Article on MFT versus Full Frame

[Bazza]

Decent read but no photos as they did not copy and paste - if u wish to view pictures as well as text suggest you read Sept 23 Amateur Photographer Magazine

+++++


IN THIS ISSUE / TECHNIQUE MICRO FOUR THIRDS VS FULL FRAME

Is bigger better, or is small truly beautiful?


‘Which format should I use?’ is a perennial question and it’s as relevant now in the digital world as it was back in the days of sheet film. Will Cheung looks at whether Micro Four Thirds or full frame is best for nature
Whenever the question of which format to use arises, there’s never a definitive answer and that’s simply because we are all different, be that physically, financially or in terms of expectations and what we want from our photography.

So here we’ll be looking at the pros and cons of the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) and full-frame formats for wildlife and nature stills photography; of course, many of the discussion points will apply to other subject genres too, so if you only shoot landscapes or portraits, it’ll be worth sticking with us.
We’ve broken down the discussion into bite-size chunks.

The MFT format OM System OM-1 body sells for £1979/$2000 while the full-frame Canon EOS R5 is £3999/$3399
(© WILL CHEUNG)

1 MFT vs full frame: the cameras

Micro Four Thirds is supported by two camera brands: OM Digital (formerly Olympus) and Panasonic. In full frame, the list is longer so there’s more choice: Canon, Leica, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and, interestingly, Panasonic.

In MFT, the highest resolution is found in the £1,799/$2,198 body-only Panasonic Lumix GH6 which has 25.2MP under its bonnet, while the top OM model is the £1,979/ $2,000 OM-1 with 20.4MP. Both brands offer alternative cheaper and mid-priced models.

Life is not just about resolution, and how many pixels you shoot does not define you as a photographer. But the fact remains that if you want lots of megapixels full-frame is the place to be, with the Sony A7R V at £3,999/$3,898 boasting a massive 61MP.

Slide down the money ladder and pixel count drops too. A nicely priced full-frame mirrorless is the Canon EOS R, a 30MP camera that can be had with a 24-105mm f/4-7.1 lens for £1,919/$2,499. Go DSLR and the 36.4MP Pentax K-1 Mark II sells at £1,699/$1,797 and the 26.2MP Canon EOS 6D Mark II is even cheaper at £1,299/$1,199 body only.

The MFT format might be much smaller than the full-frame format but that doesn’t always translate to the kit itself. Here the OM 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS lens (left) towers over the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. However, the OM lens and MFT format with its 2x crop factor does give an equivalent 200-800mm. If a Canon 200-800mm lens of comparable maximum aperture did exist, it would very likely dwarf the OM optic.
(©WILL CHEUNG)

2 MFT vs full frame: the lenses

While there are just two MFT camera brands with the same lens mount, the picture is very different in the lens market where third-party providers include Laowa, Samyang, 7Artisans and Sigma.
Understandably, the full-frame market enjoys massive support, but there are many more lens mounts out there and some systems are better provided for than others. A key comparison here is the very limited third-party lens support with just a few manual-focus lenses available for Canon EOS R mirrorless compared with the widespread support for the Sony E mount.

In terms of lens choice, there is plenty to attract users of both formats but availability aside, the advantage of the smaller format is that lenses are generally more compact.

(©WILL CHEUNG)

With the lens off you can see how small the MFT sensor is, while the full-frame sensor seems huge
(©WILL CHEUNG)

3 MFT vs full frame: the crop factor

The Micro Four Thirds format is based on a sensor size measuring 17.3x13mm while the full-frame format is nominally 36x24mm. Do some sums and the diagonal of MFT measures 21.6mm against 43.2mm for full frame, so almost precisely double, which gives us the 2x crop factor that is always mentioned in format comparisons.
The 2x crop factor is important when we chat about lenses. A lens’s focal length is a fixed parameter so a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens regardless of the camera format in use. In practice, though, use a 50mm focal-length lens on an MFT camera and you get the ‘equivalent’ field of view of an 100mm lens on the 35mm format.
This 2x crop applies to all focal lengths but the real practical benefit kicks in with longer-focal-length optics, which is a plus point for fans of nature photography.

