How big of a sensor can an MFT mounting system utilize?

F

filmguy123

Veteran
I know the AF100 has a 4/3rd sensor, and a micro 4/3 lens mount. Is there a direct relationship between how large the sensor is and the mount size? For example, if an AF200 came out with a 5/3rd sensor that was close to say the size of super35mm, would MFT lenses still work and cover the sensor size? Or would you get a ring around the outer edges?

Part of the reason I am wondering is, as I look at glass I'm wondering if I should limit my investment in MFT glass and stick more towards standard 35mm lenses as much as possible (perhaps with a couple exceptions to help make the AF100 everything it can be while it's my current tool).
 
You can put any micro 4/3 adapter on the AF100, and the camera will receive a lens (according to the adapter you got). So it is not so much a relationship of "mount". You can put a 4/3 lens like the Oly 14-54 (designed with a 4/3 mount), on the AF100, and it will cover.... with a micro 4/3 to 4/3 adapter.

If a lens was designed for a sensor (or film frame), which size is same or bigger than the 4/3 sensor of the AF100 (17.8 x 10 mm), then the lens will cover and you should not have a "ring outter edge" (called "vignetting"), except with certain wide angles. So if you put a cine lens designed for S.35mm (21.95mm x 24.9mm, 3Perf) for exemple, you see that the lens will cover the 4/3 sensor, so will a lens designed for full frame cameras (film or digital). 16mm will be more of a hit or miss... But remember that your field of view of let's say a 25mm on a full frame 35mm (36mmx24mm) camera will appear as a 50mm on the AF...

And also, with MFT lenses, you won't have any electronic control from the camera (focus, iris, IS...)
CORRECTION: I meant with regular manual focus lenses, like the one from still photography.

For my part, I have an Oly 14-54 II 2.8 to cover any type of event, run and gun type of shoot, and Zeiss glass (from still photography / designed for full frame)... Although I just got the 12.6mm Hyperprime as a fast wide angle, to complete my prime set... Hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the detailed response, timtorpedo. I'm sorry if my question wasn't clear enough because that was a great response! But actually I was asking more the other way around.

Up to what sensor size can I use a MFT native mounting lens on? I.e. if I invest in MFT lenses, and then want to use them (via adaptor) on a super35mm size sensor, will they work or will they have a ring around the edges? Like I said, the reason I ask is I am wondering if it makes more sense to invest in MFT lenses as little as possible, except where really needed, and stick to lenses that will work on future cameras (via adapters) with bigger sensor sizes. Are native MFT mounting lenses made to cover a 4/3rd sensor, and no bigger? Or will say the Voigtlander Nokton 25mm 0.95 work great on a future 5/3rd size sensor?
 
Not is my bad, I miss read your post.

I would read reviews on the MFT lens you are thinking of buying, and see if the reviewer tried it on a different recording medium. But I doubt it would work on a bigger sensor, it would be like using a 16mm lens on the AF, even close, not close enough to work with every lens ....

Also, "4/3" does not refer to the size of the sensor, so technically, the sensor of an AF200 should not be 5/3 ;)
 
I'm investing in manual focus / manual aperture Nikon AI-S glass ( or the Zeiss ZF equivalent ) and buying M4/3 lenses where they make sense. ( i.e. The 14-45mm kit lens is slow, but it's sharp and stabilized, the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 is super fast and very smooth focusing )

I plan on buying the new higher end Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm zooms when they arrive later this year, and will probably buy the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 before the Spring arrives. ( the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is also tempting because it's tack sharp wide open, where my Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 has a fair bit of coma wide open )

M4/3 lenses are ONLY useful for M4/3 sensors, so don't expect to use them with Super 35mm cameras. ( while the manual Nikons fit almost anything )
 
I'm wondering about that myself, are Panasonic and Olympus able to update the sensor to a bigger size without changing the mount of MFT?

Example, Canon 5Dmkii uses the same mount as 7D, but they have different size sensor, the 7D sensor is smaller, while the 5D uses a full frame photography size (not to be confused with a super35).

