Thread: Video: one way to see how small formats are more compelling than large formats

Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1 Video: one way to see how small formats are more compelling than large formats 
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    1,685
    A compelling case for Micro 4/3:


    (20:21)

    I'm not trying to change minds. But I do like Micro 4/3 - a lot. If we look at sensor size per se, I would argue that Super 35 is the sweet spot for size, cost, resolution, DR, sensitivity, lenses. But the other factors all come together to make Micro 4/3 my favourite format today as far as the full utilization of modern tech goes.

    Having said that, ideally one would reduce the sensor size in proportion to the AOV if one wanted only to maximize image quality. Just some examples: Fuji GFX100 for wide to short portrait focal lengths, Sony FE for long portrait to short telephoto, Sony E for long telephoto, and Micro 4/3 for super telephoto.

    ---

    A quick appendix. Have a look at these four camera and lens combinations, and tell me that this discussion isn't interesting, at least for stills cameras:

    Micro 4/3 body + 25/1.8
    E body + 35/1.8
    FE body + 50/1.8
    M body + 50/2



    Dynamic web page for the above comparison:
    http://j.mp/30ouWxh
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Pinterest
    | Flickr | Instagram | Martini Ultra (blog)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Explain why you like one format better than the other.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se
    Flame / VFX / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,686
    Formats are like lenses. Use what works for you.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    Explain why you like one format better than the other.
    For me, Micro 4/3 offers opportunities that outweigh limitations. I'll give a quick overview.

    That Canon FD 35-105/3.5 can now be a tele zoom with a straight adapter. It's not the most practical but it might be a viable choice. There will be almost no distortion but I don't know about resolving power. It's not huge, and in fact is somewhat smaller than my Contax Zeiss 80-200/4. However, it is somewhat heavy and it's not parfocal.

    Some of the cameras have in-camera perspective correction, focus stacking (in-camera), focus bracketing (up to 1,000 frames), IBIS. Telephotos aren't massive bazookas. They have 4K or 6K photos modes and pre-capture, making them semi-DSMCs. The format gives you plenty of DOF. Lenses, mainly the pro ones, are terrific.

    Limitations: the cameras aren't always the smallest; the lenses aren't always the smallest, either; FLRs don't give you as wide a FOV as Super 35 or VV; sensitivity isn't as good as larger sensors.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Pinterest
    | Flickr | Instagram | Martini Ultra (blog)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts