fredmiranda.com

fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Micro Four Thirds Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1

2

3 end

What am I missing?

wastedimages
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · What am I missing?

az-dave wrote:
I may be thinking about this wrong but it seems that everyone wants to make m43 to look like full frame when for macro and wildlife the greater depth of field can be an advantage so if we do the inverse to get m43 FOV and DOF for a 300 f4 on full frame we would need to be at 600 F8 with either a slower shutter speed or 2 more stops of ISO. There has to be more to it then I am thinking about. Thoughts?

Dave

I completely agree, I suspect I will end up running both m43 and FF. FF for early morning as the ISO I will need for high shutter speeds means I will need FF to have a better chance of cleaning the files up.
Then m43, and probably the 100-400 as 1600g for a range of 200-800 is just too good to turn down.

Jul 13, 2025 at 12:28 PM

amv8
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · What am I missing?

Robin Smith wrote:
What an amazingly complex way of looking at this. Poor OP if he has waded through all this will be thoroughly confused. At any equivalent aperture, m43 lenses with the same field of view as an FF lens have the same light gathering ability, but 2 stops greater depth of field. There are penalties associated with the MFT system due to increased noise noticeable at higher ISOs, but noise reduction in post processing can reduce this as it can for a FF system.

Just for giggles, I actually did a test last night. I photographed a uniform gray wall under a controlled lighting environment with my FF using a 50mm @ f4, 1/40s @ ISO 200 and then swapped to a m4/3 shooting 25mm @ f4, 1/40s @ ISO 200. Both cameras metered the same once I set the FF meter mode to "average across the screen" mode (my m4/3 didn't have that option).

The resultant raw files came out almost identical (maybe .2 ev difference) when looking the raw histograms.

Jul 13, 2025 at 01:32 PM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · What am I missing?

az-dave wrote:
I may be thinking about this wrong but it seems that everyone wants to make m43 to look like full frame when for macro and wildlife the greater depth of field can be an advantage so if we do the inverse to get m43 FOV and DOF for a 300 f4 on full frame we would need to be at 600 F8 with either a slower shutter speed or 2 more stops of ISO. There has to be more to it then I am thinking about. Thoughts?

Dave

That�s right. It goes both ways, but for some reason many look at it as a one-way street. Ironically, while many criticize the image quality of the well-known MFT cameras, people love the IQ of the Leica D-lux 8, which also happens to have a MFT sensor.

Jul 13, 2025 at 02:12 PM

sum1sgrampa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · What am I missing?

amv8 wrote:
Just for giggles, I actually did a test last night. I photographed a uniform gray wall under a controlled lighting environment with my FF using a 50mm @ f4, 1/40s @ ISO 200 and then swapped to a m4/3 shooting 25mm @ f4, 1/40s @ ISO 200. Both cameras metered the same once I set the FF meter mode to "average across the screen" mode (my m4/3 didn't have that option).

The resultant raw files came out almost identical (maybe .2 ev difference) when looking the raw histograms.

This is the only thing that means anything to me. I would have done the same type of test but my Z camera is on a Fedx truck a day away from MPB

Jul 13, 2025 at 02:46 PM

jmmaher
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · What am I missing?

Just for reference the D-Lux 8 is m4/3 but only 17 mp as it only uses part of the sensor

Jul 13, 2025 at 02:54 PM

kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · What am I missing?

OMG, this thread is a bit of a disaster when it comes to the technical m43/FF comparisons!!!!

To make things easy to follow let's assume that for birds we tend to end up at our longest focal length almost always. And you are evaluating the OM 100-400/5-6.3 compared with the Nikon Z 180-600/5.6-6.3.

First, pixels on the bird at maximum focal length:

OM-1 20MP at 800mm "equivalent" focal length - Make this our reference, 20MP
Z6iii/Zf 24MP at 600mm "equivalent" focal length - Crops to 13.5MP
Z8/Z9 45MP at 600mm "equivalent" focal length - Crops to 25MP

So just for resolution the OM-1 is going to be notably better at getting pixels on small birds than the 24MP Nikons, but a bit worse than the 45MP Nikons (with these two lenses of course, go grab an 800mm for the Nikons and they'll win, but your wallet and your back won't). So the winner here depends on which Nikon body you are using.

