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

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.

Product Differentiation by offering different features not truncating features

So, with the smoke clearing after the Nikon launch of their initial Full Frame Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras (FFMILC) and the Canon launch of their own FFMILC, we now know how the two big players in the camera industry play their hands. Yes, it’s like card players and it’s a leadership choice to take a risk here and there, to draw back at other times. You can do surveys on purchase statistics but at the end of the day, to design a new camera in a new category (as opposed to making a Mark 2, 3, 4), you do have to make a decision and often a crucial decision.

So how should the competitors react? Or more specifically how should Olympus react?

There is the linear reaction – manage advertising and sales campaigns, sales channels, plod along on the current product design policies and path.

Or

There is the proactive non linear initiative – possibly to break current approaches and modes of thinking and outflank the FFMILC.

Here’s an idea. And it’s not altogether unique or new. Because Canon and Nikon have already figured out a bit of the idea.

Differentiate a product not by tiering the product line and truncating features off the lower end models

1. Entry Level, Lowest Price
2. Enthusiast Level
3. Premium
4. Professional

But by producing DIFFERENT products with DIFFERENT features.

The fundamental questions are:

• How Different
• What Different

Olympus once had the mojo on how to do this around the 2010. They’ve lost it in the recent E-M10 Mark III and the PEN E-PL8 design policies. They’ve dropped into a Nikonist culture of tiering the D-3x00, D-5x00, D-7x00. That’s a bad approach for the company and for the buyers. Olympus needs to get their mojo back. Especially when products for that market segment is has been abysmal for Canon and Nikon.

Where goeth Micro Four Thirds?

The Question

With the spate launch announcements of full frame (often abbreviated as FF) interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras (colloquially called “Mirrorless”) following the awakening of the two giants, Nikon and Canon, the time comes again for some crystal ball gazing of the two champions of the Micro Four Thirds  (MFT) Standard, Olympus and Panasonic.

As usual, there is a throng of owners and non owners who have the “chicken little” syndrome – the sky will fall down and all that precious gear will be valueless, without prospect of new products. And then there are the denialists who will stand, shoulder to shoulder and chant “full frame mirrorless is another market, MFT will continue unabated”

My Answer

Olympus and Panasonic, separately and independently, will have to choose a path forward that is aware, with staff leaders who are brave in making decisions and resolute. But they have always been resolute and brave, otherwise they would not have weathered the transition from the loss making prior Four Thirds system to Mirrorless MFT.

Without a doubt, the purchase dollars equation will be affected by more competitors in the Mirrorless market. That is no different from the current situation where Nikon and Canon have had DSLRs (non Mirrorless) and do their outmost to deprecate the Mirrorless market. The only twist, and it is a major twist, is that Olympus could wait for DSLR transition-ers (usually enthusiasts, some professionals) to quietly add MFT to their collection of gear or move completely. It is not to say that once Nikon and Canon have viable FF Mirrorless that that rebel recruits who abandon the Dark Side and come to MFT will completely stop. Full Frame still remains Full Frame, the sizeable telephoto lenses will continue to be sizeable, less 20mm of flange distance. And you don’t have to lock into the high priced, big and heavy pro level MFT body to do street photography – the petite bodies like the Olympus OM-D E-M10 series or the Panasonic G-85 series are more than capable of tasks like that and more.

The Bottom Line is that the design leaders and marketers of Olympus and Panasonic need to fully understand what they have in their range (already MFT is in its fifth or sixth generation of refinement in contrast to even Sony, much less Nikon and Canon) and to excel at the virtues, deprecate the disadvantages.

Using a full frame lens on a cropped sensor body

A Quick FAQ for one of the most sensitive and hottest topics in forums. It stirs controversy not only because people don't fully understand, it causes anguish because people end up supplying answers to different questions.

Q1. Do I dial in a different ISO/shutter speed / f/no with the same lens on bodies with different sized sensors?
Ans: No, You use the same parameters

Q2. Do I get a different image "quality" if I use the same lens on different sensors?
Ans:

• It varies depending on some factors but overall, yes, the final image when enlarged from the sensor size to the final size of screen or print will show that the full frame image with less image noise, all things being equal. 
• It may not be exactly proportional to the sensor size ratios because all things are not always equal. 
• The increase in noise is due to the fact that the smaller sensor only sees a small part of the full frame image and you have to magnify the image more to fit the final size screen or print. 
• Some people want to explain it a different way and say that the smaller sensor has "lost" light - in one way, it has, because the smaller sensor cannot see part of the image. In another way, it has not - whatever light that does fall onto the sensor, is the same brightness per area.
• Also an issue is that people often want X megapixels (let us say 20 Mp) whether they use a cropped sensor camera or a full frame camera. That means that cropped sensor makers have to fit a higher pixel density (more pixels per area) onto a smaller sensor. This makes the pixel smaller on a cropped sensor camera. These are all theoretical design issues. At the end of the day, people compare real, practical cameras with real sensors - due to different technological edge, the superiority may not be proportional as prescribed by theory.

Q3. Will the amount of blur background be different when you use the same lens on different sized sensors for the same subject size in the frame.
Ans.

• Yes, there will be different background blur, all things being equal. This is where the notorious phrase - "f/2 on a MFT sensor is equivalent to f/... on a full frame sensor"
• A simplified visual simulator that you can interact with on the web is here:
  https://dofsimulator.net/en/
• An Android App that allows you to understand subject dimensions in the parameters of depth of field is the DOF and Hyperfocal Calculator by Cunning Dog.

Q4: If you fit a 50mm full frame lens on a cropped sensor body, what happens to the f/no?

Ans:

• The f/no stays the same - it is a property of the lens, not the camera body.

Q5: Isn't background blur the same as depth of field?

Ans: No, they are not the same. 

• Depth of field depends on camera to subject distance
• Background blur depends on camera to background distance

Q6. Will the inherent creaminess of a bokeh ball in the centre of the frame be different between the two bodies?
Ans. Likely the bokeh ball will be the same character of wiryness, onion skin, or bokeh ball shape.

Q7: Isn't bokeh the same as background blur?
Ans: Not, they are not the same. The original definition for bokeh is about the creaminess of the blur for the same amount of blur, not how blurred the background is.

Q8. Will the whole frame blur and bokeh effect be different between the two bodies with different sensor size with the same lens?
Ans. Yes, the full frame style of picture will be different because the smaller sensor does not show you the blurry bits and vignetting of the lens that is around the edge of the frame

Q9: If you fit a 50mm full frame lens onto say an MFT sensor body, will it become 100mm?
Ans: No.

• 50mm focal length is a property of the lens. 
• When you fit this lens on a cropped sensor body (whether it be MFT or APS-C), part of the image will not be seen by the sensor because the sensor is smaller (hence the name Cropped) than the Circle of Coverage of the full frame lens. 
• To ensure that you see the full height of the subject using a cropped sensor body, you will have to walk backwards - i.e. increase your camera to subject distance.
• People will then say that if you stand at the same spot but do not move back, you are using the equivalent of a 100mm lens on a full frame body, when you use a 50mm lens on a MFT body.

Having said all the above, let's look at an entertaining and illustrative video that combines some of these points together and..... potentially (if you didn't read above) fills your head with conflicting information (unless you sit down and calmly deconstruct the impact James is saying point by point)

Oh, Ok, so it wasn't that quick. Did you learn something?

For ease of access, here is a DOF calculator by PhotoPills