Why four thirds?

[Nick Cliff]

Rick and MM are correct about not obsessing about your gear we just need to get out and enjoy the world around us.
I have seen photos taken by a young Italian lady with a Canon S95 that are very humbling of birds that I am left wondering about the gear obsession many of us have.
Her superb composition and processing skills can create photos that can compete with guys with $5,000 setups at the very minimum who really struggle to match this artistry and skill set.
I sometimes wonder how many potentially great photos are ruined for the want of a good tripod and ball head with the heavier professional camera systems.
If you can concentrate on your composition skill set and master your cameras settings you can and will produce beautiful photos.
Go to art galleries and look at the work of the great impressionist and landscape artists who often do not give a flying fig about sharpness and are more concerned with composition and color palette.
There is an American photographer with a little point and shoot camera in North Dakota (I often see his photos on display on Flickr) that sells photos.
Having spent almost a year working in North Dakota on the prairie lands I would not call this an easy spot to take great landscape photos yet this guy does it all the time and I am left with great admiration for his artistic eye and skill set.
Most of us if we visit the USA would go to Oxbow bend to photograph the Grand Tetons for example, I am not sure this guy can afford to do this.
I would not be too concerned about the 4/3-2/3 crop bit, it is a very capable system and should deliver you wonderful photos consistently.

cheers Nick

[arthurking83]

Rick and MM are correct about not obsessing about your gear ....

My personal opinion of gear obsessiveness is that it's good for the community as a whole.

If we didn't have 'gear obsessives', we wouldn't have the geeks that hack lenses, hack camera firmwares, hack camera sensors .. etc. etc.

So to say ... "don't obsess about gear", I think, is to understate the value of what some gear can do for you.
Not obsessing over gear wouldn't have given us IR sensor capture, Canon's Magic Lantern firmware hack,(Nikon also have firmware hacks, but much limited(and harder)), obscure lens combinations.

My belief is that obsessing over gear can only be a good thing! It improves the breed!
And for the most part, we all obsess over gear in one way or another anyhow! Whether an individual prefer to admit it or not is entirely up to them.

BUT!(think of it this way!)
Have you made more than one camera gear purchase? If not, then you truly haven't obsessed over any gear .. ever.
You may have purchased your first camera at some point in your photographic endeavours, and never thought to buy anything else .. ever again. You may still be shooting with the old P&S from 1999 maybe.

But if you bought a camera system, and then either updated that camera system with additional gear, like flashes, lenses, tripods .. etc, etc .. or even changed formats from whatever to whatever else .. then you have in a way obsessed about gear.

Your last system was probably too large. Or maybe too small, maybes it wasn't giving you good high ISO results, or dynamic range. Quite possibly your first lenses weren't giving you the shallow DOF you craved, or the wide FOV you really wanted!
Any of those excuses used for justification on the acquisition of additional 'gear' ... makes for a 'gear obsessive'!


@ John!! No point trying to convince me otherwise of the points I was trying to make in my previous post.

So for the sake of 101% clarity, I'll say this again: I don't have any issue with your choice of gear. That you found your nirvana is great to read about.

My point was simple. The 12-100 f/4 lens appears to be a great 12-100 f/4 lens.
I have the issue that it's NOT a 24-200 f/4(eq) lens tho when the ignorant claim it to have "such and such" equivalence. I'm not a big fan of selective equivalence. The equivalence factor of that lens to the 135 format is as a 24-200mm f/8 .. pure and simple.

In fact, the entire notion of 'equivalence' is stupid IMO!
It should never have started in the first place. But now that it seems to be so pervasive in the photography gear arena, it would be better practise for it to be used in it's entirety, and not selectively. Otherwise, just don't use it(which would be the best path forward).

[Nick Cliff]

Arthur I agree you do want to research your camera systems capabilities before you purchase a new camera system and then enjoy taking photos

[MissionMan]

My personal opinion of gear obsessiveness is that it's good for the community as a whole.

I disagree. I've seen gear wars erupt more regularly than political wars. Gear obsession is good when it doesn't result in degrading other users selections or an obsession to the point that having the gear is more important than what you can do with the gear.