Now of course if you don't have to maximally zoom out the 180-600 then the OM-1 is always worse in resolution, but that's an obvious statement. But for birds especially people are usually taking as much focal length as they can afford and can carry with them, so the above cropped comparison is probably the more relevant one.

Next, noise. The most important thing to realize here is that if we have the exact same field of view and the exact same depth of field and the exact same shutter speed then there is no difference between m43 and FF. You only get a noise "advantage" with FF if you can violate one of those conditions. For instance, landscape shooters can usually arbitrarily slow down the shutter speed and thus end up with a noise advantage. Portrait or event photographers in many cases can tolerate (or might even prefer) shallower depth of field and so again end up with a noise advantage.

Typically birds, especially little ones, are pretty jumpy from what I've read from dedicated birders. So usually it seems like it is hard to crank down the shutter speed arbitrarily. So let's assume in your dim under canopy lighting we've got the same shutter speed on both systems, so that's one way FF isn't going to be able to gain an advantage.

Now depth of field is probably a "depends" but neither of those lenses are particularly fast. Again, if we did require the same DoF then no advantage to FF, but let's assume we can shoot both systems wide open - in this case F/6.3 for both at maximum zoom and still get adequate DoF on the FF system (i.e. this is the best case for FF getting any sort of advantage).

If we didn't care about field of view (i.e. we didn't crop the FF to get the same FoV as the m43 at 400mm) then here we would see the typical FF advantage of two stops of noise advantage.

However, if we crop the FF to match (i.e. make the same tiny bird the same size in the final print/image as the m43 shot) then we lose a good chunk of that advantage. In fact, since we had to do a 3/4 crop we end up losing 0.8 stops of that advantage.

So in the best case for small little birds the FF choice here would have about 1.2 stops of noise advantage. That's a real difference for sure, but as others have said with advanced NR tools it might not be that big a deal under your shooting conditions.

In summary:

- If you an afford to purchase and carry FF gear that has the same equivalent focal length and the same aperture as m43 gear then indeed you have the potential for up two stops better noise performance.
- To realize that advantage you need to either accept a shallower DoF or a longer shutter speed.
- If your FF system has a shorter equivalent focal length then that noise "advantage" begins to disappear as you are forced to crop the final image.

The result of all this is that in many shooting situations for little birdies the m43 "disadvantage" is much less than might be expected while in many cases the cost, size, and weight "advantages" remain very real.

Jul 13, 2025 at 05:30 PM

Danrdz10103
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · What am I missing?

I have been using Nikon Z9 since launch and OM-1.1 for about 3 months. my take, OM will never give you the crispiness of the full frame high resolution bodies, but I am more likely to take the OM with me than a Z9. So, for me is comparing a better photo that I might never take do to weight (with the lenses) versus a very decent image with gear I am put in my glove compartment in the car.

my advice, unless you make most of your income from your photos, stop suffering and just grab the body that brings joy to you when you use it and the body you are more likely to take with you everywhere.

Jul 13, 2025 at 07:44 PM

PV Hiker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · What am I missing?

amv8 wrote:
Just for giggles, I actually did a test last night. I photographed a uniform gray wall under a controlled lighting environment with my FF using a 50mm @ f4, 1/40s @ ISO 200 and then swapped to a m4/3 shooting 25mm @ f4, 1/40s @ ISO 200. Both cameras metered the same once I set the FF meter mode to "average across the screen" mode (my m4/3 didn't have that option).

The resultant raw files came out almost identical (maybe .2 ev difference) when looking the raw histograms.

I'm so glad you had the time and the equipment to do this test!! This has been known and it is said in many different words. Most confusing.

But there is always folks who post in a confusing way. It took me four days to finally be able to log in to post. We all want to post in a helpful way and share what we know, Awesome.

