Full frame is in my kit now and my kit feels better for it.
Feels better, but is it actually?
I have covered this before, differently. The reality of the full frame difference is becoming more clearly defined for me, the more I use the format.
The good?
There is a difference in how I perceive ISO, happily going into 6400+ territory with my “high quality” hat still donned.
But,
this has to be in conjunction with faster glass. Something odd happens in low light. I find that without fast glass, usually using the 20-60 kit lens, the settings seem less user friendly than my usual M43 cameras produce. At f1.8 with a Pana S-prime, I do get an advantage in clarity and clean imaging at very high ISO’s.
Without a like for like matching of glass, I see little real value, much preferring a M43 lens wide open to a slower full frame lens.
This brings up the differences in format.
M43 gives you a lens with matching full frame magnification that provides you with a little more than two stops more depth of field. The format allows a 75mm f1.8 (my old “Bokeh king”), to act like a 150mm f2.8 full frame lens in full frame terms.
The 85mm f1.8, my current Bokeh king is a powerful lens, but as I found previously with full frame, using it wide open is often too much for anything but artistic works or beauty portraits and the reach is pedestrian in comparison to a M43 equivalent (170mm).
The ability to pick out this leaf is great, but rarely of actual use to a working pro. An even faster or longer lens would be even more specialised. The M43 version (75mm 1.8) would offer some extra actual reach for the effort. Temperatures here at the moment are chilly (for us). Liawenee on the central plateau recorded the same temp (-13.5 c) as Casey Station our Antarctic base today. It rarely snows where I live, but it does get cold.
The same shot focussed on the (dirty) window. I missed several my mere breaths, but that is the fickleness of full frame.
Some context.
All lenses of the same focal length offer the same depth of field as each other on all formats, all else being equal*. Shorter lenses offer more depth of field at a given aperture because they change perspective to wider (more or longer/tighter (less). What changes with format is magnification. The smaller the format, the greater the magnification.
A 50mm f1.8 on full frame is a standard-semi portrait focal length with very shallow depth of field wide open at f1.8.
In medium format, this lens becomes a wide angle, with surprisingly shallow depth for a wide lens from a full frame shooters perspective. Often the quality advantage of larger film or a bigger sensor was lost to the need to stop down more.
On M43 it is a 100mm equivalent (x2) true portrait lens with the same depth of field characteristics, so less shallow depth, but every aperture is safely usable and the loss ISO benefit of the format above becomes a two stop gain.
Another with the 85mm wide open. Something I am not used to these days, is taking a half dozen only to find most are very slight misses, this one being the only one where the focus hit exactly what I wanted (most hit the right flowers, just forward or backward of what I wanted). Lovely Bokeh, but tighter processes are needed. The IRIX 150 macro is a case in frustration, nothing to do with the lens, just a reality of the physics. If I did this shot with the 45mm wide open, I could trust that the forward flowers would be sharp. I just know it would be, because I am acclimatised to the format and the Book would be perfectly nice, just a little more coherent.
Which is better?
The M43 lens to me has the right balance between magnification and depth of field control in the real world.
A full frame 100 f1.8 wide open would have about two stops less depth of field than the M43 equivalent, which for most uses is an extreme application of Bokeh, would make the lens relatively huge and expensive as well as harder to make.
Full frame users often fall back on f2.8 zooms, both for their versatility and the reality that f2.8 is usually enough and safe.
Wide open on the 85mm is my happy limit and it does look nice. Focussing becomes critical, reducing the number of keepers. Things tend to be in or out, no compromise. I can get the same effect from the M43 45mm f1.8, just by getting closer, which is easier with a tiny little lens, or with my 75mm from further back. All are valid processes.
Simply put, I often, usually even, shoot wide open with M43 zooms and primes with little fear of missing half my subject. This nets me two stops more light, which means faster shutter speeds or lower ISO settings and somehow, the math always seems friendlier until I get to genuinely cave-like conditions.
ISO limits in M43 are 1600 for “A” grade quality, also thought of as “no thought or action required” territory. The workable limit for professional quality work, with more or less effort** is 12,800 which I rarely need, but if I do, that and my clutch of f1.4 to 1.8 primes covers most situations. To be fair, I have rarely if ever had the noise or grain in an image questioned except by another photographer and even then, it is usually a win.
In M43, I can easily carry my f2.8 work horse zooms and a small set of 1.8 primes as well. It is no effort to pack two bodies and lenses covering full frame equivalents of 16-300 f2.8 and 18-150 f1.8 at the same time. Even a 600 f4 is a minor consideration. When I was with the paper, I was almost at the point I could confidently work with the 9, 15 f1.7’s and 45, 75 f1.8’s, for all my editorial work. The cropping power of a 20mp M43 camera off a sharp prime at a lower ISO (thanks to the lens speed/depth of field thing) was phenomenal, especially for web and news print. I had effectively 18-400mm f1.8 at hand. Below is a sample from my 300mm, a lens of equivalent quality.
In full frame, I have not needed to push past these same settings, but would if I used the kit zoom instead of a fast prime (would I?). All ISO settings I have used sit in the “A” grade range, higher than 12,800 is untaped so far, which proves the point to some extent.