In the past I've seen numerous Nikon and Canon fans degrade other choices as if their choice in gear entitles them to be part of a special club of "I am better than you", when in all honesty, their photos are crap and nothing special. Sometimes it's brand wars, sometimes it's full frame vs APSC, but the one question I always love to ask them is "Show me a photo YOU TOOK that couldn't have been taken with X" and 99.9% of the time you hear crickets or they produce some second rate photo. Why? Because the really good photographers who can produce those photos don't need to sit on forums whining about how good their gear is, they are out actually taking photos.

More recently, it's the Sony users that have joined a special clan of what I refer to as "born again Sony users", people who feel the need to switch and then annoy everyone else into switching on forums the basis that if they don't convert their colleagues, they'll find themselves heading to photography hell like some modern day photography equivalents of religious fanatics. Obscure functionality like eye detect that photographers have lived with for years suddenly becomes the differentiator in their photography because they couldn't be bothered to learn how to use their previous AF system on a pro body.

[arthurking83]

.... Gear obsession is good when it doesn't result in degrading other users selections or an obsession to the point that having the gear is more important than what you can do with the gear.

....

There are argumentative, disruptive, ignorant zealots in every walk of life. You learn to ignore those types rather quickly.

For me, on a personal level, the talk about gear is more so about accuracy of discrepancies(as I noted earlier).

Agree with your comment re producing a shot with Brand Y vs Brand X, or Format A vs Format B or whatever. Some folks are fanatically pedantic and just want what they want.

But, with that point in mind and trying to maintaining some balance, there are just some things you can't do with some gear that you can with others.
Hence why most of use here, that is the type of photographer that is attracted to specialised discussion sites, whether that's AP, or DPR, or brand X specific sites ... we are, to varying levels, all obsessed with gear.
The fact that we are here, asking questions(and trying to produce coherent answers) as to what/why/how .... in itself, is proof that gear and how it relates to one's output matters.

This obsession doesn't need to be of a high order, that it only describes an obsessive compulsive.
To me the use of the term obsession can be regarded as a mild curiosity, that compelled the person to do something about it.

as an example: Person A becomes curious on close up or macro imagery, having seen some interesting output. At first they're just curious, and do the normal thing of focusing closely and then cropping heavily to produce OK results.
Then the obsession overwhelms them and so Person A takes the next step above 'focus close and crop' .. they go out and purchase a macro lens.
This basically defines the start of an obsession .. that they took the curiosity to the next level.
At the extreme end of the scale you will find the overly obsessives, and obsessive compulsives and finally the argumentative zealots!

.....the really good photographers who can produce those photos don't need to sit on forums whining about how good their gear is, they are out actually taking photos.

an interesting aside: .. I do find that many of the photographers that can produce the images to highlight differences in gear types, do take the time to enlighten those of us that don't know but are afflicted by the obsession.

[John King]

@ John!! No point trying to convince me otherwise of the points I was trying to make in my previous post.

So for the sake of 101% clarity, I'll say this again: I don't have any issue with your choice of gear. That you found your nirvana is great to read about.

@arthurking83, I haven't found "Nirvana", in photography or elsewhere! I'm actually an Atheist ... My (digital) cameras of choice suit me, and what I photograph. They do not have to suit anyone else. Nor do I consider them "perfect", whatever that might mean ... merely suitable for my wants/needs.

My point was simple. The 12-100 f/4 lens appears to be a great 12-100 f/4 lens.
I have the issue that it's NOT a 24-200 f/4(eq) lens tho when the ignorant claim it to have "such and such" equivalence. I'm not a big fan of selective equivalence. The equivalence factor of that lens to the 135 format is as a 24-200mm f/8 .. pure and simple.

The 12-100 f/4 has an angle of view that is (approximately) equal to a 24-200 lens on a 135 format camera (I flatly refuse to call this "full frame", because this term is meaningless in the context it is usually used, and very often forms the basis of a subtle put down to those who choose to use other formats ... ). However, except for its apparent DoF, it is and remains an f/4 lens for all other purposes (e.g. light gathering, exposure calculations). Apparent DoF may be an aesthetic parameter in a photograph, but plays no part whatsoever as an exposure parameter (see further below).