A 400mm lens used on MFT gives the equivalent of an 800mm view on the 35mm format. See our examples below. With both lenses a distant subject will be the same size, but on the smaller MFT format it will be more frame-filling compared with the 35mm shot which will need cropping (nothing to do with the crop factor) to give the same composition.

Taken on an OM System OM-1 with 100-400mm zoom at 400mm
(©WILL CHEUNG)

Taken on a Canon EOS R5 with RF 100-400mm zoom at 400mm. These shots were taken at the same focal length and from the same spot, so the size of the subject is rendered the same size on each sensor, but the 2x crop factor of the smaller format means the subject fills the frame more
(©WILL CHEUNG)

The OM 300mm f/4 IS PRO is half the length of the Canon RF 600mm L and half the weight, but thanks to the MFT’s crop factor you get the same field of view on both formats
4 MFT vs full frame: weight and bulk

Let’s look at some actual products to illustrate possible weight savings. The OM System 300mm f/4 IS PRO lens sells for £2,399/$2,800, weighs 1.47kg and measures 22.7cm long. Canon’s RF 600mm f/4 L IS USM weighs twice as much at 3.1kg, is more than double the length at 47.2m and its price is £14,179/$12,999.
We are comparing apples with pears, but it is the closest we can get, and the fact remains that the MFT 300mm lens, which gives a 600mm equivalent in 35mm format, is a very much more compact package, not to mention a great deal cheaper.

The weight savings with cameras are less dramatic and it depends on the models being compared. The full-frame Nikon Z 7II body weighs 615g while the MFT Panasonic Lumix GH6 body-only is actually heavier at 833g although the OM-1 is lighter at 599g body-only.

Spread weight savings across a camera or two plus several lenses and that is potentially a huge practical benefit for nature workers, especially those who travel, but it is just one factor, albeit an important one.

It’s not always practical to use a monopod or tripod in nature photography, so you need to make sure your handholding skills are fit for purpose. Supporting the lens with the left hand while keeping the left elbow tucked into the body is important, and squeeze the shutter release smoothly while breathing gently
(©WILL CHEUNG)

5 MFT vs full frame: handling

You’ve seen how much larger full-frame telephoto lenses are compared with MFT optics, and this has an impact on many aspects of camera handling. Clearly, there are challenges to carrying and using heavier kit and that’s a major factor why many photographers are downsizing to the MFT format.
Lugging heavy kit around is one thing but it’s quite another to successfully handhold a hefty telephoto lens for any extended length of time, so a support of some sort is advised. And of course, then we have to consider shutter speeds to ensure sharp shots. The physically longer and heavier lenses demand a solid tripod, and that in turn adds to your burden. To protect and carry larger kit means you need a bigger and heaver backpack and that again increases the overall weight of your kit.

Many cameras have in-body image stabilisation and that is a great benefit, but that still means you can’t drop your shutter speed down too slow. As a handholding guide, the reciprocal rule still applies – i.e., a 300mm lens needs a shutter speed of at least 1/300sec – and while having in-body image stabilisation (IBIS) means you can drop one or two stops slower, you still must be careful. How slow you can go depends on your handholding skills, the lens and even whether it’s breezy or not.

This illustrates the relative size difference in the Micro Four Thirds and full-frame formats. The diagonal of the MFT 17.3x13mm format is almost exactly half that of 36x24mm full frame

(© ANN HEALEY)

This meadow pipit was taken with a 300mm f/4 lens on the 20MP OM System OM-1 and the full, unedited image measures 5184x3888 pixels so there is plenty of potential to crop into the file. The cropped image measures 1888x1416pixels so it’ll print out to 6.2x4.6in/16x12cm at 300ppi. Of course, that is without any software interpolation (resizing) with Photoshop or a dedicated resizing software such as Topaz Gigapixel AI, so you can get a much larger print with no problem.

