Further Thoughts On Formats
Basketball yesterday and as I have been doing lately, I am trying to directly compare full frame and M43 as I use them.
EM1x, ISO 3200 (careful to not underexpose), with no fears of sub-par quality. This gym needs ISO 3200 for 1/750th at f2.8, set manually as the background changes from bright to deep shadow.
Plenty of speed for action grabbing, plenty of quality for tight crops or decent print sizes.
I have enough reach for tight shots from the gantry.
Wide is also effortless to use, this series were all shot with the 12-40 at 12mm/f2.8, ISO 1600, 1/500th and one handed. In M43 this is effectively the same as 24mm at f5.6-6.7, so zone focussing is fine. G9 mk1 this time a camera that has very good low light performance.
The main practical difference to full frame is in the rendering of backgrounds. Even at f2.8 and 100-150mm, the format is rendering the same depth as a 200-300 at f5.6.
It is true that 150 f2.8 is the same on both formats at the same focussing distance, but when the extra reach of M43 is employed (a benefit in every other way), those relative distances change and the sharp drop-off of a 150 f2.8 is expanded.
I am half a court away from the subject, she is the same again from the background, which is quite coherent. A 200-300 f2.8 full frame lens would offer the same lens speed, but the background would be much softer, also meaning of course that the focussing would have to be spot-on and would cut out a player even from one quite close.
So, what about full frame.
The 85mm f1.8 on the S5 felt good, but the S5 has a far less reactive shutter button than the EM1x or even the G9 mk1.
Focus was sure and there was little or no sign of pulsing, which shows how close that system came to getting it right.
There is a quality jump here and these next two images were shot at ISO 4000 and f1.8 which was excessive, but the point was to see the real difference of both elements.
The need for accuracy is obvious, with two people almost touching being on different focussing planes. Image is clean and the colours deeper, which is something I have noticed. If M43 is treated well, it is fine in most light. If you starve M43 of light at higher ISO settings, your colour palette drops off considerably, but I have only used EM1x and G9 Mk1 cameras thus far, the newer generation are still untried.
Delicate is my take away from these, almost glass-like, but also a much lower hit rate when tracking a single target in a mob. The 75mm f1.8 for M43 allows me more reach or the same dynamic if a lot closer. I must admit that I do like this look, it is “bigger” feeling, partly because of the depth, partly the colour (cooler), partly the shape (3:2 as opposed to 4:3) and partly the delicate nature of the image.
The 85mm is effectively my longest/fastest lens combination, but only if I am using the 75mm or even the 40-150 f2.8 at longer effective distance (2x magnification). If I use them at the same distance, gaining the doubling effect, but probably not needing it, they are much the same.
I am responding positively to the full frame shots, but I also have to be aware of other factors. The colours are different, especially when compared to stretched M43 files. The S5 is cooler, almost Canon like in its handling of warm-to-cool subjects and the S-prime lenses are very good.
Comparing M43 zooms to S-Primes in poor light is a little unfair, but when you do the math, it should be actually totally one sided, but it is apparently not (the M43 combo should be loosing 4-6 stops of performance).
Another thing is brand differences. I have found G9 Mk1 images more pleasing in this particular gym than Oly files and this was the case again today (the Oly files look a little warm and flat, the G9 files cooler and more delicate). The G9.1 is of course not much fun with long Oly lenses, but in hind-sight the 75 Oly on the G9.1 should have been tried also as a fairer comparison.
My take away from this and other recent experiments is there is little to be gained from the bigger format with longer lenses unless (1) the lens offers enough speed at the same reach to make the better ISO performance matter and (2) focussing/technique/subject/light allow for ways of reducing a potentially higher miss rate.
I still prefer my EM1x and 75 f1.8 to the S5 and 85 f1.8, but know I have that other option if shooting in a coal mine! The G9 Mk2 when I have RAW available may well bridge this gap.
My Full frame journey continues, at this point stopping stills at normal range and video.
Maybe the IRIX would have been fun?