Considering a switch from Full frame DSLR to mirrorless, have a few questions

[goodguy]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.

Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.

You can also put it this way:
Let's say you shoot a particular scene with both 4/3 and FF and you want a particular DoF and shutter speed (surprise,surprise)
With 4/3, let's say, you are using 1.2 aperture and 1/100 shutter speed
With FF camera, for the same scene you keep the same shutter speed, but need to stop down the aperture, because otherwise DoF will be way too shallow. So you stop it down by two stops compared to 4/3.
Strictly speaking that means FOR THE SAME SHOT there will be 4 TIMES LESS light on the FF sensor than it was with 4/3 . Not 4 times more
To compensate for this lack of light, the FF camera cranks up the ISO (or sensitivity) by two stops to extract four times more of the light that fell on the sensor, compared to what 4/3 camera did, and in the end ensure similar exposure.
But then , what is the problem? The FF high ISO performance is great..

You should watch Tony's video, it will explain to you where you are wrong.
f1.4 on MFT with their existing lenses isn't really f1.4

 

[Gary A.]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.

Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.

You can also put it this way:
Let's say you shoot a particular scene with both 4/3 and FF and you want a particular DoF and shutter speed (surprise,surprise)
With 4/3, let's say, you are using 1.2 aperture and 1/100 shutter speed
With FF camera, for the same scene you keep the same shutter speed, but need to stop down the aperture, because otherwise DoF will be way too shallow. So you stop it down by two stops compared to 4/3.
Strictly speaking that means FOR THE SAME SHOT there will be 4 TIMES LESS light on the FF sensor than it was with 4/3 . Not 4 times more
To compensate for this lack of light, the FF camera cranks up the ISO (or sensitivity) by two stops to extract four times more of the light that fell on the sensor, compared to what 4/3 camera did, and in the end ensure similar exposure.
But then , what is the problem? The FF high ISO performance is great..

You should watch Tony's video, it will explain to you where you are wrong.
f1.4 on MFT with their existing lenses isn't really f1.4

I watched Tony's video. Baloney. Tony is quite the convincing salesman.

He is saying, what we all know to be true, is that generally, sensors, (regardless of size), will have better noise at a lower ISO. And yes there is math behind that, but he twisted the explanation of the math to support his statements. And Tony completely ignore differences in sensor technology and he assumed that all sensors are equal. To avoid getting into details ... think of this ... Tony's bucket theory. Tony said that a bucket with twice the diameter, (Tony said size but it is actually diameter), will gather twice as much rain, all else being equal. That is true. What he selectively omitted that if the bucket is a sensor ... then somewhere in the buckets is a line which represents a proper exposure. Lets say that line is three inches from the bottom of the buckets. All else being equal, (each bucket getting the same amount of rain over the same time period), both buckets will hit that mark at the same time.

What I am trying to say is that a smaller bucket, like a smaller sensor, doesn't not need the same amount of "total" light to make a proper exposure (to hit the mark). It may need more light in order to get a higher S:N, which in turn will lower noise. Remember, lowering noise is different than a proper exposure. I am discussing proper exposure and you're, per Tony's video, discussing noise.

 

[Didereaux]

"My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
Thanks!"

First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another. Each system has its pros and cons. Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library). Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income. I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system. Almost all even have little PS's they carry along. So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks. Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.

 

[Gary A.]

"My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
Thanks!"

First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another. Each system has its pros and cons. Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library). Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income. I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system. Almost all even have little PS's they carry along. So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks. Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.

To address your, less than courteous, remarks:

I used to be a news photographer, a photo journalist ... a pro. I know how professional photographers, especially those in my genre operate and work. I shot Nikon professionally in the '60's, '70's and 80's. I hope most would qualify me as a 'real' photographer.

Presently, I have three complete systems. A FF system (1Ds), an APS-C system (mirrorless Fuji) and a MFT system (Oly EM1). I haven't touched my FF system in a couple of years. I've been slowly giving it away to my kids. The latest system is the Fuji APS-C syste, I love the Fuji. The cameras and lenses are great and the IQ from the X-Trans sensor, to my eye is very film-esque. MFT is very digital-ish and the Canon FF is somewhere in-between. But these differences are subtle.

Again, presently, I am a hobbyist. I still shoot for publication but most of those 'assignments' are performed pro bono. I, like many pro photogs, also had a smaller camera for fun. I was using a GF1 as my fun camera. After a bit I realized that many of my MFT lens were as sharp as my L lenses. I also realized that up to an 8x10+, there wasn't any significant differences in IQ between my FF and MFT (for what and how I shoot). Oly came out with the EM5 which had a significantly improved sensor and vastly superior performance and handling over my GF1. While, as a former pro, size and weight doesn't matter in photography ... all that matters is the final image. I appreciated the little bodies, lenses and diminished weight. (I remembered when Olympus initially marketed the OM1. It was this great little film camera that was dwarfed by our Nikons. Oly dropped off palettes of equipment to major newspapers and wire services. We all snatched them up and used them for about three to four months .. then they started breaking so we went back to Nikon.) The EM5 pretty much replaced my 1Ds.