6 MFT vs full frame: image quality

It wouldn’t be fair to make definitive image quality comparisons across different formats because the sensors and lenses are different, but we can look at stats and some shots taken at the same time using the Canon EOS R5 and OM Systems OM-1.

The OM-1 is a 20MP MFT camera and its raw files open up to give an image size of 5184x3888pixels. Assuming 300ppi, and no software interpolation, that gives a print size of 17.2x12.9in/43.6x32.7cm. The full-frame 45MP EOS R5’s raw files open up to 8192x5464pixel files which translates to a print size of 27.3x18.2in/69.3x46.2cm. Clearly, the larger format has more possibilities when it comes to making big prints and has many more pixels to play with when you have a small subject that you want to magnify into.

Cropping a MFT picture to make a small subject a decent size can mean a less crisp, more fuzzy image especially if a high ISO is used. However, with good editing such issues are easily resolved.

Shot with the OM-1 partnered by the 40-150mm zoom and 1.4x teleconverter, giving the equivalent of 420mm. The exposure was 1/1500sec at f/4
(©WILL CHEUNG)

Shot with the Canon EOS R5 partnered by the 100-500mm zoom at 420mm. The exposure was 1/500sec at f/8
(©WILL CHEUNG)

7 MFT vs full frame: depth of field

Our focus here is on nature photography and depth of field, and bokeh can be as important here as it is with portrait and landscape work.

With macro, depth of field lessens as you move in closer to the subject so having as much as possible is a good thing. With long lenses, that are often used at wider aperture values in nature shooting, depth of field is shallow and again there are times when you might need more. Whatever the scenario, focusing, as ever, is crucial, and MFT has its benefits.

The MFT format gives more depth of field and less background blur by a factor of two – the 2x crop factor – when you compare like with like. Shooting the same scenario with a 50mm at f/2 lens on MFT gives twice as much depth of field as a 100mm at f/2 on full frame. This is incredibly handy with macro because if you shoot at f/8 on MFT the 2x crop factor means you get the equivalent depth of field of using f/16 on full frame.

However, if you like shallow depth of field, that is a minor issue. Portraitists often shoot with an 85mm f/1.8 wide open for selective focus and lovely blurry backgrounds so with MFT you need to use a 43mm at f/0.9. A 85mm f/1.8 is a modest telephoto and 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 are very popular portrait lenses, so you would struggle to get a comparable effect on MFT if those lenses were used at maximum aperture.

To check out the theory, I took a pair of shots featuring a four-spotted chaser with an OM Digital OM-1 and Canon EOS R5 using the equivalent focal length and aperture, i.e. 210mm at f/4 and 420mm and f/8 respectively. The out-of-focus grasses in the background look similar and a close look at the insect shows the same zone of sharp focus, so the depth of field is more or less identical.

8 MFT vs full frame: ISO matters

The general premise is that the smaller the image sensor the greater the amount of digital noise produced as you progress up the ISO ladder. Digital noise looks like tiny coloured or neutral specks in your photographs and it’s more noticeable when shooting in very low light, especially in the shadows area. As sensor technology has advanced, the negative impact of digital noise spoiling our pictures has lessened and the recent cameras with back-side illuminated (BSI) or stacked sensors are impressive even at ISO 6400.

Long lenses and less-than-perfect lighting are part and parcel of nature photography and being able to use higher ISO settings with confidence is important. You can see in our example how good it can be with images on an OM System OM-1 and Canon EOS R5.

The great news is that the latest noise-reduction software is very capable at dealing with grainy pictures. Adobe Lightroom has recently gained Denoise AI to embellish its all-round workflow skills while Topaz Denoise AI and DxO PureRaw 3 are also staggeringly good at cleaning up high ISO files.

