johnvanr wrote: Paul_100A wrote:
it's all really quite strange (I am saying this as a FF user who also uses m4/3).
so many FF zealots (who do not use m4/3, never have, and never will [in their own words]) claim that m4/3 users are completely deluded regarding everything that they like about using their m4/3 equipment.
FF zealots state that everything about the m4/3 system that m4/3 users like is scientifically proven to be nothing but a figment of m4/3 users' imaginations, namely great AF performance and great image quality.
FF zealots profess that m4/3 users' only purpose is to troll the internet with ridiculous/rubbish claims that m4/3 is now pretty good vs FF.
FF zealots state that m4/3 users are deluded into unjustly defending the m4/3 system with lies and rubbish claims.
...thing is...lately...there are numerous professional FF shooters that are using/testing m4/3 equipment, showing their work and explaining out everything that proves to them (professional FF shooters) that m4/3 is really good and some completely switching over to m4/3.
so...those plenty FF shooters are FF shooters making claims and detailing exactly how they arrived at their very positive opinions in favor of m4/3.
and what do we all see, yes, the FF zealots commenting at those posts stating how m4/3 never has and never will be as good as FF and m4/3 users need to stop with rubbish claims defending m4/3. seems the FF zealots are the ones doing all the defending (of FF against the coming of m4/3).
why? why are FF zealots so afraid of and upset with a dead camera system they will never use? wierd.
another FF user YT content creator (Wayne Robertson Photography) yesterday released a video explaining that he is switching completely over to m4/3 from FF. He explained that he bought m4/3 to complement his photography but after seeing the results from his own (not loaned) m4/3 gear he knew he could (and did) switch completely over to m4/3. I wonder how many FF zealots will be there telling all m4/3 users to stop defending m4/3 and that m4/3 is not as good as FF?
There’s the exception of Andy Rouse, though. He’s a pro UK wildlife photographer who loved his MFT setup, but was told by his agent that his clients were complaining about IQ, so he switched to Sony. Now, we do know that the need for cropping in wildlife can provide a challenge for the MFT sensors.
I followed Andy Rouse for a good long while.
I thought he explained the reason why he switched to FF was simply because his client(s) suddenly decided that they wanted higher resolution images. I thought he explained the reason he was upset about having to switch systems was because his client(s) had no complaints about the image quality from his current system.
Am I remembering it differently or incorrectly?
as far as me cropping with my m4/3 goes…no, i do not know that I have any more or less issues cropping files from my m4/3 equipment than anyone with FF format. I’ll say the reason being is I don’t have to crop files from a 2x crop body as much as FF has to crop files for the same result.
I crop plenty of my m4/3 files and I am very much satisfied with the results to post them online and/or print them.
the ‘FF can crop more than a 2X crop body rationale’ is silly to me. It’s not even an argument to me.
I realized that when I realized that I was shooting my FF wildlife set up in crop mode most of the time, and/or having to crop (even further in many cases) in post.
FF must crop in order to keep up with m4/3 is the way I see it because of my own experience shooting FF wildlife and m4/3 wildlife.
I’ll just add this.
A few years back, my Nikon friend (birding long before me) went full m4/3 (two OM-1s and a 150-400, plus other lenses) when he started birding with me and we were doing exactly what Imagemaster described…standing shoulder to shoulder shooting the same subject. He saw he simply couldn’t compete with m4/3 results. I wasn’t trying to compete. I was just taking pictures.
So…just a few days ago he says to me (again) that OM simply has to make a high resolution sensor camera.
I asked (again) why.
Marketing he says. They have to because other companies have high resolution sensor cameras so OM should too to stay in business.
I said no thanks to the idea of 53.3% smaller pixels on a more densely packed sensor. which means the cameras processor is simply going to be purposed to ‘Ai’ all the images to look better before even outputting from the camera…just like cellphones. No thanks.
BUT…my main point to him was that if m4/3 made a high resolution sensor then folks would simply rely/depend on cropping files (same as FF) and I suspect the image quality results would generally become poorer and poorer for m4/3.
