Latest or all posts or last 15, 30, 90 or 180 days.
2024-03-29 00:15:43
Designed for the most demanding needs of photographers and videographers.
877-865-7002
Today’s Deal Zone Items... Handpicked deals...
$5999 $4399
SAVE $1600

$999 $849
SAVE $150

$2599 $2099
SAVE $500

$1149 $949
SAVE $200

$2299 $1849
SAVE $450

$1049 $879
SAVE $170

$899 $749
SAVE $150

$1099 $1099
SAVE $click

$680 $680
SAVE $click

$398 $328
SAVE $70

$348 $248
SAVE $100

$999 $699
SAVE $300

$5999 $4399
SAVE $1600

$4499 $3499
SAVE $1000

$999 $799
SAVE $200

$799 $699
SAVE $100

$1199 $899
SAVE $300

$849 $849
SAVE $click

$348 $248
SAVE $100

$1601 $998
SAVE $603

$3399 $2999
SAVE $400

$3997 $3697
SAVE $300

$5999 $4399
SAVE $1600

$3399 $2999
SAVE $400

Longer “reach”: Micro Four Thirds vs Cropping Full-Frame or APS-C

re: The Most Useful and Practical Telephoto for Wildlife Might Be the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO

Sensor sizes

See Roy P’s latest comment on thinking through whether to go with Micro Four Thirds or instead crop 35mm full-frame (towards bottom of post).

Funny how the format-size issue just never goes away—real reasons remain to embrace or reject Micro Four Thirds.

More depth of field with smaller format? No... and yes.

Depth of field for a particular focal length and shooting distance and aperture is always the same; the lens projects an image whose properties are invariant to capture area.

Nor does cropping an image change its depth of field, whether the crop is the sensor, or Photoshop. For example, capturing an image at 300mm @ f/4 is identical in the APS-C portion whether the camera records a full-frame capture or an APS-C crop-capture.

But the foregoing is techno-babble that drops real-world context.

Practically speaking compared to Micro Four Thirds, one shoots at (about) half the focal length or twice the distance for the same field of view as 35mm full-frame*. That doubles the depth of field vs 35mm full frame.

* Using the long edge of the frame, the factor is 17.3/35.9 = 0.482 for full frame (2.075 multiplier), and 17.3/23.6 = .733 for APS-C (1.364 multiplier).

Filling the frame on both formats vs cropping

Suppose you are 50 yards/meters distant from a bighorn sheep. You want to fill the frame. Or you might instead crop.

Rounding slightly and ignoring aspect ratio:

Fill the full frame width, equivalent DoF:
Micro Four Thirds: 300mm @ f/4.5 @ 20 megapixels
            APS-C: 408mm @ f/6.3 @ 24 megapixels (typical)
  35mm Full Frame: 622mm @ f/9.0 @ 60 megapixels (Sony A7R IV)
     Fujifilmm MF: 760mm @ f/11.4 @ 100 megapixels (Fujifilm GFX100S) 

Stopping-down for equivalent depth of field can be problematic: slower shutter speed.

Crop to Micro Four Thirds:
Micro Four Thirds: 300mm @ f/4.5 @ 20 megapixels
            APS-C: 300mm @ f/4.5 @ 14.7 megapixels*
  35mm Full Frame: 300mm @ f/4.5 @ 15.7/13.1 megapixels**
     Fujifilmm MF: 300mm @ f/4.5 @ 15.6 megapixels***

* Factor of 0.613 multiplier 1.36X assuming 23.5 X 15.6mm 24-megapixel sensor
** Factor of 0.261 multiplier 2.08X assuming 35.9 X 24.0 60/50-megapixel sensor
*** Factor of 0.395 multiplier 2.53X, assuming 43.8 X 32.8 100-megapixel sensor

Cropping delivers about 1/4 fewer megapixels versus a Micro Four Thirds sensor. But what if the lens has enough reach so that cropping all the way down to Micro Four Thirds size is not needed? Or we see an 80-megapixel 35mm camera? Then the megapixel counts rise rapidly in favor of the larger sensors. So unless shooting is always about maximum “reach” and not getting you out there, the equation quickly moves to favor of the larger sensor. Assuming the lenses are palatable in cost and size/weight. Which might be a big “if”—I’ve never seen any telephoto lens as enjoyable to shoot as the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 (415mm equiv) for Micro Four Thirds.

But wait—practically speaking, stopping down for equivalent depth of field means shutter speeds 1/4 as fast as on the 35mm full-frame format. That’s a big problem in some scenarios.

My conclusion therefore is that this whole discussion comes down to “it all depends on actual usage”. It does not depend on logic-by-numbers; it depends on what you actually shoot and how and what you are willing to carry and your budget.

Cropping in camera

Some cameras offer a built-in crop-sensor mode for aspect ratios (5:4, 4:3, etc), APS-H crop (1.2X), DX crop (1.57X) and maybe others. Some might record the full frame, others might record only the cropped portion with EXIF denoting the crop.

Sometimes the cameras black-off the cropped area in the Live View image and some show it faded and some might draw lines.

Crop modes are useful for cutting file sizes down if the camera records only the crop portion, but unless the subject matter is highly cooperative, I deem it better to record the entire sensor. An ideal crop might well differ from an in-camera crop for compositional reasons—the desired crop could be translated/offset slightly, cropped a bit less, or work better with another aspect ratio cropped on one side vs the other. Shooting a bit wide and capturing the entire frame gives a lot more options for the final image.

Sensor sizes

View all handpicked deals...

Voigtlander MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm f/2 Aspherical Lens for Sony E
$999 $849
SAVE $150

diglloyd Inc. | FTC Disclosure | PRIVACY POLICY | Trademarks | Terms of Use
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
RSS Feeds | X.com/diglloyd
Copyright © 2022 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.