Sometimes we get caught up in the technical scientific aspect with big words that most of us don't understand, so we can't follow what a poster's point is. To reach people, just dumb it down to the lowest person's understanding in your group so your point is understood by all. I'm not saying that you should never post highly advanced studies with lots of detail. Just saying how many listeners are you going to lose by doing that. Perhaps a hybrid approach would be good, Get into it with all the fanfare and then a simple down to low level summary. Most favor the supporting links and can dive in further if interested.

Such a simple test you did to show what I believe is what the original poster was asking.

Jul 13, 2025 at 09:18 PM

PIOK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · What am I missing?

Danrdz10103 wrote:
I have been using Nikon Z9 since launch and OM-1.1 for about 3 months. my take, OM will never give you the crispiness of the full frame high resolution bodies, but I am more likely to take the OM with me than a Z9. So, for me is comparing a better photo that I might never take do to weight (with the lenses) versus a very decent image with gear I am put in my glove compartment in the car.

my advice, unless you make most of your income from your photos, stop suffering and just grab the body that brings...Show more →

This is why I never bought Nikon Z8. Z7 is max size I want to carry

Jul 13, 2025 at 09:37 PM

ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · What am I missing?

kwalsh wrote:
OMG, this thread is a bit of a disaster when it comes to the technical m43/FF comparisons!!!!

To make things easy to follow let's assume that for birds we tend to end up at our longest focal length almost always. And you are evaluating the OM 100-400/5-6.3 compared with the Nikon Z 180-600/5.6-6.3.

First, pixels on the bird at maximum focal length:

OM-1 20MP at 800mm "equivalent" focal length - Make this our reference, 20MP
Z6iii/Zf 24MP at 600mm "equivalent" focal length - Crops to 13.5MP
Z8/Z9 45MP at 600mm "equivalent" focal length - Crops to 25MP

So just for resolution the OM-1 is going...Show more →

I agree with "this thread is a bit of a disaster when it comes to the technical m43/FF comparisons." The true cause are the incorrect claims propagated by photographers who are not sufficiently familiar with photographic equivalence.
The role of the aperture (f-number) is typically misunderstood. There are posts on this thread that claim that mFT and FF photos taken with the same f-number are equivalent and mean "the same light gathering." Those who maintain this view are at best confused. Those who propagate this view are doing real harm.

The conditions of photographic equivalence are well-established and simple: equivalent focal lengths (related by the crop factor), equivalent apertures (related by the crop factor), and the same shutter speed.
You correctly re-stated the equivalence statement, but in your own words: " if we have the exact same field of view and the exact same depth of field and the exact same shutter speed then there is no difference between m43 and FF."

What I like less is what you said "To realize that advantage you need to either accept a shallower DoF or a longer shutter speed". This makes it sound like the DoF of a FF 600mm F4 lens is a real problem. My impression is that the DoF is not an issue in FF wildlife and bird photography, and that the ability of FF 600mm F4 lenses to isolate the subject and produce a smooth background is actually highly praised by the FF users.

Jul 13, 2025 at 10:05 PM

kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · What am I missing?

ruthenium wrote:
What I like less is what you said "To realize that advantage you need to either accept a shallower DoF or a longer shutter speed". This makes it sound like the DoF of a FF 600mm F4 lens is a real problem. My impression is that the DoF is not an issue in FF wildlife and bird photography, and that the ability of FF 600mm F4 lenses to isolate the subject and produce a smooth background is actually highly praised by the FF users.

I did explicitly state that in many cases the shallower DoF of FF is fine or even desirable and I also pointed out that for the specific comparison of the lenses in question the likely most suitable comparison is both lenses wide open. Not sure taking one sentence out of context of the rest of the post is something to be too concerned about. But if it helps, I completely agree with you from my limited experiences shooting wildlife. In general, regardless of what format I was shooting, across all practical lens designs I'd take the widest aperture I could afford and carry for a given focal length if I was going to shoot wildlife, and especially if I was going to shoot birds. In general I'd have a preference for focal length over aperture as well. Most generally stated, the largest front element I could afford incorporated into the longest focal length design practical.

I can understand though why you would want to emphasize the point though, because indeed there is a common myth of m43 having a "depth of field advantage" which most certainly is not a thing!