-I’ll use my trusty 12-40mm lens to take a picture of that small bird 120 yards away and then crop it because I have so many pixels to throw away.-
johnvanr wrote: Paul_100A wrote:
it's all really quite strange (I am saying this as a FF user who also uses m4/3).
so many FF zealots (who do not use m4/3, never have, and never will [in their own words]) claim that m4/3 users are completely deluded regarding everything that they like about using their m4/3 equipment.
FF zealots state that everything about the m4/3 system that m4/3 users like is scientifically proven to be nothing but a figment of m4/3 users' imaginations, namely great AF performance and great image quality.
FF zealots profess that m4/3 users' only purpose is to troll the internet with ridiculous/rubbish claims that m4/3 is now pretty good vs FF.
FF zealots state that m4/3 users are deluded into unjustly defending the m4/3 system with lies and rubbish claims.
...thing is...lately...there are numerous professional FF shooters that are using/testing m4/3 equipment, showing their work and explaining out everything that proves to them (professional FF shooters) that m4/3 is really good and some completely switching over to m4/3.
so...those plenty FF shooters are FF shooters making claims and detailing exactly how they arrived at their very positive opinions in favor of m4/3.
and what do we all see, yes, the FF zealots commenting at those posts stating how m4/3 never has and never will be as good as FF and m4/3 users need to stop with rubbish claims defending m4/3. seems the FF zealots are the ones doing all the defending (of FF against the coming of m4/3).
why? why are FF zealots so afraid of and upset with a dead camera system they will never use? wierd.
another FF user YT content creator (Wayne Robertson Photography) yesterday released a video explaining that he is switching completely over to m4/3 from FF. He explained that he bought m4/3 to complement his photography but after seeing the results from his own (not loaned) m4/3 gear he knew he could (and did) switch completely over to m4/3. I wonder how many FF zealots will be there telling all m4/3 users to stop defending m4/3 and that m4/3 is not as good as FF?
There’s the exception of Andy Rouse, though. He’s a pro UK wildlife photographer who loved his MFT setup, but was told by his agent that his clients were complaining about IQ, so he switched to Sony. Now, we do know that the need for cropping in wildlife can provide a challenge for the MFT sensors.
I followed Andy Rouse for a good long while.
I thought he explained the reason why he switched to FF was simply because his client(s) suddenly decided that they wanted higher resolution images. I thought he explained the reason he was upset about having to switch systems was because his client(s) had no complaints about the image quality from his current system.
Am I remembering it differently or incorrectly?
as far as me cropping with my m4/3 goes…no, i do not know that I have any more or less issues cropping files from my m4/3 equipment than anyone with FF format. I’ll say the reason being is I don’t have to crop files from a 2x crop body as much as FF has to crop files for the same result.
I crop plenty of my m4/3 files and I am very much satisfied with the results to post them online and/or print them.
the ‘FF can crop more than a 2X crop body rationale’ is silly to me. It’s not even an argument to me.
I realized that when I realized that I was shooting my FF wildlife set up in crop mode most of the time, and/or having to crop (even further in many cases) in post.
FF must crop in order to keep up with m4/3 is the way I see it because of my own experience shooting FF wildlife and m4/3 wildlife.
I’ll just add this.
A few years back, my Nikon friend (birding long before me) went full m4/3 (two OM-1s and a 150-400, plus other lenses) when he started birding with me and we were doing exactly what Imagemaster described…standing shoulder to shoulder shooting the same subject. He saw he simply couldn’t compete with m4/3 results. I wasn’t trying to compete. I was just taking pictures.
So…just a few days ago he says to me (again) that OM simply has to make a high resolution sensor camera.
I asked (again) why.
Marketing he says. They have to because other companies have high resolution sensor cameras so OM should too to stay in business.
I said no thanks to the idea of 53.3% smaller pixels on a more densely packed sensor. which means the cameras processor is simply going to be purposed to ‘Ai’ all the images to look better before even outputting from the camera…just like cellphones. No thanks.
BUT…my main point to him was that if m4/3 made a high resolution sensor then folks would simply rely/depend on cropping files (same as FF) and the image quality results would become poorer and poorer for m4/3.
Sep 20, 2025 at 08:54 AM
Previous versions of Paul_100A's message #16893901 « Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers… »