A lime swallowtail at the Stratford Butterfly Farm was the subject for this ISO comparison using an MFT OM System OM-1 with a 60mm macro and a Canon EOS R5 full-frame camera with a 100mm macro lens. The raw files were processed in Lightroom with default noise reduction. The sectional blow-ups show the image at roughly 100%.
(©WILL CHEUNG)

OM System: ISO 800

OM System: ISO 1600

OM System: ISO 6400

OM System: ISO 12,800

Canon: ISO 800

Canon: ISO 1600

Canon: ISO 6400

Canon: ISO 12,800

OM
The full-frame images show less noise and are crisper but the MFT raw files are not far behind, and are improved hugely when processed with software noise reduction.

Canon
In our example, we used Lightroom’s Denoise AI on the ISO 12,800 raw files and the results are amazingly good.

9 MFT or full frame: Summary

Nature photography is enjoyed by many and as with any discussion about camera format, there are pros and cons to both MFT and full frame, and much depends on your budget, expectations and your needs, be that physical, pictorial or logistical.

So, if you currently own an extensive full-frame system and it’s becoming too much of a burden to lug around (and we’re all getting older by the day!), going MFT is worth considering. It’d make life easier for travelling too.
If you are looking at this option, we recommend you should get online and check the weight and dimensions of your prospective outfit just to make sure that any savings are actually worth the upheaval and cost.

The other key consideration is ultimate image quality. MFT sensors are less capable quality-wise when it comes to high ISO performance – and nature photography needs high ISOs – and if you did a side-by-side test you’d see full frame is superior. But being superior means nothing if you only enjoy your work on-screen and don’t need files for super-big prints. And MFT is very capable especially when treated with the latest software


PS AS OM SYSTEM USER WITH OM1 BODY ALL THE ABOVE IS AN ACCURATE SUMMRY OF THE MFT SYSTEM.

[Chris Sawyer]

So, after reading all that, I find out that it's a draw between MFT and full-frame.

[Bazza]

Yes maybe unless your old and not fit to carry equipment like an Army Commando and need to save money before the other half realises 🥺😇

[hammettsr]

Bazza

I've used many different film* & to date 3 different digital sensor§ formats. I am also thinking of going for a medium format 33x44mm sensor camera in the future for landscape & architectural work in conjunction with a Cambo Actus G technical camera with rear base tilt, as well as a full-frame Nikon Z9.

There are a number of factors to bear in mind:-

1) the smaller the sensor, the greater depth of field (DoF) will be obtained for a given lens' focal length & fastest shutter speed; and conversely, the separation between subject & background will be greater the larger the sensor - an important consideration for bird/macro/portraiture & wildlife photography.
2) the greater the ISO (ie sensor signal amplification) the more noise on smaller sensors as against larger sensors - this is basic physics
3) IBIS sensors vary. The Hasselblad X2D sensor (33x44mm) with a 58mm leaf shutter lens can be handheld at 0.3s indoors and obtain a sharp image! However an IBIS sensor can save you having to carry a suitable tripod unless you are carrying a heavy, fast telephoto lens (eg Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S weighing just short of 3kg).
4) A bigger sensor allows you to crop the image - something I now do frequently - or make several images from a single image;

The newer full frame Nikon Z cameras & lenses are much lighter - one of the main reasons why I am going to invest in the Z mirrorless system as some of my Nikon F lenses weigh almost 1.5kg each. The Nikon Z8 is the same price as the Canon EOS R5 you are thinking of, has 45MP & better stills specifications and weighs 910g including battery. A cheaper alternative without IBIS would be its predecessor the D850, but as the Z lenses are cheaper than the older F lenses I would suggest you consider the Z8. The Z8 also allows to buy & affix a GPS module.

Hope this helps.
_____
*35mm, 6x6cm, 5x4in
§Olympus 4/3rds (original E1, E3), Fuji X Pro 1 & currently Nikon full frame 35mm (D850).