Leaderboard

Been banging around here reading topics for a few days. I own an Oly E-M5 II, 12-40 pro lens, 60 macro and a few others. I haven't had GAS in a long time as it has suited my purposes. Mostly product photos of my own stuff, some landscape photography, bug macros, etc. I have learned to live with the DR for landscapes and some of the other drawbacks of M43. I use pixel shift fairly frequently for product photos when I need the extra detail and I love the IBIS. Recently, with how marketing has gotten in my industry I have started to get in to video a bit more and am looking at a body upgrade or a system switch. I have an RX100 VI I have been using lately but as good as the video quality is, it can be irritating for what I need to mostly use it for (close up pans of relatively small objects on a slider or a gimbal, sometimes handheld, sometimes with a slypod and Aircross 2 in concert) and I would like more versatility (especially with focal length, having to stick the RX100 inches from the product at 24mm to get the closest focus is....problematic). The Olympus 1080 quality is kind of meh but I really enjoy it in use as I can just shoot some of the video handheld and it's fine with a little stabilization in post. I'm usually in a hurry! I'm looking at getting a Panasonic G9 or switching systems to a Nikon Z6. My girlfriend has a bunch of FF Nikon gear including some old MF lenses (Bokina (sharper at 1:1 than my Olympus 60mm for macro, 12mm, etc) so with an FTZ I could get by with just the 24-70 F4 initially. With Panasonic I would probably swap my Oly 12-40 for a Panasonic 12-35 2.8 for the improved AF, keep the 60mm macro + flashes and not really be out much money after selling the e-m5 II with accessories. I really prefer FF image quality but feel like I would be giving up a good deal for what I primarily do. (better IS, greater DOF at a given shutter speed and aperture, pixel shift, etc) What would you guys recommend for primarily product video of relatively small objects? The rest of my video needs could probably be met with a cell phone honestly and I will be keeping the RX100 in either case for slow motion/blogging stuff Should probably add that my girlfriend and I do some paid RE photography + other stuff from time to time. Photos for attention .

PLEASE point me to that test then, because I feel like whatever magic properties that should be inherent to sensor size should manifest in sóme way under a controlled test. So far you are just shooting down any test provided as not being rigorous enough (why on Earth would foreground unsharpness matter in any way when according to your last example provided the special properties of large format are abundantly clear in a shot that has just as much elements in front of the focus point, that is a nose, as in the examples provided by Yedlin), but if the differences were significant so as to be meaningful there should be a way to test for this relatively easily right? I

Well I just made my balance pre-order payment with CVP in the UK so it must be on it's way very shortly... Obviously I will do my own testing, but on the basis that the AF works best (for video) at a higher frame rate, APSC crop, longer rather than wider focal lengths and higher shutter speeds, that bodes well as that's how I shoot! I can always send it back if it's not up to par but I have a feeling, especially for my needs, it's going to be. Better be as I sold off everything I have in advance to raise the funds and it's my only big shift in kit in 9 years! I will find out soon enough...

Can you link to those posts? I'm still no clearer on what the differences in DOF rendering due to large/small format lenses actually looks like in an image.

@Beritar You beat me to it. You rascal.:) But not on the write up. Here is mine from my post in the A7siii thread two minutes ago. S5 is an image quality monster. The godzilla camera for your pocket: Lumix S5 is a real winner. When I tested the 8bit codecs of the S1, there was no mushyness whatsoever at high isos in extreme low (no) light situations. a few tiny Artefacts became visible in the shadows at no light. Interesting enough the super slim 75mbit h265 codec had grain in these situations, on the contrary it breaks apart on evenly and well lit plain surfaces. So I have been super impressed. Still don´t have the Vlog update, because I dont know if Panasonic will give it to us for free very soon. Would be a bit of wasted 200 USD then. S1, no mushyness in the shadows in no light situations, but grain. "No light" what a term for photography.:) S5 with Vlog has now been tested and it is performing the best compared to R5,6, A7siii, the latter one the worst. S5 is an image quality monster. Hard to believe they did it. Cinema quality in a 150mbit codec. Panasonic needs to promote it better. They can ask me being an ambassador. Here I come @andy lee 🙂 Check out Andrews friends from slashcam de and put it through the translator or check out the image. Amazing that S5 bad sis of a cam! I either sell my S1 and get one or wait for Pana to shell out a free VLog update:) Now check this image out and be amazed. The is a sophisticated raw debayering process called amazed by the way. Anyway, here you go: https://www.slashcam.de/images/texte/1974-300Prozent_Auge-300Prozent_Auge.jpg

Actually, that's not quite the point I was making. I don't know much about large format lenses. My point was that any observed differences might be due to the difference in aperture required to maintain equivalence between formats. But I'm certainly open to the idea that there are other factors that also contribute. Are there any conclusions you would draw on the pros and cons of large formats versus small in terms of the qualities of images afforded by the glass associated with each? For example, are large format lenses well suited to narrow DOF pics that maintain sharpness and small format lenses well suited to deep DOF without suffering as much from diffraction?