I think the OP question is, if Panasonic makes a bigger sensor, is it theoretically possible to use MFT lenses like the 25mm voigtlander?
I think its possible, because the m4/3 sensor crops the image, right? Which should mean we might one day use a 25mm on a MFT without the sensor cropping the image.
 
nawaf said:
I'm wondering about that myself, are Panasonic and Olympus able to update the sensor to a bigger size without changing the mount of MFT?

Example, Canon 5Dmkii uses the same mount as 7D, but they have different size sensor, the 7D sensor is smaller, while the 5D uses a full frame photography size (not to be confused with a super35).

I think the OP question is, if Panasonic makes a bigger sensor, is it theoretically possible to use MFT lenses like the 25mm voigtlander?
I think its possible, because the m4/3 sensor crops the image, right? Which should mean we might one day use a 25mm on a MFT without the sensor cropping the image.
Click to expand...

The 7D can use a lens designed for the 5D (EF mount) but not the reverse -- a lens designed for the 7D (EF-S mount) cannot be used on a 5D. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, every lens has an imaging circle -- if the imaging circle of a lens is larger than the sensor, it will theoretically work with that camera. Theoretically, because if the imaging circle is on-paper big enough, but the lens throat is too large to fit on a body without an adapter that will change the distance the lens mounts from the image plane ... it won't work unless some sort of lens is added to 'correct' the distance problem.

The m4/3 sensor does not by itself 'crop' the image -- the sensor is what it is, and is unaware of what crop means. In this instance, crop means it is of smaller area than a larger 35 FF sensor. By the same logic and linguistics, the larger 35 FF is a 'crop' sensor when compared to a larger 2 1/4" square sensor ... There is nothing special in the design of a sensor that makes it a 'crop sensor' -- it is simply true than any sensor smaller than another can be called a 'crop' sensor when compared to the larger one.

The 4/3 sensor is a crop sensor compared to the APS-C sensor, and when compared to the 35 FF sensor ... but it would not be a crop sensor if compared to a 2/3 sensor, for example.

HTH,
GB
 
Ok great, thanks all. This answers my questions.

I should be aware that any native MFT glass that I invest in is for the AF100 or another 4/3rd sensor size (or lower) camera only. I will probably pick up 1-2 lenses because it is important to have the best tools at the best time, but will take an approach like TheDingo and invest in glass that will work (via adapter) with future cameras of a larger sensor size.
 
Barry_Green said:
Actually, it does. Using the same terminology as a 1/3" or 1/2" or 2/3" sensor, the AF100's is named 4/3", and it is about 4x the size of a 2/3" sensor.
Click to expand...
Tha’ts interesting. Now I can explain this better to people. I never really understood it.
Thanks Barry.
 
Hard question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount
tells that MFT mount has diameter of 38 mm.
There's no technical limit why you couldn't use that with camera system that has bigger sensor.
Leica had M39 mount (39 mm) in their film cameras and they were (of course) full frame.

But more appropriate question is could you use MFT lenses with bigger sensor.
A camera system is usually defined by mount size (diameter), flange focal distance and sensor size.
I don't see any reason why MFT lenses would have bigger image circle than needed in MFT system.
If they would have, they could be used with bigger sensor.
If they don't, they can't be used with bigger sensor.
If MFT camera manufacturers would introduce new camera system with bigger sensor than 4/3", it would be a whole new system and they wouldn't call it MFT and it would have its own lenses.
 
Last edited:
I am taking a similar hybrid approach. I have the 25mm Voightlander because it's fast and great and beautiful on the AF100. I just ordered the 12mm Hyperprime because it looks good and is fast being native m4/3 for wide. I think you need it. Both these lenses are great for the AF-100, and by extension, the GH2 for stills. So if I go larger, I'll keep them for that.

