choose a lens for crop

At the camera Olympus E-PL10 some online reviews. The camera is at the beginning of the Olympus line and is positioned as an upgrade after a smartphone, as well as a blogging camera. Although for blogging, a device without a microphone input is hardly suitable.

I am very grateful to the Ukrainian store profotosale.com.ua for the opportunity to test the camera on the system micra 4/3. Now such cameras are quite difficult to find in photo stores. There is no representative office of this brand in Ukraine for a long time, and this system itself has long lost its relevance.

In this article, I will compare a camera with a miniature sensor 17.3mm by 13.0mm versus an APS-C crop camera with a sensor 25.1mm by 16.7mm.

At first glance, the difference between crop and micro is small. But in fact, it is very tangible. In my tests inYou will see why size does matter.

Camera weight

The main thing that cameras on the micro 4/3 system have always boasted about is compactness and size. Let's compare with analogues with crop matrices.

If we take the initial models of approximately the same price category, then in terms of weight we will have the following:

If we compare different models of crop mirrorless, we see that a camera with an even smaller sensor does not have advantages in reduced weight. Often crop cameras are even lighter. As for the dimensions, these are all very compact devices.

In my tests, I will compare with Fujifilm X-S10which weighs 465g. But this is a more advanced and expensive model (I have it in stock, there are no others). Although the quality of photography differs little from the Fujifilm X-T20 from the table above. Matrix comparison X-T20 vs X-T3 (same as X-S10) I had  this video.

For the sake of curiosity, let's compare the weight of the top models on crop and mic 4/3.

Format cameras brick on mic the Panasonic GH5/GH6 models distinguished themselves, which are already similar in weight to top-end full-frame mirrorless cameras. Olympus, although lighter than Panasonic, in fact has no advantage over crops with large sensors.

Weight of standard optics

But carcass weight is not everything. Let's compare how much WHITE lenses for crop mirrorless and mirrorless lenses with a mic 4/3 sensor weigh.

The simplest kit lens differs in weight by 26 grams, this can be neglected. But if you take the best aperture zooms, then the difference of 273 grams will be more noticeable. If we compare the Olympus 12-40mm F2. 8 Pro and Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4, the crop lens will be even slightly lighter.

About equivalence

And here we come to a very important point - what to compare with. The thing is, f2.8 on a mic is NOT equivalent to what you would see when shooting at f2.8 on a crop. Yes, the exposure setting will be the same. The f2.8 aperture lets in the same amount of light - regardless of the size of the matrix. But the depth of field and volume in the frame will differ significantly.

In many comparisons on the Internet, they like to compare even f2.8 on a mic and f2.8 on a full frame in terms of weight, price and dimensions. And the fact that these lenses give a fundamentally different picture, they prefer to remain silent about this. For clarity, I will show several photos taken at the same aperture, but with different focal lengths and different matrices.

If you want to get a field of view like 300mm full frame, then on a crop you will use a lens with a focal length of 200mm, and on a mic 4/3 it will be 150mm. At the same time, the same f5.6 aperture will give a very different image.

If you look closely, you can see the difference not only in the degree of blur, but also in the perspective of the frame.

What is also noticeable is the difference in contrast. Photos on the Olympus E-PL10 are always more contrasting, and in difficult areas they have overexposure. More on that later.

Tele lens weight

Let's go into the territory of heavy optics. It is telephoto lenses that traditionally differ in maximum dimensions and weight.

I had a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4.5-5.6 STM reflex lens available for testing. But in the table for comparison, I have given other models with a similar field of view. The 40-150mm F4-5.6 lens on mic 4/3 outperforms the 50-230mm or 55-200mm crop counterparts in terms of compactness and weight. In fact, these are all very miniature and weightless lenses. But if we want to get a similar depth of field on a 4/3 mic, then we will need to take the Olympus 50-200mm f / 2.8-3.5, which will be noticeably heavier than the cropped Fujinon XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 with a smaller aperture.

When advertising micro 4/3, everyone likes to mention super telezooms, like the Olympus M.Zuiko 100-400mm f / 5.0-6.3 IS 1,120gr. For crop, the closest analogue of Fujinon 100-400mm f / 4.5-5.6 with weight 1,436gr. A 4/3 mic lens will give you more zoom and weigh 300g less. But I must say that both lenses are rather big and not easy. Focal lengths with a full frame equivalent in the region of 600-800mm are very specific in terms of usage.