Jul 13, 2025 at 10:31 PM

ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · What am I missing?

amv8 wrote:
Just for giggles, I actually did a test last night. I photographed a uniform gray wall under a controlled lighting environment with my FF using a 50mm @ f4, 1/40s @ ISO 200 and then swapped to a m4/3 shooting 25mm @ f4, 1/40s @ ISO 200. Both cameras metered the same once I set the FF meter mode to "average across the screen" mode (my m4/3 didn't have that option).

The resultant raw files came out almost identical (maybe .2 ev difference) when looking the raw histograms.

What you observed is a well-known fact that a medium format, a FF, and a cropped-sensor camera at equivalent focal lengths all set to the same SS and f-number produce correctly exposed images (the ISO is calculated by the cameras and should be the same as well).
Question: Where is the catch?
Answer: These images are not equivalent.
Question: What does this mean in practice?
Answer: The images have different noise. The smaller is the sensor, the more noise there will be in the image. At low ISO, the dominant source of noise is the shot (photon) noise. This scales a square root of the signal. Since the number of photons that hit the FF is four times that number for the mFT camera (under the condition of equal f-numbers), there will be two-times higher (more intense) noise in the photos obtained with the latter.
Question: Why I don't see the greater noise in my example above? "The resultant raw files came out almost identical "
Answer: Because at low ISO the signal-to-noise ratio is uniformly large in a uniformly exposed image, and one simply doesn't see the noise. For the same reason, well-exposed images obtained at base ISO do not normally require denoising. The important point is that the noise that we don't see under some circumstances may becomes very visible and troublesome under different circumstances. Noise is a significant concern in photography.
Question: When should I see, and start worrying about, the greater noise in an image taken with an mFT camera set to the same f-number as a FF camera?
Answer: In two cases, concerned with low and high ISO, respectively. The first is when the ISO is low and the image has shadows that are lifted in post. Lifting shadows in the mFT image will reveal the higher noise compared to the FF image. Noise and dynamic range are the two sides of the same coin; in other words, the dynamic range of the mFT camera is relatively poor under the inequivalent conditions. To be specific, the Photographic Dynamic Range of OM-1 II is 9.69 at ISO 200 and that of a FF camera A7IV is 10.64. These a log-2 values; when converted, the dynamic range is 1.93 times better for A7IV vs OM-1 II, as expected. Note this has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, only with the amount of light that hit the sensors (four times greater for the FF camera under the inequivalent condition of the same f-number). At high ISO, the noise is immediately visible in the images. Thus, for example, an mFT image at ISO 3200 would have more intense (higher) visible noise than the FF image at ISO 3200. Note that equivalent mFT and FF images must have ISO(FF) = 4 x ISO(mFT), calculated by the cameras in auto-ISO. If the ratio is different from exactly 4, then the images were taken using non-equivalent apertures. I remember a video from Mike Lane where he said something to the effect that he was uncomfortable with ISO above 1600 on OM-1 for bird photography. Yes, this makes sense to me, as if we take equivalent photos using a FF camera, then the equivalent FF ISO should be 6400. Even if we can go higher, we normally wouldn't want to.

A summary in simple terms. The knowledge of photographic equivalence allows to tell when an mFT camera can theoretically take "the same" photo as a FF camera. This knowledge also allows to tell when this should be impossible. As simple as that.
The consideration of equivalence does not mean that when an mFT photographer and a FF photographer are side by side, taking inequivalent(!) photos, that the FF photos should be better. The image quality is going to be influenced by multiple factors - the optical quality of the lenses, the camera settings and speed, and by the post-processing skills of the photographers.
To the OP, if you are at a beginner's level, you probably are not going to get better photos with the FF kit. Go for mFT, but consider the Oly 300mm f4 lens which I compared with my Sony 200-600 mm lens on A1 and, as a result, stopped using the latter.