Colour and dynamic range are deeper, white balance in particular. I find myself doing a little less work on images taken in crappy light. This may be generational, not format based as most of my M43 cameras are at least four years older and the G9II has not been put directly up against the S5II yet.
Negatives?
The bulk of four relatively modest Panasonic full frame lenses is significant, bag limiting actually, while the coverage is weak (20-85). I have no plans to add long telephoto lenses other than the IRIX 150 cine-macro, nor could I justify the cost as the benefits are few.
So it stands to reason given the above math, that focussing is harder to nail with full frame, even with the S5II being a strong performer. This is why the G9II is more reliable in moving video, simply because at the same magnification and aperture, it is using a wider lens with more native depth of field and the smaller stabiliser also adds stabilising power.
Current fashions of super shallow depth aside, practical depth is easily achieved near wide open with M43 making lenses like the excellent 10-25 f1.7 a very practical consideration, where a f2.8 zoom in full frame shares similar performance, cost and weight, they lose light gathering power.
M43 lens sharpness and speed is also easier to achieve as is close focus. My tiny little Leica 9mm f1.7 is relatively cheap, weather sealed, optically strong and focusses to a few centimetres. There is no full frame equivalent, just like my 75 (150) f1.8, the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7’s, tiny and sharp 45 f1.8 or 15 f1.7 and many others.
The image quality of M43 to full frame should only be measured in pixel density to real numerical values and practical ISO performance, which in most cases, is no different like for like. The pixel density of the EM1x is about the same as Z9, so a cropped Z9 file is basically the same, except that you paid for more and are using less***.
We passed the time of good enough or not cameras. All modern mirrorless or DSLR cameras have good enough image quality for most professional uses, so good, better and best are like the 8, 9 and 10 scales on a graph.
Ironically, the M43 camera can likely exceed maximum pixel count of a full frame with advanced sensor shift high res, so it goes both ways, just differently.
Super sharp down to eyelash level, a friend and dedicated full frame sport shooter was impressed by the sheer clarity of this and my other sport images, format not mentioned. There is no doubt in my mind that my keeper rate, something that allows me to shoot single frames these days, comes down to mirrorless camera reactivity and the M43 depth of field advantage. My friend uses a Canon 500 F4 DSLR lens (5D4’s) and finds the depth of field often too shallow, but her backgrounds are softer. She does suffer from back issues, which she refuses to confirm are kit based.
Lens design.
I cannot remember the last time a soft edge bothered me, even wide open, something that reared it’s head again with my full frame cinema glass and my otherwise excellent 20-60 kit lens. Even the S-primes are a little soft wide out, wide open (but the depth of field is so shallow it hardly matters).
*
So, when do I think to myself “oh good, I can now use the frame”?
When I am going into a very dark artificial light situation with no hope of flash being used and the distances are not too great. I will still use M43 for the bulk, but might add the S5II with the 50 or 85mm lens. This is as much down to lens choice as any other factor. My 9 and 75mm cannot be matched, but my 15/17, 25, 30 and 45 basically can, so I have a choice to make.
When I have the luxury of time, control and want less processing to do. I know my maximum available objective quality is in full frame, but this needs balancing with the ease of getting that quality. I am also aware that any extra quality is minor, usually irrelevant at the end of the chain. I am doing a portrait shoot this weekend and will take both formats for their relative benefits****.
When shooting cinematic video in low light, where the noise fixes are harder to apply and less effective and depth of field control is more of a creative imperative. I like f4 on full frame, f2.8 on APS-C, f2 on m43 for the same feel, so at depth matching apertures in this space, cleaner high ISO performance does matter. The original deal breaker of the S5 was dual ISO at the price.
I bought full frame for video and to be honest, this is my main use case, but even then, for moving video I will go to the G9II always, even the G9 Mk1 feels as confident as my full frames.
The G9II has fewer limits in video formats and crops than the S5II (or X), which is a specific comparison I know, but could hardly be more relevant in this case.
I sometimes regret adding the mess that is a little full frame to my kit as most issues could have been solved by lenses.
The S5, S5.II, 35, 50, 85 S-prime and 35, 50, 150 cine lens kit could as easily have been a GH5.II, later a G9.II, 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7’s and a set of Sirui Nightwalker (16, 24, 55) and/or anamorphic lenses (24, 35, 50). The cost would have been similar, but my M43 dynamic would have been intact, my choices cleaner and my bags and filters smaller.
I don’t regret it though as full frame adds a few (few) benefits, some depth and new ways of seeing and capturing the world.
*Same aperture, distance to subject, subject distance to background etc.
**This is using Capture 1, which has proven time and again to provide better sharpness to noise performance than Lightroom and ON1 No Noise fixes what it cannot.
***When the Nikon rep came to the paper last year trying to sell their new $25,000au 300mm f2.8 (and add a $9k Z9), her big push was to “crop those pixels for effectively a 2x teleconverter”. I could not help but think that would then basically equal my EM1x and 300mm, which I could buy six times over!
****EM1x with 40-150, 75 and 45 Old, Sigma 30, S5II with 35, 50 and 85. The 35 will give me shallow depth at a wide angle, the 85 maximum cut out, the 75 more reach, the EM1x is better for movement and the S5 can handle possible dappled or bland light better.