By the way, if you really want super-compactness, then there is already a full frame Canon RF 600mm f/11 (930gr) and Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM (1260gr) paired with a lightweight full-frame mirrorless camera Canon RP the weight of the set will not exceed the analogue on the mic 4/3. We again come to a situation where the micro 4/3 does not have a weight advantage.

On average, 4/3 micro lenses are somewhat smaller and lighter than crop-like lenses. But this is not the difference you will feel. SLR optics for a full frame differ significantly in size.

Lenses for mirrorless crop and micro are comparable in terms of compactness and weight. The difference between these systems is much more noticeable in image quality.

Dynamic range

Cameras with mic 4/3 sensors have problems with dynamic range. Moreover, they are noticeably inferior not only to full-frame, but to crop cameras similar in size. Problems are noticeable in both RAW and JPG.

Olympus tends to always overexpose a frame a little. I noticed the same feature for the Panasonics on the mic. In bright sunlight, this avoids dips in shadows, but in a more complex scene, dips appear in both shadows and highlights. It is worth noting that Fujifilm has one of the best in-camera processing of JPG files and these cameras give very good dynamic range in JPG among other crops.

This is how RAW files from two cameras look without processing:

You can see that Fujifilm has exposed the frame below to preserve information in the highlights. At the same time, the shadow areas look more failed than on Olympus.

Here are the results I got after processing the RAW files:

Of course, in RAW it is better than in JPG, but the mic is still noticeably behind the crop. If you zoom in, you can clearly see the difference:

In the photo on the left, the stroller completely disappeared into the failed shadows, the crop camera was able to pull out this information. And this is despite the fact that the Fujifilm source was exposed about a step lower, that is, the shadows in the source were even more failed. This indicates a significant difference in the potential for post-processing RAW files from crop and micro 4/3.

Detailing

The Olympus E-PL10 has a resolution of 16 megapixels, which is average for a 4/3 micro, and my Fujifilm X-S10 has 26 megapixels, which is also already standard for modern croppers.

Both cameras produce very sharp images. But the crop-sensor camera provides a perceptibly greater degree of detail when looking at details.

Another example of a photo in JPG side by side:

If you zoom in:

The difference in detail will be noticeable when you want to crop the image (often occurs when shooting birds or other distant objects), as well as when image printing. Moreover, here, in addition to the relatively small number of megapixels, there are obvious problems with the dynamic range.

Color rendition

Olympus has a nice color rendition. Colors are pure and saturated. But, if you are used to shooting on cameras with a large sensor, then photos on mic 4/3 will remind you of cartoons due to high saturation and contrast.

One of the problems with micros is the limited color gamut. These cameras do not reproduce the full color gamut that APS-C sensors are capable of, not to mention full frame.

Working ISOs

According to ISO, the difference, of course, is also in favor of the crop.

I will attach the source files at the end of the article.

About the Olympus E-PL10 in general

This is a very nice camera with a nice body and stylish design. The body is made of high quality, Olympus E-PL10 is pleasant to take in hand, unlike Sony camerasmade very cheaply.

The grip is uncomfortable, but with light lenses it is permissible. With Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 (weighing under 600 grams) the camera is not comfortable to use.

Autofocus in good light works properly, no complaints. In low light and on video, it is inferior to autofocus on a Fujifilm camera.

Video shooting capabilities are very limited - the camera is clearly not for bloggers.

I almost forgot, the Olympus E-PL10 has the vaunted matrix stabilization. In the process of sighting, this is noticeable - the picture seems to float slightly on the screen. But in practice, when shooting, I got blurry at shutter speeds of 1 / 60-1 / 100, which is unsatisfactory for any stabilization system. The declared degree of stabilization is 3.5 exposure steps.

Total

The time for such devices has passed. the niche of devices for undemanding amateur photographers was occupied smartphones. I micra 4/3 there is a quality advantage over phone cameras, but this system is too inferior to modern crop cameras, and even more so to full-frame cameras, to continue to remain on the market.

As the comparison showed, the micro has no tangible size advantage over crop cameras. Often they are identical in weight. But the obvious loss in image quality is obvious.

Test files on Google Drive:

• ISO tests
• dynamic range

As for the dynamic range, I want to clarify, Fujifilm has it maximum at ISO 640. Read more about this here.

• Recommended review on Voiglander 42.5mm f0.95

PS And once again I want to remind you that Fujifilm cameras of the X-Trans III / IV generations do not fundamentally differ from each other in terms of the quality of photography. However, as well as various models on the mic 4/3. The idea that a more expensive camera from the same line is completely different and shoots better is a strong delusion. But there is a difference between the sizes of the matrices.