Having fought in the DPR "equivalence wars" for over 10 years, I'm pretty well versed in the convolutions of that "theory". As I said before, I have no desire to revisit those things here! However, a few points should be made.

1) Leaving aside the obvious things, a photograph is an amalgam of two completely different sets of parameters - aesthetic and exposure. DoF is an aesthetic parameter. Exposure consists of the aggregate of the settings and features of the camera that are used to acquire the 'correct' exposure ("correct" = the exposure that the photographer desires to achieve). One of these is the angle of view of the lens. For convenience, most of us abbreviate this to an effective FL expressed in 135 format terms (when talking about these things), even though this is incorrect. There also needs to be an adjustment for aspect ratio as well as sensor size. This is only rarely even attempted. Other factors that contribute to the exposure set used are the relative aperture and shutter speed, as well as contemplating how our particular camera responds to its ISO setting.

2) While the FL of any given lens never changes (or range for a zoom), its angle of view changes markedly depending on the aspect ratio and size of the sensor it is in front of. Its absolute and relative aperture does not change, but the apparent depth of field (distance of apparent focus) does change.

3) Also, if a "correct exposure" is ISO 200, f/5.6 @ 1/100th for my Rolleiflex 2.8f 6x6 camera, this will also be the correct exposure for my 135 format cameras, a 4x5" camera, my FTs/mFTs cameras, or my 8mm Minox. Exposure does not change with format. If it were otherwise, light meters would be useless ...

4) There is no such thing as "equivalent aperture", except for apparent DoF, and this is a function of the AoV of the lens, not its aperture. By definition, all lenses will deliver the same light intensity per unit area at the same f-stop (I will leave the arcane discussion about t-stops and f-stops out of this, other than to mention that I am aware of the difference ... ). My f/1.4 (etc) OM 135 format lenses do not magically become some other f-stop when put in front of my FTs/mFTs sensors. They remain exactly the same (except for apparent DoF ... For those not aware of this fine distinction, a lens does not actually have any DoF. All lenses focus at one distance and one distance only when focused. The apparent DoF arises because our eye/brain system cannot perceive accurately when something is in precise focus, so accepts things that are relatively close to being in focus as being in focus).

5) As I previously demonstrated with the shot of the prunus blossom, achieving sufficient apparent DoF in any given situation is much more often a problem than the converse.

6) There is a Nikon USA directive regarding using their high MPx count sensor cameras at apertures smaller than f/8 due to the encroachment of very visible diffraction effects by f/11 and smaller. I have a link to this bulletin somewhere. From my own experience, different lenses exhibit the same level of diffraction at differing apertures, even within the same sensor size cameras. My 14-54 MkII starts to exhibit noticeable diffraction at around f/7.1, but whether this diffraction is noticeable is also highly dependent on the subject. My 12-100 is good to f/11, but starts to soften noticeably by f/16.

In fact, the entire notion of 'equivalence' is stupid IMO!
It should never have started in the first place. But now that it seems to be so pervasive in the photography gear arena, it would be better practise for it to be used in it's entirety, and not selectively. Otherwise, just don't use it(which would be the best path forward).

Totally agree. It is used mainly as a tool for denigrating both smaller and larger formats than 135 format ...

As I mentioned initially, I have no desire whatsoever to repeat what has already been flogged to death and beyond on DPR. The whole subject of "equivalence" is plain nonsense IMHO.

I apologise in advance for any errors or omissions here. I have very serious health issues ATM, and these are also causing minor cognitive deficits.

[arthurking83]

....

4) There is no such thing as "equivalent aperture", except for apparent DoF, and this is a function of the AoV of the lens, not its aperture. By definition, all lenses will deliver the same light intensity per unit area at the same f-stop (I will leave the arcane discussion about t-stops and f-stops out of this, other than to mention that I am aware of the difference ... ). My f/1.4 (etc) OM 135 format lenses do not magically become some other f-stop when put in front of my FTs/mFTs sensors. They remain exactly the same (except for apparent DoF ... For those not aware of this fine distinction, a lens does not actually have any DoF. All lenses focus at one distance and one distance only when focused. The apparent DoF arises because our eye/brain system cannot perceive accurately when something is in precise focus, so accepts things that are relatively close to being in focus as being in focus).

