The camera format wars are generally a thing of the past. Things could get very heated on the DPR forums. I see in one of the picture threads, that the old debate has resurfaced. I do not want to join in thre and pollute that thread. So perhaps a separate thread is worth making, to discover if M43 is a "serious" format.
I thought it was pretty balanced, back in the day, but it earnt me a ban thanks to the shit show, it generated.
"Format war"? How immature.
Different strokes for different folks.
Just get over it.
Some people cannot for some reason, hence my post.
So why do you stir it up?
If you're happy using m43 when it suits you, all well and good.
Personally I have no reason to use smaller sensors than aps-c in "real" cameras.
Still looks pretty balanced to me.
The discussion on camera formats you are referring to looks reasonable. Most of the contributions (and yes, I'm one of the contributors) are giving reasons for their opinions and as far as I can see, the reasons are reasonable. This is different to saying "that's my opinion" which is no kind of discussion at all.
No one is saying a format is best for everything. The discussion more or less acknowledges that different formats have different strengths.
Yes, that is true but a camera's particular strengths will not be relevant to everyone. The same applies to a camera's weaknesses.
Hi,
Well, all these things are simply tools to get a job done. It's a matter of choosing which tool for the job at hand. And it isn't as clear cut as to just what the differences are with digital as it was with film.
Personally, having come from the film era, small formats were quite limited when it came to print size. And the smaller the format, the greater the limitation.
With digital, my first one was a Nikon E2 and that was very, very limited and sported a 2/3" CCD. It was aggravated by being behind a set of reduction optics within the body. So it was difficult to tell just how well (or not) the 1.3 MP sensor worked. So, toss this one into the bit bucket.
What came next for me was APS-H at 6 MP in a Kodak digital back on a Nikon film body. Much improved over the E2 but still rather limited. It was fine if you had a lot of light and weren't in any hurry. Frame rate was one shot every two seconds.
Next up was the Nikon D1, which lost resolution down to 2.75 MP but gained significantly in the operational speed department. I used a D1 or D1H for a long time alongside Kodak 6 MP units. I didn't get a full frame digital until 2018 and I started digital in 1999. 19 years.
What we have here are issues which were not really dependent on the format chosen but the early state of the art. The largest issue being figuring out the field of view for those 135 format designed lenses on the various sensors. That was why Nikon and Fuji had collaborated on the E series (aka DS-5xx at Fuji) with those optics inside the body. It gave 135 format FoV on that small sensor. Mostly.
Once we get into later times, we have lenses designed to go with the sensors and so all that figuring regarding just which lens to use goes away. And, presumably, said optics are optimized for the sensor size better than slapping a 135 format lens on.
These days, I do most of my shooting with either a 135 format sized sensor (aka full frame) or a slightly smaller than 645 sensor (44*33mm) in a medium format body.
I have a couple older APS-H and APS-C bodies still, used for specific purposes. Picking the tool for the job. And, not yet mentioned, including a cell phone cam - whatever format that is.
I have not had a m43 sensor camera, but expect I'd get certain jobs done just fine with one. And then I'd be shooting other jobs using the other cameras.
All that said, I don't see me getting an m43 unit given I have all these others around. But, I'm not going to say Never. Hard to see, the future is!
And I don't see anything to argue about.
Stan
Nor do I, the link to my Blog post, says that any camer will achieve goods results if it is suited to the task in hand.
Implying, as I have read, that sensors smaller than APC, are not real cameras is pretty silly. I have taken lots of useful pictures with my phone.
I was in town and my phone was perfect for the unobtrusive shot of a demo. I was fascinated by the illogical placards. Especially, I want to know what "keep the church out of my panties" is getting at. If you point a camera at someone these days, they often get angry. Nobody notices or cares about phone shots.
I haven't seen anyone say that.
I have posted several times here on dprevived that with today's modern digital cameras, "real" or otherwise, and with a big enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take a nice looking photo in good light.
So have I and just about everyone.
Just because m43 suits someone best for a particular shot does not mean it must suit best for everyone.
That applies to any size sensor.
Many people, including me, don't see phone cameras as "real" cameras but I still use a phone camera when I have no other option.
Many people now are happy to use their phone camera as their only camera. That's fine as it is their choice just like I and everyone else make our choices for preferred camera(s).
m43 wars are definitely a thing of the past, you want entertainment you go to the MF forum now. its so pathetic just like the m43 forum was 4 years ago, but poster beware compare there cameras with real world comparisons to FF and its a ban no questions asked. the weekly image thread is how i compare the formats. .
One thing that irritates me about formats is the demeaning phrase "crop factor" which implies that the only true format is 135, a.k.a. 35mm, thereby causing MF to have negative crop factors, duh. Now, where is my magic pair of scissors which increases something's size when cropping?
Another is the "equivalence" thing where the same basis prevails. So it is that a lens with "50mm" engraved clearly on it's body becomes somehow not 50mm when mounted on a different format camera.
I could go on about formats but, hopefully, readers will get where I'm coming from.
OT but I think whomever decided that "ISO" should be carried over from film to digital should have been shot ...
Some properties of a camera are dependent on a sensor size. Some are not. That is where it can get confusing. For example a 50 mm lens is a 50 mm lens. The focal length defines its optical properties. However, a 50 mm lens is "normal" on a 135 format - it is a wide angle on a 6x7 format and an ultra wide angle on a 4x5. On the other hand it is a short telephone on an APSC size sensor and a medium telephoto on a M43. While convoluted and confusing concepts - crop factor and equivalence is trying to express this. It, however, seemed to become popularized. misused and abused during the digital format wars. The bottom line is different formats are different tools for different use cases.
As far as ISO - I whole heartily agree. ISO is a measure of film sensitivity to light. It is fixed by the film emulsion. With thick emulsion B&W film the ISO can be modulated by the type of developer/development. With color film it is set in stone. The sensor sensitivity and dynamic range is fixed by the sensor well depth and quantum efficiency and bit depth of the ADC. No amount of smearing on color filter arrays on the front of the señsor nor amplifiers after the photons have been captured is going to increase sensitivity or DR. ISO is not the right concept for digital photography. Exposure triangle is another concept for film photography that has been bastardized to digital that causes confusion.
Amen to that, Truman. The infamous Exposure Triangle is another one of my pet irritations, especially those many tutorials that tell us that ISO sets the sensitivity of the sensor, duh!
Yeah, that one's been done to death and still people believe it.
Alan
Why so rude ?!
Are you sure about the last statement?
I think it's about the large format 4x5 inch which is a bit more that the 6x7 (56mm × 70mm = 120/220 format) film 😉
