Relative Size is a Priority of Choice

Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Sigma 50-500mm Four Thirds lens next to the Sony A7 with 35mm f/2.8 Samyang pancake lens

People who have not gravitated to the Micro Four Thirds or Mirrorless ecosystems often take the example of a large MFT body and large MFT lens to demonstrate that the smaller sensor of the MFT system is pointless when the large MFT combo can be / is larger than a smaller-by-design full frame system. I realised that indeed, I do have the requisite gear to demonstrate this aberration and made this photo, impromptu.

The trouble with big trouble with waving big hands and making statements that seem obvious like that is, the truth is often other than obvious.

This specific Micro Four Thirds gear

The E-M1 and Bigma combo looks monstrous. It is. And not the most comfortable or effective for Birds In Flight - in fact it's far from optimum in most use cases. The E-M1 is not the smallest MFT body - it's made weather resistant, tougher, with a big hand grip to offer ergonomic comfort when mounted with larger MFT Pro Level Zooms. It and subsequent flagship Pro Level Bodies is packed with mechanical and electronic features - fast frame rates, sophisticated autofocus systems, the most effective in-body stabilisation and so on. So, it is not a good demonstration of a small light body for travel and street photography.

The Sigma 50-500 zoom is a huge zoom from the era of Four Thirds E-System DSLRs when the E-3 body was not particularly small and lenses for it were not well optimised for super small size. Lenses in those days were not much smaller than the competing APS-C or Full Frame DSLR lenses. In fact, it is likely that this Bigma is not specifically designed for a Four Thirds sensor and could be an APS-C (or full frame) model grafted onto a Four Thirds lens mount.

I bought the Bigma for old times sake - to play with a now discounted lens that I had heard so much about from the old days.

This specific full frame example

On the other hand, the Sony A7 (original version) was specifically made as small as possible for a full frame model. Sony chose lens mount called the E-Mount, originally first shown on the Sony NEX APS-C models. New competitors in the full frame mirrorless market are pointing out in a mischievous manner that their lens mounts, designed fresh, come with larger orifices to potentially enable f/0.65 lenses.

In this initial A7 model, Sony could not figure out how to include in-body image stabilisation into the system nor silence the strident sound and of the full frame shutter.  In this and in subsequent models, the hand grip is particularly truncated in contrast to the Nikon or Canon DSLR grips. There is no AF joystick, the buttons are not backlit for night work like the DSLRs.

The Samyang 35mm lens is particularly compact. It is only f/2.8, the autofocus is slightly noisy and the bokeh is not the smoothest.  I chose to buy it because I wanted something small, light and less expensive.

"Real serious" lenses that full frame owners (for example, those owners of the Nikon D850 and Canon 1D / 5D) prefer are typically 1.4 (at least), have a substantial number of glass elements to correct for all sorts of aberrations, ensure smooth bokeh, ensure 48 megapixel resolution and sharpness. Such no limits lenses are in no way small, light or inexpensive.

Meaning

Although the MFT sensor is a smaller cropped sensor, you don't have to design or choose gear that is small. Conversely, although the full frame sensor is larger and gear tends to be larger, you can opt to sacrifice design targets to make specific gear smaller.

Food for thought

The Charm and Idiosyncrasies of Shooting Film

The other day, I grabbed my film SLR from its sleeping position (which it occupies most of the year) and rushed off to a group meetup. I had my digital gear as well but wanted film because the homestead was a vintage scene. I was so sure of myself, I didn't check for motion in the rewind lever and after 26 shots, figured that either the film was not advancing or there was nothing in the body. I had the cardboard film box end inserted on the back of the camera (where digital bodies have the LCD panel). Sigh! There was no film in the body.

It's moments like this that I remember why I am so much more successful with digital cameras. Aside from the cost-free multiple shots, instant review on the LCD, easy restore of preferred settings, digital doesn't allow me to shoot endlessly without a recording medium.

So, why do I continue to shoot film from time to time? Well, I shoot 35mm film. Sometimes expired film. Often home scanned with a low-end scanner (lately the Epson Perfection V370). Comes with dust bunnies and organic visual elements. Imperfect dynamic range, colour rendition. Manual focussed with inexpensive old lenses.

The imperfections are a cornerstone of what I feel are believable. 