One day I was in my camera store and I spotted a Fujifilm X-Pro1. It was absolutely beautiful and sexy and it felt so good ... and I bought it. I just wanted to walk around with this sexy little number hanging around my neck. After I look at the images, I was blown away. The Fuji images were amazingly good. The XP1 was a bit larger than the EM5 and did everything slower than the EM5, but it was such a good looking camera with such good looking output that I adapted my shooting style to accommodate the sexy camera with lenses that were at least as good as L and quite often better. So now I'm shooting APS-C mirrorless with slow AF but wonderful IQ. Fuji came out with the XT1, about the same size as MFT (EM1) but sports a significantly superior sensor. The handling is easier because it has a very simple menu system, dials on top for shutter/ISO/Exp Comp/meter/et al. The AF is super fast, but cannot track, write speed can use UHSII and the EVF at under 8FPS and decent light is nearly seamless.

System wise, MFT is way ahead of Fuji, (as it is a more mature system). But Fuji is getting there. I will still shoot MFT solely because of the longer and faster lenses available for MFT over Fuji.

That is essentially my migration to mirrorless. So yeah, the "reality" is my migration is purely so I can be a big shot at Starbucks.

Gary

 

[Didereaux]

"My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
Thanks!"

First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another. Each system has its pros and cons. Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library). Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income. I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system. Almost all even have little PS's they carry along. So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks. Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.

To address your, less than courteous, remarks:

I used to be a news photographer, a photo journalist ... a pro. I know how professional photographers, especially those in my genre operate and work. I shot Nikon professionally in the '60's, '70's and 80's. I hope most would qualify me as a 'real' photographer.

Presently, I have three complete systems. A FF system (1Ds), an APS-C system (mirrorless Fuji) and a MFT system (Oly EM1). I haven't touched my FF system in a couple of years. I've been slowly giving it away to my kids. The latest system is the Fuji APS-C syste, I love the Fuji. The cameras and lenses are great and the IQ from the X-Trans sensor, to my eye is very film-esque. MFT is very digital-ish and the Canon FF is somewhere in-between. But these differences are subtle.

....
Gary

You marked my comment disagree. Yet in your reply you openly admit to owning and using several systems. That was my point!!! One system doesn't do it all. As for 'less than considerate' that is subjective. I did not attack the OP, that I was not particularly admiring of one segment of the population, well I doubt you love them all either. Again I point out that the gist of your reply sustained my conclusions.

 

[Gary A.]

"My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
Thanks!"

First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another. Each system has its pros and cons. Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library). Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income. I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system. Almost all even have little PS's they carry along. So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks. Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.

To address your, less than courteous, remarks:

I used to be a news photographer, a photo journalist ... a pro. I know how professional photographers, especially those in my genre operate and work. I shot Nikon professionally in the '60's, '70's and 80's. I hope most would qualify me as a 'real' photographer.

Presently, I have three complete systems. A FF system (1Ds), an APS-C system (mirrorless Fuji) and a MFT system (Oly EM1). I haven't touched my FF system in a couple of years. I've been slowly giving it away to my kids. The latest system is the Fuji APS-C syste, I love the Fuji. The cameras and lenses are great and the IQ from the X-Trans sensor, to my eye is very film-esque. MFT is very digital-ish and the Canon FF is somewhere in-between. But these differences are subtle.

....
Gary

You marked my comment disagree. Yet in your reply you openly admit to owning and using several systems. That was my point!!! One system doesn't do it all. As for 'less than considerate' that is subjective. I did not attack the OP, that I was not particularly admiring of one segment of the population, well I doubt you love them all either. Again I point out that the gist of your reply sustained my conclusions.

I did not mark your comments with a 'Disagree". You are wrong on that count. Interestingly, possibly as a retort you marked 'Disagree' with my migration story. An action I cannot fathom, as how can one disagree with a story of my migration from FF to mirrorless ... it is my story of my migration. I can only assume your marking of 'Disagree', as the act of a small minded and negative person.

While a "small lenses library" is subjective, I think you may be the only person familiar with MFT that would call MFT lenses collectively a small library.

Your comments, in my subjective opinion, of "real photographers" is very condescending and arrogant.

Your comment of "Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income." , is negative, condescending/arrogant and possibly not true.how do you know that "all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income"? (I won't comment on the improper use of the English language as English may not be your mother tongue.)

"I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system." While this may be true, but the significance of this remark is dependant upon the greater audience/forum membership understanding the size of your "pros" universe. Without that knowledge, your statement has no merit.

"So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system," ... that is actually statement which is important and requires consideration. (Unlike your other statements.) But then you finished with "...or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks. " Again, condescending and arrogance on your part.

"Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, ..." Again, subjective, I prefer negative, condescending and arrogant to be better descriptors.

Gary

 

[Didereaux]

Gary, I have the solution. Put me on ignore. I notice you have posted 6000+ comments in 2 months, amazing! And only a member for two months as well. Incredible! Btw I put you on ignore as well. I am not on the internet, and particularly this forum, to go 'trolling', which entails the sort of conversations we just engaged in.

 

[Holejee]

Didereaux: you do come off as condescending, FWIW.