More Format Thoughts
Running two formats again has been less vexing than I suspected it would be.
I bought the S5 not because it was the better format, but because it was the better value video choice at the time, in the context of my existing kit and needs. The 3:2 format, something I am not a huge fan of for stills even though I have used it since the 1980’s, is closer to the 16:8 ideal.
High ISO performance is exceptional and all the other little niggles I had like limited recording time and formats, dynamic range etc were all effortlessly sorted. The other option would have been the GH5mk2 and another couple of fast primes or the Pana f1.7 zoom, but the S5 kit was cheaper even than that.
These were video issues fixed by a video-centric camera.
I feared that full frame fever would catch hold again across the board, but it really hasn’t. I tend to forget I have it for stills.
For video, the S5 forms the nucleus of my more pro-end kit. It is the best supported and my first stop for serious projects, but the other cameras I have available* are still fully capable in their own spaces.
For stills though, and this is the curious bit, I still actually prefer M43. This is not a specific camera thing, because the S5 feels like a G9 in many respects, but in use, I find M43 a more practical format, capable of doing any job I need.
Quality.
This old pearl, likely the number one reason people avoid the format, was ironically the thing that attracted me in the first place.
Sick of soft/sharp Canon files from 5D mk2’s, I was attracted to the bright and clear M43 files and that was out of their earlier generation EM5’s. I also tried Fuji and Sony, but both were behind in key areas at that point. In its early days m43 was giant killing. I still remember the Steve Huff comparison of the D3s to a lowly M43 EP-2 with equivalent lens in his 20mm Panasonic review. Daylight to the little tacker.
I laboured and stressed over this for a year or so, but time and time again, the little EM5 mk1, with my clutch of 14, 20, 45 and 75mm lenses were sharper, more accurate and brighter looking to this jaded Canon user when compared to some heavy and expensive old favourites (i.e. the Canon equivalents 24EF, 35L, 85 USM and 135L).
Granted high ISO is behind when compared to the modern bigger sensors (although other factors help mitigate this) and new mirrorless cameras from the big guns are bridging some of the other factors like mirrorless accuracy and speed, but I am more than happy to shoot for fine art with this format. It generally out resolves fine art paper.
An ISO 6400 image at f2.8, which if printed would be good to quite large sizes.
3D pop.
I can get it and surprisingly easily. Some of my M43 lenses are very good at this, even the semi wide ones. They tend to fall into two camps, both equally useful.
The fast transition lenses (the Leica’s, Oly 12-40, 25 and 75 as well as the f1.2’s) are ideal for highlighting a single subject plane, while the others tend to be longer transition (the 17 is a paragon here), which is perfect when you want a more forgiving and organic file.
This clean snappiness is from the wide angle 15mm at too long a distance to be likely, but still it is there.
This shot is another example of the clean separation the little Leica 15mm provides. I first saw this from early Leica, Zeiss-Contax and Zenza-Bronica glass with film, the ability to draw the eye to the sharp plane of focus, then let you drift back to the soft supporting elements, then back again.
Depth of field.
M43 offers the same tools for shallow depth, they are just applied at magnifications twice as long as their full frame equivalents. The advantage of this is that shallow depth is not as twitchy. I can and do use f1.8 lenses wide open all the time, just like a full frame shooter uses f2.8 which was not even a habit I had when shooting full frame/35mm for twenty five plus years.
About 100mm at f4 using the proper principals of shallow depth rendering.
This gives me effectively a two stop advantage in light gathering, without forcing a strong creative imperative on my images.
Even at f2.5, it has decent subject cut out. Now apply the math. The full frame equivalent would have to be twice as close, or be cropped by half again or be a much bigger and more expensive lens. It would also have to use f2.8 at ISO 6400 rather than 1600 at f1.8, to provide the same DOF if needed. If a higher pixel count camera was used like a 45mp Z9, thus evening out the pixel count when cropped, pixel density would be much the same as the un-cropped 20mp M43 file and if done regularly the bigger sensors extra unused real estate would be wasted.
M43 gives you slightly over two stops more depth of field with the same effective focal length at the same focussing distance. So, a 15mm lens is still a 15mm lens, but it magnifies like a full frame 30mm.
The 45mm wide open, showing the benefits of story telling depth of field. Blurring the background out completely would look nice on one level, but then becomes a portrait of a single figure only with no context other than blur. You can always add more blur, but not reduce it. Notice also how the blurring is in layers.
This is ideal for landscapes.
Easily achieved at a relatively moderate aperture, hand held, no tripod, in fact little technical effort made. I cannot remember a time when I felt I actually needed more than F8 (about f18 in full frame) for front to back sharpness. The laws of lens refraction being what they are, there is actually a slight advantage to M43 here.
Shape.
Yep, the actual shape of the file. M43 is a good fit for print, with plenty of quality to go 3:2 or even wider if desired. Full frame 3:2 ratio on the other hand tends to need cropping more often than not. Of the 30 odd templates we use at the paper, only a handful of inserts actually accept the 35mm format natively (yesterday I did a “Behind The Lens” article with eleven shots from a Tokyo garden. Only a two needed any cropping on our templates. The reality is a single image or matched pair stretching from side to side are a better fit in 4:3 ratio.
Square is well served and wider is much the same, as the extra included height in 4:3 is as relevant as it is in 3:2. It is just included, not excluded. I especially like 4:3 in verticals, finding 3:2 too skinny.
Flash.
This is a mixed bag.
On one hand the depth of field advantage effectively makes flash units 2 stops more powerful, turning speed-lites into heavy duty models, then these into mono blocks. My YN560’s act like AD 200 Godox units.
On the flip side, wide aperture shooting in daylight using high speed sync can be more taxing on the units, generally needing wider apertures, then higher shutter speeds to achieve. I fix this with a ND filter.
*
There are a couple of patterns forming here.
More blur can be added, but not taken away, meaning deeper depth of field can be reduced in processing, but not increased and a squarer shape can be cropped, but a thinner one cannot be expanded. This means in a nutshell, more flexibility.
My take away.
M43 can offer a more flexible, forgiving and logical format for stills photography and empower you at much reduced cost. Do not discount it based on perceived short comings or prejudices until you have tried it and if you do try it, make sure you use it properly.
The key is in the lenses, but they do not have to be ridiculously big or expensive super optics. Part of the magic is the quality of the glass, even at the cheaper end. The 9, 15, 25, 45 and 75 are all top tier, can fit into a small bag and go anywhere (covering 18-150 equiv).
The 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 zooms are near perfection optically, similar in size and cost to f2.8 full frame zoom, cover more range and are hybrid stills/video specialists. My 300 f4 can match it with any equivalent super tele out there at a third the cost and size. The list goes on.
It is important when looking at the systems in comparison to full frame to think more like motor bikes compared to cars rather than small cars vs bigger ones.
When comparing to APSC crop sensor cameras, the same math applies, just in half increments.
*2x G9’s (10 bit 4:2:2, 4k/60), EM1x (C4K), OSMO Pocket (4K/60), most of which are in video configuration as we speak.