The moorhen and the lonely bench (old Kodakcolor Gold 400 in Olympus TRIP 35)

Above is a somewhat iconic Australian bush park reserve - a digital version could potentially (or certainly) have been sharper, cleaner, shot in raw and "worked" in Adobe Lightroom (or Capture One Pro, whichever is the editor in favour). With this, I set some scanning parameters, cropped and that was about it. I feel that it conveys the mood to me, I have a rough feel for the greens and browns instead of riding the vibrance and saturation sliders.

Gumtrees with the brown tones  (old Kodakcolor Gold 400 in Olympus TRIP 35)

A look across the water, embellished with dust bunnies
(old Kodakcolor Gold 400 in Olympus TRIP 35)

Micro Four Thirds in the era of the Full Frame Hubbub

The Era of the Full Frame Hubbub

2018 is the year when the duo of DSLR manufacturers, Canon and Nikon made moves to establish a beachhead in the full frame mirrorless world. Enthusiastic and triggered Youtube gear reviewers, quite a few of them, owners and users of the Canon and Nikon cameras grasping at the opportunity to denounce Sony gear and restoring faith in the two empires. Meanwhile, Micro Four Thirds (MFT) gear is being written off as passe, devices of the past, and at risk of being overrun by top-end phone cameras and computational photography. Even reasonable authors are being led to believe that with so much pressure from the full frame makers, MFT has a limited and declining future.

The MFT brands are not standing up and saying that MFT is doomed. Why would they? Currently, the sale of MFT gear is their major source of income. Olympus has not made any announcement producing a parallel full frame catalogue, Panasonic has announced they will build a second line of gear based on the Leica mirrorless full frame mount. But Panasonic says that they are not abandoning MFT.

If market size is constant respective shares are getting smaller

Sony was until this year, the only commonly available full frame mirrorless maker. Now, this market is being split at least three ways by Sony, Canon and Nikon. The Sony share of the full frame mirrorless market has to be, by logic, less than 100% that it once was.

The rest of the mirrorless market is APS-C (Sony, Fuji and smaller makes) and MFT (Olympus, Panasonic). They exist now, because

• the bodies are smaller and lighter in general (although that is a design choice)
• the lenses are smaller and lighter in general either in absolute terms or by the fact that there is a crop factor particularly for the telephoto range (although that is a design choice)
• they are cheaper (although that is a design choice)
• they produce smaller files which take less storage, memory buffer and computational processing memory
• the smaller sensors don't generate as much heat during movie making
• the smaller sensors have a lower manufactured cost - this may not have been reflected in the recommended retail pricing because there was little or no previous competition, so the brands obviously wanted to reap the rewards and keep a higher margin.

These points are often disputed and rebutted - again, if you are an unbeliever, your role in life is to dispute the facts.

Perceived Handicaps of the smaller MFT Sensors

On the other hand, people who just don't get the smaller sensor point to

• Lower technical image quality from
• lower resolution by design choice
• 2 stops higher noise level (in relative terms) for the same technology level and if you choose the same amount of scene lighting
• one or more stops less dynamic range (in relative terms) for the same technology level. (Again if you choose not to overcome the scene contrasts)
• 2 stops deeper depth of field, in relative terms if what matters to you is to produce an extremely shallow depth of field.

It comes back to viewpoint again. A handicap is only real if you perceive it to be so.

We've been there before. Hopefully, the brands have learned from history. The Four Thirds DSLRs and their lenses were not small enough. The sensor tech at that time was premature. At that time, Olympus and Panasonic had to retreat with severe financial losses at that time. That was then. Now is different. 

• Sensor tech has advanced a lot since those times. Good enough sensor tech is now available such that even minuscule phone camera sensors are acceptable. And MFT sensors are more than quite capable of super large enlargements (if you bother to take a good shot in the camera). Enlargement software like Qimage and Topaz A.I. Gigapixel offer computational methods to enhance the situation.

The way forward - leadership and determination in MFT

What matters more than anything is not so much the technology (which will continue to improve) but the wielding of it. MFT producers need to 

• understand the existing asset base - reliable MFT optical assets (lenses) have already been established, unlike the new full frame mirrorless mounts.
• wisely choose approaches to the producing the new range of bodies, both in features and pricing.
• continue to develop features in computational photography to enhance the bodies (remember the image sizes are smaller and can be more readily computed).
• define and aim for the optimum balance between aggressive product quests vs prudent financial management of the product lines.