Jul 14, 2025 at 12:35 AM

ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · What am I missing?

kwalsh wrote:
I did explicitly state that in many cases the shallower DoF of FF is fine or even desirable and I also pointed out that for the specific comparison of the lenses in question the likely most suitable comparison is both lenses wide open. Not sure taking one sentence out of context of the rest of the post is something to be too concerned about. But if it helps, I completely agree with you from my limited experiences shooting wildlife. In general, regardless of what format I was shooting, across all practical lens designs I'd take the widest aperture I could...Show more →

Sorry if my comment appeared too general. It was all about that single sentence that when I read it made me feel as if there was a negative connotation to it because of the "need to accept" that could be taken to mean something one would normally not want.

Jul 14, 2025 at 12:50 AM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · What am I missing?

Danrdz10103 wrote:
I have been using Nikon Z9 since launch and OM-1.1 for about 3 months. my take, OM will never give you the crispiness of the full frame high resolution bodies, but I am more likely to take the OM with me than a Z9. So, for me is comparing a better photo that I might never take do to weight (with the lenses) versus a very decent image with gear I am put in my glove compartment in the car.

my advice, unless you make most of your income from your photos, stop suffering and just grab the body that brings...Show more →

I had the Canon R5, the RF 100-500mm and the EF 600mm f/4 III, when Olympus finally managed to get excellent CAF with the launch of the OM-1. The Canon with the 600mm could beat the Olympus in IQ, but I just didn�t want to carry it and it did also limit my flexibility when shooting. So, I sold the 600mm and the 100-500mm and bought the Olympus 150-400/4.5. Never looked back.

Jul 14, 2025 at 12:52 AM

ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · What am I missing?

A possibly fun exercise to test the understanding of equivalence:
Two photographers shoot birds with OM-1 II cameras.
One has a 300mm f4 lens attached, wide open. The light is low, and the camera auto-ISO is 3200.
The other photographer looked at the high ISO and decided to use a faster 150 f2.8 lens, then crop to 300mm in post. Indeed the ISO dropped to 1600.
The two photographers returned home and printed similarly framed and similarly sized photos of the same bird.
Which of the two photos we should expect to display more noise, if not denoised?
In different words, which of the two images captured 1 stop more total light?

Jul 14, 2025 at 01:03 AM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · What am I missing?

PIOK wrote:
This is why I never bought Nikon Z8. Z7 is max size I want to carry

Same for me. I did buy the Z6 III but only because I can use Nikon's great manual focus setup with my M lenses. Now, if they came out with a Z7 III, I may be tempted to try the 180-600mm lens, just for fun.

Jul 14, 2025 at 08:19 AM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · What am I missing?

ruthenium wrote:
A possibly fun exercise to test the understanding of equivalence:
Two photographers shoot birds with OM-1 II cameras.
One has a 300mm f4 lens attached, wide open. The light is low, and the camera auto-ISO is 3200.
The other photographer looked at the high ISO and decided to use a faster 150 f2.8 lens, then crop to 300mm in post. Indeed the ISO dropped to 1600.
The two photographers returned home and printed similarly framed and similarly sized photos of the same bird.
Which of the two photos we should expect to display more noise, if not denoised?
In different words, which of the two...Show more →

Though you've lost me long ago with your theoretical calculations, I play:

Both images captured the same light, but the 3200 iso image is noisier. Then again, you lose detail in the crop as well, which may also result in a sub-par image.

But that's not the game we're playing: a FF 600/4 beats the MFT 300/4 in noise at higher ISOs, which is why you can shoot longer with the FF setup when the light goes down. But you will need to dial up the ISO on both kits as that light goes down to keep your aperture and shutter speed.

As, to address other points: the lower depth-of-field of the FF prime lenses may result in cleaner images.

That said, I gladly take those MFT weaknesses in exchange for a much more pleasant shooting experience that gives me more flexibility and still awesome images. And even with FF, I've never taken a great shot in low light of birds because by that time the contrast is gone and there's no more detail to be had of the bird. So, with MFT I started leaving a bit earlier but not to my detriment.

