There is some confusion on this. An MTF does not double the focal length, what it does is a crop with respect to FF. So you can get the same thing with a 40mpx FF as you can with a 20mpx MTF. At the same megapixels, an MTF would be a good option, but if it is not the case, it is nonsense.
2 Likes
I was just about to post some numbers on the different sensor sizes. 
Bruno already said it, the smaller sensor just crops.
A 16mp µ43 sensor has the same angular resolution as 26mp APS-C or 61mp FX.
A 20mp µ43 sensor has the same angular resolution as 33mp APS-C or 77mp FX.
Yes, it spares you the cropping.
But it also adds a camera, extra batteries, chargers and so on.
Double the megapixels isn’t even double the resolution, only 1.414 times.
So unless you print very large, you’ll never know the difference.
2 Likes
Your question is really about which camera has the highest pixel density to maximize what you can get out of your lens. I plan to buy a Canon R7 because it has higher pixel density than most comparable cameras and this allows post shoot cropping while maintaining good pixel count. I have not done an extensive comparison, but for me I wanted a camera for travelling and I am a big fan of the APC size crop sensor. Also post shooting cropping of birds would help with composing moving subjects. BTW, I am not saying the Canon R7 is the best for you, but do compare it to what else you are looking at.
Thanks for posting the real numbers. I think it’s more or less what I concluded above.
Appreciate all your opinions on this. Most helpful were the mentions of specific bodies, as I have no experience with MFT bodies. I did take notes of Olympus bodies (em10ii, em5ii or even em1ii), which seem to have good reputation.
Next step for me will probably be an oly->ef adapter to test some lenses with my 80d. This won’t cost me a leg and provides opportunity to make a few tests. Then I can evaluate further…
Em5 II and EM1 II are isolated to inclement weather
Those Minolta MD lenses will mount on basically anything that is mirrorless. If it still has a mirror , maybe not (but it depends ).
Remember that there is no electronics . So no exif data, but also no auto focus. And you have to set the focus length of the lens manually in an IBIS system.
That all being said , even the OND em-10 mark1 can do all that :). But maybe there are better aps-c options ?
Remember , that the more you go down in sensor size, you get ‘free’ reach. But…
- You want to use smaller apertures because diffraction hits sooner. Specially on MFT a thing.
- Corners of the lens are not used, but you are ‘asking more’ of the center.
So for example, mounting vintage glass to a 16 megapixel MFT body, you dont really want to go over F5 or at most f6, because diffraction will kick in. But those older lenses often require a bit of stopping down to be at their best.
Also, that 16 megapixel MFT sensor had the pixel density of a 64 megapixel fullframe sensor. So you will only get good sharp pixelpeep images if the lens is good for 64 megapixel fullframe bodies in the center. Those older lenses often aren’t.
Together with the lack of autofocus they dont make the best birding lenses I reckon.
1 Like
Yes you are of course right. It would be just for occasional use and not only birds.
I’m using these lenses already. Exif data gets automatically inserted by a powershell script, when mounting the cam… works nicely. And setting the focal length doesn’t cost much time.
1 Like
Note that this assumes that the lens is very high quality. Otherwise, the extra pixels just don’t lead to any extra detail.
Lenses of course very a lot, and there are exceptions, but as a rule of thumb, zoom lenses cheaper than 500 EUR do not benefit much from more than a 16 Mpixel sensor, regardless of the sensor size.
Telephoto is a particularly expensive hobby. Yes, a well-prepared photographer can capture some great shots with consumer-level lenses, but those stunning telephoto images we are inundated with on a daily basis are usually made with equipment costing more than 5k.
@qmpel, it all depends on your use case and expectations. As other have said, the lens matters much, much more than the body for image quality. MFT has some great lenses, but the major benefit is that they are smaller and lighter than equivalent focal length lenses for APS-C and especially full frame. They are not less expensive for a particular combination of image quality and focal length.
I had a descent experience with a vivitar series 1 70-210mm 3.5 macro on a micro 4/3 (crop 2x) 12mpx.
Did not felt limited at all by the glass quality.
This same pixel density would translate in a 48mpx full frame if I’m not mistaken …
Got it for 70€ at the time.
macro example
Zoom example (@210mm*2)
Posting links to full rez image to a private server to abide by the resolution limit rule.
2 Likes
That’s right. I think I didn’t express myself to well. It’s more a thought experiment - and I’m trying to find opinions and recommendations (about MFT bodies).
I do have a couple of tele lenses, but nothing to long. And it would be nice to have a little more reach sometimes. It’s not that I would realistically go birding with these manual lenses. Maybe if they are right in the backyard …
So, it’s more or less just the idea, to make more out of my lenses. Make them more flexible, so to speak. Or you could see it as an alternative to buying a longer lens, which would probably be more expensive, than a used om10ii.
Hope, that explains my thought process a bit better.
That said, I will probably wait and see…
3 Likes
Nice shots 
Why not? Manual focus lenses are perfectly adequate for a lot of situations, if you are patient and don’t mind waiting a bit. You won’t be able to track a bird that is hopping around etc, but you can focus at a particular distance and just capture when the subject is there.
That said, both recent (past 6-7 years, approximately) Olympus and Panasonic bodies have nice MF helper facilities (edge enhancement, etc). With a bit of practice, MF can be fast enough.
