four thirds as a second camera, but rather would use an APS-C camera with the same mount. Basically you have a little smaller camera that typically would have faster frame rates, but would take the same lenses.

I agree 100%. It makes no sense to carry two separate systems (bodies, lenses, etc.). M43 does not have a bigger brother but KP has K1 and 645Z as its bigger brother. In case of the K1 and APSc, the lenses can be shared to some extent cutting down on carrying a lot of extra gear.

[Rondec]

Yeah, I'm with Rondec. m4/3 would be good, except it requires all new lenses or adapters and reduced performance. With my K-70 and K-1 I can share lenses.

Plus from an ergonomic standpoint, there's a limit to how small the grip can get for me and still feel good, particularly if I have a big lens on the front.

Back before Pentax had full frame, people were always saying things that indicated if you weren't satisfied with APS-C then you should go all the way up to the 645D. Of course, that would have been a significant step up from, say, the K7, but it didn't really satisfy the situation since it would have needed all new lenses, regardless of what brand it was.

Currently my smallest (decent quality) camera is the K-01 with the DA 40 limited. It has many limitations, but it still can serve the purpose.

[MJKoski]

Aspect ratio of m4/3 is the key difference. 4:3 is far more useful than 3:2 which is not wide enough for panoramas but also fails with scenes containing tall subjects. K-1 is almost useful in emulating 4:3 with maximum up/down sensor shift. Cropping to certain aspect ratio in post is totally different than composing in proper aspect ratio. Former equals the case "Failing to plan is part of the plan".

[Sandy Hancock]

I also prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio of my Q and 645 systems over the 3:2 of K-mount. But I prefer the K-mount ecosystem.

I suspect there were engineering reasons for the choice - like a smaller vertical dimension allowing a more nimble mirror in a more compact box.

Thinking outside the box (or is it inside?), I wonder if there might be a case for a K-mount crop camera with a 4:3 sensor, given there is all that full frame space to swing the mirror around. Call it the K-43 and style it for hipsters

Thinking outside the box (or is it inside?), I wonder if there might be a case for a K-mount crop camera with a 4:3 sensor, given there is all that full frame space to swing the mirror around. Call it the K-43 and style it for hipsters

That would be interesting, if it was smaller than FF (28x21) it would effectively improve the corner sharpness on all pre-existing FF K-mount lenses. But who would make a sensor that size?

[LensBeginner]

Aspect ratio of m4/3 is the key difference. 4:3 is far more useful than 3:2 which is not wide enough for panoramas but also fails with scenes containing tall subjects. K-1 is almost useful in emulating 4:3 with maximum up/down sensor shift. Cropping to certain aspect ratio in post is totally different than composing in proper aspect ratio. Former equals the case "Failing to plan is part of the plan".

I wouldn't call it "far more useful"... that's a Ken Rockwell-style hyperbole...

I routinely crop my pictures when developing from RAW, and use the ones that I'd call "most used aspect ratios" ("used", not "useful", it's a convention), that is 16:9, 3:2, 4:3 and 1:1.
I guess one picture in 10 (maybe even less) ends up in a 4:3 format, very few in 16:9 (mostly landscape) and I think about the same (little) amount in square format.

4:3 is IMHO a little easier to compose into, since it's more static than 3:2, but I almost always feel that - unless the picture is in landscape orientation and the subject occupies a small portion of its length - 4:3 gives the subject far too little "breathing space", and 3:2 is often a much more elegant solution.

Bottom line is, both a.r. are useful, it's just a matter of knowing when to use one or the other.

[normhead]

Yet I can only buy frames in 4x5 formats.