In your opinion, is there a big difference between FF and M4/3 sensors such as the AF100 and GH2? The MKiii kind of has me wondering if I'm missing something staying with a smaller sensor. I really do like the XLR inputs, waveform, etc on the AF100. I guess I'm wondering if I made the right decision going the AF100 GH2 route with lenses.
Full Fram vs M4/3
- Thread starter swanny
- Start date
Kindredmachine
Well-known member
We use an AF100 and 2 hacked GH2 rigs for filming and have really grown to like M43. A full frame would give you larger field of view but that simply means you're selecting different lenses for for a shot than you would with a 5mdii for example. It's not a big deal. Given the choice between shooting a doc on a FF DSLR or a M43 AF-100 with XLR etc... I'd take the AF100 any day.
FYI: Going with an AF100 and GH2 also doesn;t mean you have to use native M43 Panny lenses. For exmaple, we use all Zeiss glass with Nikon to M43 adapters.
FYI: Going with an AF100 and GH2 also doesn;t mean you have to use native M43 Panny lenses. For exmaple, we use all Zeiss glass with Nikon to M43 adapters.
Yes, you're missing something going with a smaller sensor. However, FF owners are missing something going with a larger sensor. There are differences that are alternately good for certain things and not so good for other things... there's nothing inherently "better" about one sensor size over another. Not all cars have 24V Cummins turbodeisel engines.
New-stuff-itis did almost overtake me while reading up on the 5D, but then a reality check brought me back to understanding that, for the vast majority of my work, it's not the right camera. Your situation may vary.
New-stuff-itis did almost overtake me while reading up on the 5D, but then a reality check brought me back to understanding that, for the vast majority of my work, it's not the right camera. Your situation may vary.
What m43 glass is GREAT for is not taking up a whole lot of space and weight. I have a traveling kit with a full set of primes and zooms ranging from 7-300 (full frame equivalent 14mm-600mm), plus some audio and grip gear, and it all fits in one carry-on bag and weighs less than 15 pounds. Not so easy with full-frame. Some of the lenses having great OIS is just gravy.
Again, it's all what you need to accomplish with it.
Again, it's all what you need to accomplish with it.
Jacob_A_Hauser
Member
I have both a 5Dmkii and an AF100. For the Canon I stick with the EF lenses I have already. When I picked up my AF100 I spent some time looking for adapters for various lenses. I settled on a combo of Canon FD and old Minolta glass.
Field of view and depth of field are going to be the biggest differences between the two in terms of image quality. Shallow focus with the 5Dmkii and more depth with an equivalent lens on the AF100. Aside from that moire and aliasing are almost non-existent on the AF100. Dynamic range is very close between the two, I believe the 5Dmkii has about one stop more. It's all up to your tastes for what you want in the final product.
Personally I've been wanting the 7-14 Lumix lens for a while now.
Field of view and depth of field are going to be the biggest differences between the two in terms of image quality. Shallow focus with the 5Dmkii and more depth with an equivalent lens on the AF100. Aside from that moire and aliasing are almost non-existent on the AF100. Dynamic range is very close between the two, I believe the 5Dmkii has about one stop more. It's all up to your tastes for what you want in the final product.
Personally I've been wanting the 7-14 Lumix lens for a while now.
Greg Smith
Veteran
As a set of very, very general rules:
Larger sensors mean:
- More expensive cameras
- Greater light sensitivity and dynamic range
- Narrower depth of field
- Greater choice of wide angle lenses
- Less practical to design high ratio zoom lenses
Smaller sensors mean:
- More compact cameras, especially if a big zoom is figured in
- Less light sensitivity
- Deeper depth of field
- Narrower field of view from telephoto lenses -- valuable for sports, wildlife, etc.
- Large ratio zooms that are smaller and more affordable
For different tasks and at different times, I've used video cameras with sensors ranging from 1/6" all the way up to 3" (ancient B&W tube type studio cameras), and still cameras from 9.5mm (the old Minox format) up to 8"x10". I try not to think of any of them as "standard" or compare, for example, the field of view of lenses based on the FF35 format -- each type of sensor is a unique entity with its own properties. That said, I've found more uses for, and have more experience with, super-8 and 16mm movie cameras, 2/3" video cameras and 35mm and APS-C still cameras than with the other formats.
From that experience, and for my own styles of shooting, I tend to think that 1/2" or 2/3" is the "sweet spot" for handheld cameras that I would want to use in news/documentary shooting, and this is based mainly on the availability of quality, fast, wide-range servo zoom lenses for those formats that are reasonably lightweight and affordable. For narrative, studio or interview work, I think something around the traditional 35mm movie format is the best compromise -- and M43 comes pretty close to this, giving "narrow but not too narrow" DOF in many cases along with a wide choice of lenses (although not superzooms).
One size does not fit all. Personally, I'd rather have several, less expensive cameras in different formats than one more expensive one that limited me to a particular style of picture making. (I have an AF100, HMC80 and Canon 7D, and would like to add another small format camera, maybe an AC160 or HPX370, for event-type coverage.)
- Greg
Larger sensors mean:
- More expensive cameras
- Greater light sensitivity and dynamic range
- Narrower depth of field
- Greater choice of wide angle lenses
- Less practical to design high ratio zoom lenses
Smaller sensors mean:
- More compact cameras, especially if a big zoom is figured in
- Less light sensitivity
- Deeper depth of field
- Narrower field of view from telephoto lenses -- valuable for sports, wildlife, etc.
- Large ratio zooms that are smaller and more affordable
For different tasks and at different times, I've used video cameras with sensors ranging from 1/6" all the way up to 3" (ancient B&W tube type studio cameras), and still cameras from 9.5mm (the old Minox format) up to 8"x10". I try not to think of any of them as "standard" or compare, for example, the field of view of lenses based on the FF35 format -- each type of sensor is a unique entity with its own properties. That said, I've found more uses for, and have more experience with, super-8 and 16mm movie cameras, 2/3" video cameras and 35mm and APS-C still cameras than with the other formats.
From that experience, and for my own styles of shooting, I tend to think that 1/2" or 2/3" is the "sweet spot" for handheld cameras that I would want to use in news/documentary shooting, and this is based mainly on the availability of quality, fast, wide-range servo zoom lenses for those formats that are reasonably lightweight and affordable. For narrative, studio or interview work, I think something around the traditional 35mm movie format is the best compromise -- and M43 comes pretty close to this, giving "narrow but not too narrow" DOF in many cases along with a wide choice of lenses (although not superzooms).
One size does not fit all. Personally, I'd rather have several, less expensive cameras in different formats than one more expensive one that limited me to a particular style of picture making. (I have an AF100, HMC80 and Canon 7D, and would like to add another small format camera, maybe an AC160 or HPX370, for event-type coverage.)
- Greg
bitcrusher
Well-known member
This is exactly what I am thinking, FF has a look that I really love but m43 is so much easier to deal with. A d4 and a D800 sounds like a good compromise.
I wanted less depth of field and now have a new challenge getting used to the small window of focus in low light. I dont think i would want any less dof. remember that smaller sensor depends on what you are comparing it too. If it is the frame size of double perf 35 mm film (the standard for years) its not that much less.
ScottNelson
Well-known member
Likewise, though I have one Lumix 14-45 with OIS for R&G but all other glass is full frame Nikon or Zeiss/Contax with f/ring. AF100 is perfect but if I ever go to a larger sensor I've got the glass.