Otherwise my 35, 50 and 85 are all Nikons. I'm looking to upgrade them to Zeiss ZFs in the future. Even though there are nice m4/3 50s out there including a Hyperprime, I think it's more future proof to go with the Zeiss's > 35 ... for me, at least, going for that kind of cash.

I think this is one of the best features of the m4/3 mount that you can go with these various lenses and invest in lenses that are more "future proof."
 
hscully said:
I think it's more future proof to go with the Zeiss's > 35
Click to expand...

The Zeiss lenses have long focus throw, which makes for smoother focusing than the Nikon AI-S equivalents. ( I plan on eventually replacing my Nikon 35mm lens with either Zeiss or Samyang )
 
Whether or not you can use lenses on another system depends on a lot more than just the size of the image circle compared to the sensor.

Focal flange distance is very important and if not correct for the lens then you will lose either infinity or macro focusing capabilities - and the further off the focal flange distance is, the less usable your focus range becomes. You can mount a lens onto a system with a shorter focal flange distance than that of the lens' native system with an adaptor that fills the gap, but not the other way around (without a compromising optical adaptor). Because micro 4/3rds has a very short focal flange distance, it's not flexible when it comes to adapting to any common mount currently available.

The electronic design of a lens also determines their possible uses. For example, EOS lenses use an electronic connection to the lens iris which means only Canon cameras can control it. However, the default iris position for EOS lenses is open, so even when used on another camera (say, an AF100), you can still shoot with them but the aperture is wide open. Pentax lenses, on the other hand, (and Nikon too?) have their aperture closed by default. However, they use a mechanical lever to control the aperture so it is easily adjusted using the right adaptor. If a lens uses an electronic-only iris (which the micro 4/3rds lenses do) and the iris closed by default (not sure about the micro 4/3rds lenses) then you cannot use them on any other camera apart from those they were designed for, regardles or sensor size, image circle or focal flange distance.

Long story short, if you want futureproof lenes, m4/3rds is not a good choice!
 
deltoidjohn said:
You can mount a lens onto a system with a shorter focal flange distance than that of the lens' native system with an adaptor that fills the gap, but not the other way around (without a compromising optical adaptor). Because micro 4/3rds has a very short focal flange distance, it's not flexible when it comes to adapting to any common mount currently available.
Click to expand...
Well, sony's E-mount (NEX) has shorter flange, so do Nikon 1.
But generally you are right, so MFT lenses are not very future proof.
It also doesn't help that in this full frame DOF madness, MFT seems to be the smallest sensor and therefore might be most lacking for wide angles.
Just wondering why "golden mean" in sensor size does not catch fire.
Most usable sensor size for overall work is not full frame and you can have shallow enough DOF easily with MFT.
For low budget work "one camera fits all" would be a hit, but no avail. Do we ever get servo zoom lens to MFT?
deltoidjohn said:
If a lens uses an electronic-only iris (which the micro 4/3rds lenses do) and the iris closed by default (not sure about the micro 4/3rds lenses) then you cannot use them on any other camera apart from those they were designed for, regardles or sensor size, image circle or focal flange distance.
Click to expand...
You can still use them, if you have appropriate converter (which of course add some length between the lens and the camera and can be impossible with certain flange).
Btw, what ever happened to that Birger mount for AF100 to use with EF lenses?
 
The GH2 has a slightly bigger sensor than the AF100, about 6% bigger is what Barry said in another post. They were able to do this because the GH2 is a 16:9 sensor and still extends to the edge of the Micro 4/3's image circle. Now theoretically Panasonic could implement that same technology in the next professional large sensor camera (AF200). They could even go a step further and have a sensor large enough to support a 2.35:1 framing yet extend all the way to the edge of the image circle. This would be the way to go in my opinion. Having the next Micro 4/3 professional camera with scalable frame sizes, so regardless if the framing you chose is 4:3, 16:9, or 2.35:1, and would always reach the edge of the image circle would be awesome. The problem is to do that, the chances of aliasing and morie would increase, so my guess is Panisonic will only go as far as the GH2 and make it go to 16:9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top