Jul 14, 2025 at 08:30 AM

amv8
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · What am I missing?

ruthenium wrote:
What you observed is a well-known fact that a medium format, a FF, and a cropped-sensor camera at equivalent focal lengths all set to the same SS and f-number produce correctly exposed images (the ISO is calculated by the cameras and should be the same as well).
Question: Where is the catch?
Answer: These images are not equivalent...

There is no catch. I simply did an empirical experiment to demonstrate well known theory regarding identical exposure settings. I knew the answer before doing the test. I believe some of the earlier posters had gotten confused from your posts and hoped doing the experiment might help alleviate the confusion.

I never claimed that the experiment would yield photographically equivalent images, and they won't. It appears you were assuming that I was and then posted another lengthy response that addressed a statement/question that I wasn't making/asking. This is one of the reasons this thread has become overly confusing just as the thread did last week when discussing m4/3 vs. FF for landscape rather than wildlife:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1897880/2/#lastmessage

I know you're trying to be helpful and truly appreciate that you've put a lot of effort historically helping folks in these forums. But after some thought, I think your posts may be missing your audience which is easy to do when you have a broad mix of folks in an online forum. I've been guilty of doing the same thing and am just trying to make a helpful suggestion.

Jul 14, 2025 at 12:01 PM

Paul_100A
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · What am I missing?

kwalsh wrote:
I did explicitly state that in many cases the shallower DoF of FF is fine or even desirable and I also pointed out that for the specific comparison of the lenses in question the likely most suitable comparison is both lenses wide open. Not sure taking one sentence out of context of the rest of the post is something to be too concerned about. But if it helps, I completely agree with you from my limited experiences shooting wildlife. In general, regardless of what format I was shooting, across all practical lens designs I'd take the widest aperture I could...Show more →

"indeed there is a common myth of m43 having a "depth of field advantage" which most certainly is not a thing!"
...how do you suppose such a myth came to be and why is it so common if it is not a thing?
i find it odd that you are suggesting that all the folks whom support m4/3 having a DoF advantage over FF are wrong?

i shoot all (FF [when I used FF for birds/wildlife] and m4/3) of my super-tele lenses wide open. that is not because I am going for an isolated subject/extra Oof background look. it's because I need the light/speed. i'd wager this is often the case for many super-tele shooters and has been for a long time. could it be super-tele shooters/others are very familiar with the look of these resulting images and may simply find that images that don't share the same looks are somewhat disconcerting.

to me, the depth of field 'argument' of m4/3 vs FF has two sides.

subject isolation. a simple by-product of wide open FF lenses. the background is typically less defined in the full frame image so the viewers mind/eye is less prone to stay on the background. OK, I like that look perfectly fine sometimes too but I also like when the background displays enough information to help describe the environment which the subject is in. I call it a draw in my book.

with FF I often find I get less of the subject's details well defined (tip of nose/beak to back of head) with FF than with m4/3 at the same apertures. so stop down the FF lens to get the same DoF right? that is not an advantage for FF in my book.

so...
subject isolation, if that is solely what one is targeting for results, can often times be a win for FF (depending on subject to background distances).
more front-to-back of subject's details reproduced for given apertures...a simple by-product of m4/3, a win.

Jul 14, 2025 at 12:23 PM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · What am I missing?

Paul_100A wrote:
"indeed there is a common myth of m43 having a "depth of field advantage" which most certainly is not a thing!"
...how do you suppose such a myth came to be and why is it so common if it is not a thing?
i find it odd that you are suggesting that all the folks whom support m4/3 having a DoF advantage over FF are wrong?

i shoot all (FF [when I used FF for birds/wildlife] and m4/3) of my super-tele lenses wide open. that is not because I am going for an isolated subject/extra Oof background look. it's because I need...Show more →

Like you, I shoot wildlife generally wide open because I need all the speed I can get (mostly talking about birds in flight). I do like the look of a FF f/4 prime better when the bird is against a busy background (provided the camera, any camera, can actually keep the focus on the bird), but that advantage disappears with the slower FF zooms. Even that is to a large extent a function of how the lens renders that background, which is generally stellar in case of the FF f/4 primes.

Jul 14, 2025 at 12:56 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Micro Four Thirds Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

You are not logged in. Login or Register