Finding the Sweet Spot in Photography - Part 2

Terry A. McDonald, luxBorealis.com

So, what about those trade-offs?

Would you believe me if I said these were made with an iPhone? No, definitely not. How about a 1” sensor camera. Possibly. A few years ago, I wrote in LuLa about the perfect travel camera—the Sony RX10iii (now iv), with its excellent ƒ2.4-4 stabilized Zeiss 24-600mm equivalent lens. What about M43s? APS-C? Full frame?

When I shot 4×5, it was because I could not get a decent 16×20” print from 35mm. With recent advances in digital technology, I can now produce a 16×20 from my current system that is of higher  visual quality than a 16×20” made, at the time, from a 4×5 negative or transparency. And, I can make that raw file without a tripod from a camera and lens combination weighing less than a quarter of my 4×5 camera and lens.

The high image quality of these files gives pause for thought. I know you want to pixel-peep them, and you may have already started, but they are down-scaled JPEGs for online use, so you don’t get the genuine experience of seeing them ’live’.

But it’s pixel peeping that created the beast we live with and has become a national past-time for photo bloggers around the world. Yet, that’s not how we view photographs. Perhaps it’s time to turn the Holy Grail on its head. If it sounds provocative, it’s meant to be. You can take in one of two ways: either take a moment to think differently, even if it’s just a thought exercise at this stage, or you can remain trapped in the status quo.

Let’s face it, full-frame is the default, though costly option and marketed as the best choice for modern photographers. After all, bigger is better, isn’t it? Why drive a Ford when you can afford a Ferrari?

But perhaps we’re looking at it the wrong way around. If the files produced above are of high enough quality for prints and publication (which they are), then shouldn’t that be the ruler we measure systems against? After all, you don’t need a 20-foot ladder to climb a 10-foot wall. While the 20-foot ladder is bigger, it’s not necessarily better. While you may claim neighbourhood bragging rights for having the longest ladder, it’s overkill and it’s unwieldy.

I ran into this two winters ago when I missed some shots of snowy owls. For me, it was the last straw, after missing other bird shots over the previous year. I was using a 3.3kg (7¼ lbs) FF Nikon camera plus telephoto zoom and it was too unwieldy to acquire focus and shoot in time. My current system with 60% more telephoto reach is only 2kg and half the size.

Confession Time

You’ve probably figured it out by now, but I did not make these photos with my iPhone, nor with a full frame system. They’re from an OM System OM-1 with M.Zuiko lenses. My guess is you are now scrolling back up to those images, scrutinizing them for any tell-tale signs. I’ll admit, they are downsized to 1200px from the originals and shown as JPEGs online, so you don’t get the genuine experience of seeing them ’live’.

But let’s get back to real-world scenarios—when was the last time you made a fine print larger than, say, 13×17”? Typically, photos are never shown larger than 3840×2880 pixels which is an 11MB file, the same width as a 4K TV. In fact, it’s estimated that more than 90% of photos made are never seen beyond a computer screen. Another way of looking at it is this: how may MB have you paid for, but are throwing away each time you downsize a file?

I feel I might be hitting a nerve right now. During presentations, this is when the audience starts to shift uncomfortably in their seats and the defensive posturing begins, usually around the need for extra pixels for cropping. If that’s the case, then M43 is the sweet spot as the effective focal lengths are doubled. So my 100-400mm/5-6.3 zoom provides the equivalent field of view (efov) of a 200-800 full frame lens. My 12-100/4 PRO IS lens is like a 24-200. Tack sharp from one end to the other and corner to corner, it’s the perfect zoom for travel photography. And my landscape lens is an 8-25mm/4 PRO, or 16-50mm in FF terms, another ideal zoom range, unavailable for FF.

All this represents photography’s dirty secret that no one wants to admit to—unless they’ve actually worked with M43: small sensors are now technologically advanced to compete with full frame. The system is mature enough to have a range of high quality optics that don’t break the bank. In one sense, M43 represents a democratization of photography in that we can achieve high IQ without paying the full-frame premium. I could never afford the kind of FF telephoto lens that is producing the wildlife and bird photos I am now able to make. Nor would I want to carry it around.

Back to prints

Many pros claim to make 30×40” fine art prints. They’re big and they’re gorgeous. Can you do that directly from M43 raw file? No, not without up-scaling. But you can’t make them directly from a FF sensor either. Even a 60MP sensor has a maximum direct print size of 21×31”. Are there M43 users making 30×40” and selling them? You bet there are. The bottom line is this: If you make dozens of 20×30” fine art prints (not canvases, as they require less resolution) a year and sell them, then a FF maybe your best option.

But here’s what Pulitzer Prize-winning and National Geographic Photographer Jay Dickson said, ”I have prints hanging in our home, shot with an [M43] Olympus, that are 50” on the long side, and the quality is stunning.” (Link) That was said eight years ago—long before OM System upgraded the sensor for the OM-1 and OM-1 Mark II.

Professional wedding and portrait photographer Joseph Ellis agrees. He regularly makes, “absolutely stunning prints from M43 up to what the Europeans call A1 (about 23”x33”). (Link) In his side-by-side comparison of 30” prints from a 20MP M43 Olympus and 60MP Phase One IQ16030, there was ”no discernible difference at normal viewing distances”. As he described, differences didn’t really show up until they were ”sniffing the prints”.

In one sense, a paradigm shift from full-frame to M43 mirrors that of the shift from large and medium format to the ’compact’ and ’miniature’ 35mm cameras that began to appear over 100 years ago. While not the first 35mm, ”Oskar Barnack had designed the original 35mm Leica back the 1920’s with the design ethic of small, compact, unobtrusive and capable of extremely high quality” says Jay Dickman (Link). Dan O’Neill adds, ”While older photographers avoided Barnack’s invention, the younger crowd embraced it. Leica quickly became popular with the new generation of artists and photojournalists influenced by avant-garde styles like the Bauhaus movement”. (Link) Whether or not M43 gains the same kind following remains to be seen, but the shift in thought remains the same: smaller, lighter, yet professional in design, build and performance.

Micro 4/3 achieves a number of sweet spots each of which have suffered from a disturbing amount of disinformation on photography websites, eager to monetize by promoting the more popular SoNiCan full-frame and APS cameras.

Elevate Your Vision

Join our community of passionate photographers.

Access our extensive knowledge archive.

Master the art of landscape and beyond.

Your Email *

Select list(s) to subscribe to

Example: Yes, I would like to receive emails from Luminous Landscape. (You can unsubscribe anytime)

Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.

---

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The Luminous Landscape Inc. https://luminous-landscape.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the  SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact.

By subscribing I agree with Terms and Conditions

Do it later