My advice: make the most of the gear you currently have before investing in something fancier. If you have mid-range tele lenses, learn how you can hide in strategic spots so that birds will be closer. Most of them are not particularly smart critters and tend to forget your presence after a while if you are not visible and/or moving around.
4 Likes
A valid point. I guess I just see the 4/3 as an in camera crop compared to an APC with equal pixel density allowing post shoot cropping which can be handy with uncooperative subjects like birds. However, I do not know the pixel density of the 4/3 cameras. I personally really am a big fan of the compromise achieved by the APC sensor. In my experience the Olympus 4/3 camera suffer a lot of noise when ISO is raised. Maybe this has improved, but I am probably still seeing a lot of students with older Olympus cameras. Happy for Olympus owners to disagree and set me straight.
Depends how sensitive to noise you are.
I had a sony a65. A 24mp aps-c sensor. Back when they were the first to do 24mp aps-c. And it’s slt design robs soms light.
When I got my omd em10 mark1 (m4/3 at 16mp) I actually found the noise to be better than the aps-c camera :).
My current omd em1 mark3 20mp sensor had people saying ‘useless over iso 2000’. But maybe that’s for jpeg shooters , I happily use it at iso 5000/6400. Just as much as my Sony a7 mark2 (which wasn’t the best in noise as far as fullframe goes, but still no slouch).
I think it depends on how itchy you get for noise. ns how far software has processed.
Shot a lot of film between 2015 and 2020 so that also thought me to expect some grain:).
Whenever I’m doing a playraw with an image shot on the older dslr aps-c era Canons, I’m amazed at how noisy these are even at base iso. But lots of people were very happy with them, so… Everyone his/her thing :).
As far as the original topic , and ‘somethinf to toy around for more reach’, I think getting a TC of that era is a cheaper way to play with it , and easier than using another body.
No, quality is not super, but some are not bad . And otherwise you are going back in quality from using a MFT body which ‘asks more’ of that old lens then it can give. So both being somewhat equal , a TC is smaller and easier to bring along and use on the body you already know. Just my 2cts.
About MFT bodies. The whole Olympus 16mp era has the exact same quality. Also the reason why I never saw a reason to upgrade my omd em10 mark1. And those should go for little money these days.
The 16mp Olympus pen cameras are ‘more point and clicky oriented’ versions from the omd em10. They feel more plasticy and lighter and lack a viewfinder often, but have the same sensor and mount and are cheaper. I dont know if they have IBIS though.
And I don’t know much about the Panasonic 12mp era . But het any 16mp MFT body with IBIS, And I’m sure they perform extreme similar 
.
Ps: as a modern alternative to 'play with some reach ': get any Olympus omd body you can get for a nice price , with their 75-300mm or the Panasonic counterpart. It isn’t a fast aperture lens and does reach limits at 300mm, but it’s a cheap but modern lens giving you an effective 150 to 600mm while not being much larger than a can of coke.
I call it my ‘soccer and zoo’ lens, as it does give you reach but is clearly consumer oriented.
3 Likes
I possess an em10 mk ii and an em5 mk iii. I am using the system since quite a few years. Overall I am satisfied and I do not regret my choice but mft does have drawbacks. The em 5 mk iii has 4 megapixels more than the em 10 mk i, and my experience is that 20 megapixels need a significantly better lens than 16. In fact, the whole systems needs optically very good lenses. Some Old lenses might be suitable for mft but in general they are not.
The other issue with mft is shutter shock. The em 10 mk i does not have the electronic/hibrid shutter for compensating shutter shock and that is a big drawback. The camera and the lens are often so lightweight that they produce shutter shock.
I think I would not go below an em5 mk iii. The difference is significant. Weather sealing is also very important… but you also need weather sealed lenses.
2 Likes
This I agree with in the context of currently available pro lenses (for any mount), but it is important to remember that “consumer” lenses of today are comparable to reasonable expensive mid-tier telephoto zooms from the 1970s, which have to be stopped down significantly to get an image we consider sharp these days.
Yet these vintage lenses were used to take some great telephoto shots in their days. Not super-sharp, but nevertheless interesting, because they capture a nice moment or are composed well.
Wildlife photography is not only about getting the best equipment and then pressing the shutter. Animal photographers invest a lot into learning about the habits of critters they are interested in, a reasonable level of camouflage, and simply waiting for the right moment. These areas of development are available to enthusiasts without buying a lot of fancy equipment, and can lead to great photos.
Bird photography can be especially misleading because birds are beautiful creatures, with interesting plumage. But a lot of bird photos taken with top-notch equipment turn out to be unimaginative: bird is sharp and in focus, background isn’t, end of story, something people have seen a gazillion times.
3 Likes
So, in the meantime I aquired a used Mamiya 300mm F5.6 for about 80 bucks and did a few test shots from my APS-C and from the Sony FF…
No serious comparison, but for your interest:
this is about 30m away, shot with a tripod, SS 1/100 and ISO 100 on both cams
Below are the scaled versions for comparison. Both shots have only gotten a input profile and the same tone curve, otherwise unedited.
And a comparison from yesterday evening:
Oh and btw… fokussing from the Sony is easily doable handheld. Fokussing with the APS-C with the mirror is a bitch: no IBIS, no zoom in the viewfinder and dark display, no focus peaking aaand shaky as hell.
1 Like
