APSC vs MFT?

I do not think you will be able to pick a winner or rule out either APS-C or M4:3. The advantages and disadvantages have more to do with the system and the photographers need than actual performance differences. For some the APS-C is bigger and that is all that matters and it is bigger by 60% give or take. Will this make a pratical difference in the field, in most cases no, IMO and I am not an expert.

The WWL-1 et al were designed apparently for FF to Compact. It is not a true fisheye but nonetheless all reports indicate it to be a sharp lens even for the FF A7 with 28mm. it certainly appears very sharp with my system and plenty wide for most of my needs. I agree with Nauticam's assumption that the 130 degree FOV is a very good compromise.

What are trying to decide here, that M4:3 is better than APS-C or that M4:3 is relevant? I kind of lost the direction? I could have certainly been satisfied with M4:3 and the Oly cameras are very well built. And I would be proud to own one.

Hi,
as it was calculated for water,
side by side would be the best way to test it.
Can try that in Summer, when i can go by car to the sea ;-))
Have the 10 - 17mm Tokina on my Nikon D500, and the most time i used it between 14 - 17mm.
Depending on the picture. But no WWl-1 for testing...
And then its a question of the dome size and quality as well....
Regards,
Wolfgang

I do not think you will be able to pick a winner or rule out either APS-C or M4:3. The advantages and disadvantages have more to do with the system and the photographers need than actual performance differences. For some the APS-C is bigger and that is all that matters and it is bigger by 60% give or take. Will this make a pratical difference in the field, in most cases no, IMO and I am not an expert.

The WWL-1 et al were designed apparently for FF to Compact. It is not a true fisheye but nonetheless all reports indicate it to be a sharp lens even for the FF A7 with 28mm. it certainly appears very sharp with my system and plenty wide for most of my needs. I agree with Nauticam's assumption that the 130 degree FOV is a very good compromise.

What are trying to decide here, that M4:3 is better than APS-C or that M4:3 is relevant? I kind of lost the direction? I could have certainly been satisfied with M4:3 and the Oly cameras are very well built. And I would be proud to own one.

The question was is it worth spending $1000-1700 more for APSC DSLR considering camera and housing and why?

And the answer hasn’t yet arrived but seem like there are lots of assumptions not backed up by data in the choice

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi,
the price difference is not that big, and APSC is not only DSLR!
If i compare an Oly OMD1 mkII with my Sony A6300 or newer.
Take the same housing manufactor, and then the ports, maybe wetlens, cameras and lenses...
Dont think that there is a big difference.

But there is a weight difference, and thats the goal for me.
Same quality but not so heavy!

And if i compare the WWL-1 with my SEa & Sea ;-))
Maybe the same price but double the weight, and needs a port and lens....
Then there is no advantage of the m43 system left...
Regards,
Wolfgang

Hi,

the price difference is not that big, and APSC is not only DSLR!

If i compare an Oly OMD1 mkII with my Sony A6300 or newer.

Take the same housing manufactor, and then the ports, maybe wetlens, cameras and lenses...

Dont think that there is a big difference.

 

But there is a weight difference, and thats the goal for me.

Same quality but not so heavy!

 

And if i compare the WWL-1 with my SEa & Sea ;-))

Maybe the same price but double the weight, and needs a port and lens....

Then there is no advantage of the m43 system left...

Regards,

Wolfgang

Actually sony dont even have a native fisheye lens which is the primary optic for an underwater camera together with a macro lens and even there correct me of am wrong there are no great native choices

The A6xxx appeal to people is that they are small and cheap but are an incomplete system compromised by lack of optics

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a new APSC player, and that is the Nikon Z50 with basically the D500 sensor (with phase detect added) and which can take Nikon's excellent fisheye zoom on the FTZ adapter. and also the Nikon 40 and 60mm macros.  don't know how prices compare as I am not sure the housing is out yet but it should be very soon.  Should not be a whole lot bigger that M43.  But, I can't say how the AF compares.

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The question was is it worth spending $1000-1700 more for APSC DSLR considering camera and housing and why?

And the answer hasn’t yet arrived but seem like there are lots of assumptions not backed up by data in the choice

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree with you from my limited perspective, no, an APSC DSLR no longer makes sense, except of course where it does and for those who it does, who have a lens investment and who like the optical reflex mirror system, longer battery life, familiarity with operation. But with the likes of the Sony A7 FF mirrorless coming along, for similar price and size we can go there. 

But for mirrorless APS-C, the answer is yes. And the price differential is negative compared to some M4:3 systems. We will not settles this out here, the market will decide and M4:3 appears to be fading. I really hope not. But back to your question, there is a reason I have a NIB Tokina 10-17mm lens sitting in my closet with no matching camera, I looked at DSLR and just could not go there. But it will find a home on my Sony.

The real answer is to enjoy and learn with that you have. Professionals and serious amateurs with aspirations are going FF. And right now one of the most all around capable FF systems is the mirrorless Sony A7X. 

No comment on full frame different considerations
I would agree however that once you add the cost of a metabones adapter to a Sony A6XXX you are in the same league of OMD EM1 MKII and still much lower than a DSLR
DSLR is a dying segment and this is just a matter of time anyway but that’s another story for another thread!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I found a very interesting read which is for another purpose but confirms basically what I said

https://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#etendue

Practical example 

Full Frame at f/11 1/125 and ISO 400

APSC at f/8 1/125 ISO 200

MFT at f/6.3 1/125 ISO 100

Have the same SNR regardless of pixel size or anything else this is because this depends on the total amount of light which is only controlled by time physical aperture of the lens

So with constant time Full frame lens 15mm APSC 10mm MFT 8mm for fisheye

Ratios

FF 15/11=1.36

APSC 10/7.1=1.40

MFT = 8/5.6 1.42

Taking into account the ISO 400 160 100 that equalise compared to crop factor the result in terms of SNR will be identical and so will be DR

So the DR and Noise benefits of larger sensor only apply at the base ISO 

For full frame means you need to shoot lower than ISO 400

For APSC means you need to shoot lower than 160

Otherwise there is no benefit on MFT for smaller sensors this benefit increases for example if you consider a compact with 1" sensor then gap is 2.9 then the FF would be ISO 800 and APSC 320 MFT 200

Equivalent table compared to 1" if you can't shoot lower there is no benefot

1"        ISO 100

MFT    ISO 200

APSC ISO 320

FF ISO 800

Equivalent table to MFT if you can't shoot lower there is no benefit

MFT ISO 100

APSC ISO 160

FF ISO 400

Equivalent table for APSC if FF ISO equal or higher than 320 no benefit

APSC ISO 100

FF ISO 320

Those assume equivalent depth of field but that may not be good for domes so that needs to be calculated

It is also interesting to read that larger pixel do not mean either superior DR or SNR however they do have an impact on other parameters more to come