....

I have to be honest, I'm not fully understanding what you're trying to convey in your reply, but it came across to me that the implication is that the aperture value is more important for exposure than it is for DoF .. or something to that effect.

I'm not bothered whether equivalent aperture is a 'thing' or not, but it's a real concept for various reasons:
(in fact I do know that aperture equivalence is actually a thing, as it's commented upon many times by many sources in many discussion sites).

Anyhow, once again, you mentioned that the 12-100mm gives a FoV equal too a 24-200 on the 135 format.
ps. what you choose to call the format is also irrelevant, I prefer to maintain consistency based on what is the current practise .. minimises confusion! Many people new to photography, having not come from film era simply don't know what the 135 format is. So I'll continue on with FF

OK, so again we're back to the same point that the 12-100 is like a 24-200 in FF. Why is this important to anyone? I don't understand why it needs to be stated, remembered or even cared about?

Your suggestion that the apparent DoF is somehow reliant of FoV is completely inaccurate!
eg. I have two 10mm lenses, one gives a 100° FoV, the other gives a 180° FoV. Are you seriously suggesting that the rectilinear lens has more or less DoF than the fisheye lens of the same focal length?

Stated before, DoF is reliant on two things
1/. magnification(at it's core) which is Focal Length and Focus Distance combined,
2/. aperture.
If you can achieve differing DoF simply by varying FoV, then either your gear is somehow magical, or defective!

But again .. I simply see no reason for equivalence of any kind, be that focal length equivalence or FoV equivalence with respect to the common formats in use, and under discussion here. (ie. 4/3, APS-C or FF)
Why does that FoV compared to the 135 format matter?

Also!
Back in the day aperture was probably equally used for both exposure and DoF purposes, even up until recently in the digital imaging realm.,
But as of recently, the aperture value discussion has gravitated more so towards the DoF aspect of imaging, and further away form an exposure standpoint.

That is, the newer cameras ability to shoot at higher ISOs has seemingly changed the playing field a bit when discussions arise in the form of aperture values.
I've noted this on many photography related discussion sites, where aperture for the purpose of exposure is less important to many, but more important in terms of pictorial results(ie. DoF!)
You read this all too often from 'newbies' who had bought into a system, with a kit lens(eg. 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6) .. invariably the recommendations turn to the nifty fifty type 50mm f/1.8 type lenses.
The curious person never once mentions exposure issues .. quite happy to shoot at ISO 1million. But their curiosity is how to blur out the background more .. etc, etc ad infinitum.

pps. Don't take my reply as to belittle the effect of aperture on exposure. Not saying it's not important in any way shape or form!
I'm trying to clarify the point, that:

The 12-100/4 on 4/3rds giving a FoV equal to approximately 24-200/8 on the FF sensor camera. Never mentioned exposure and how it varies or not, as in the era it's seems to be pretty much a secondary aspect due to current tech.
So in a pictorial sense, the above is true.

ppps. Also .. I get this feeling that you're taking my comments as disrespectful of the smaller formats ?
If this is the case, then I think I've either somehow mistyped something, or that you've taken an unsubstantiated defensive position to my comments?? .. once again ...
In no way do my comment above denigrate any format in any way, if they seem to have, then it's just that .. an incorrect perspective by the reader. Never have I said that the the aperture equivalence is a bad thing.

In fact I can see very positive aspects to it, for example in the field of birding.
It's common for the larger format users to shoot a 500mm or more lens with an aperture value of about F/4, but capture their images at f/8 for the purpose of more DoF. In a manner of speaking .. pretty much a waste.
All that weight and bulk, to achieve what a smaller format setup could do .. eg. 300/4 with becomes this equivalent 600/8(in pictorial sense) whilst maintaining f/4 exposure values.