Interesting test about the R5/R6/A7SIII/S5 dynamic range ... https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Der-Dynamikumfang-von-Canon-EOS-R5---R6--Panasonic-S5-und-Sony-A7SIII-im-Vergleich--Erkenntnisse---Fazit.html#Fazit

In my opinion, here is what GoPro needs to make next year to truly stand out and offer a worthwhile upgrade: - GoPro X. Bigger sensor than the 9 and 4K120p along with 10 bits recording. - Gopro Max 2. Dual 8K30P sensor that gives a 4K image when you use it in Hero mode. It's like having a normal GoPro in every direction, no need to frame. And a mode that gives 2.7K60P when in hero mode (unlike FHD today). Same sensor size as today to make all that possible.

Agreed (except for the smaller format having more vignetting), and I think that you have hit upon a prominent general difference between larger and smaller formats. However, I think that there are other general differences between different sized formats. Of course, but, again, cropping into the image circle of a lens reduces the visible lines of resolution (which are related to focus/DOF). So, a lens and it's format are integrated in that sense. Regarding points in this thread about lenses having their own particular look, many of those arguments are attempts to dismiss the idea that lenses made for larger formats generally share characteristics that are lacking in lenses made for smaller formats (and vice versa). Again, it is obvious that optical characteristics are inherent to the lens, but the camera lens and its format cannot be divorced without affecting the look/sharpness. Yes, unless one crops too severely into the image circle of a lens. Agreed. Not exactly. Of course, different lenses of the same focal length made for the same format can have differing looks/sharpness. However, as you have noted, there are general characteristics inherent in lenses made for larger formats that are lacking in lenses designed for smaller formats (and vice versa).

Well said. PDAF or Laser+ToF autofocus can't be that expensive. Unless Sony is afraid the PDAF is going to destroy their market dominance, so it can not be acquired, regardless.

Well, I think that DOF as defined by circle of confusion etc can be matched because equivalence theory states that you can, if the lens for the smaller format is bright enough. However, I would expect to see a considerably softer image with lots of vignetting as you'd need a very fast lens to replicate the narrow DOF of this shot, and that's how lenses behave wide open. So although the DOF might be technically the same, the images will look different. But this is caused by the glass, not sensor size. And yes, the selection of lenses available for different formats is different. So your choice of format will have an impact on the look of the image. But I think a lot of people are making the point that those differences are derived from the glass and are not inherent to the sensor size. So theoretically, sensor size makes no difference to DOF. But in practice DOF is rendered qualitatively differently because the lenses are different / behave differently / must be set differently for different formats. If true, it's an interesting dichotomy. But it does suggest that any equivalence test is really just a comparison of two different lenses. In the same way that one of my 50mm lenses looks different from the other 50mm lenses I have for the same format. So would you agree that once you match focal length and aperture for the same shot on different formats, you're comparing lenses?

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-olympus-om-zuiko-50mm-f1-2/

You can't push an image around too much in post if you're stuck with 8bit.

Both my EM1X and EM1mkIII have been solid — and I shoot with them almost every day, all day both video and stills. Never even a hiccup. The problem might be specific to your camera. Can confirm. I checked the output of both my cameras with a PIX-E5 and they’re 8-bit from HDMI.

Typical journalist thinking, it’s always too quick/too late, too cheap/too expensive, too little/too much etc. with many contradictions. The truth is the gear options are at an all time high, and if all brands stop releasing products now, it would still be a photographer’s and filmmakers paradise forever. Only problem right now is that most of the best new mirrorless lenses are priced a bit high, but those are the lenses that are not used, revievew or recommended by EOSHD anyway.

I would say that this is very likely. It still sounds intriguing though 🙂 You misunderstood my proposed comparison though. The simulated crop on the 50 would simulate a notional sensor 1/4 the size of full frame. But I suspect that any differences observed would have more to do with the glass involved (and the necessary apertures) than the sensor size. Perhaps this is what accounts for your observation that the differences in rendering of DOF are greater when the disparity of sensor size is increased: to maintain equivalence, one lens is quite wide open and/or the other is quite stopped down.

S1H also have crop when shooting 4k60P.

When I use my two different FF 24mm lenses both made by Canon but one EF and the other FD (both quite old though), I can often see almost as big a difference as between my FD 24 1.4 L and my RX100 iv at 24mm equivalent (actually the EF 20-35 2.8 lens is a closer match usually maybe because it fully passes exif to the camera while the FD adapter is dumb). As with all of these, the small difference are down to many reasons mostly including the lens design but also the settings are usually not exact (IE one 24mm lens might be 24.5 while another might be 23.8mm). The numbers to get an exact match between an 8,8mm lens on the RX100 and the 24mm on FF I use are aprox and the crop factors used are aprox. This is why it would be almost impossible to get an exact match and I doubt even Lens Rentals and their optical bench could get one. Since I very much doubt you will EVER see an exact match, some people will never accept the theory matches the practice and hence discussion like this are pointless (the why /why not use FF or any other format can be a very valid discussion but not the equivalence is real ones). Read the other thread linked to earlier and what Dr Caldwell said (he designed the Metabones SpeedBooster as well as one of the highest performance lenses ever). Back to (trying to) be a spectator.

I feel like you are kind of moving the goalposts. This guy has a use case where he has shot hundreds of shots on cameras with all kinds of film backs (for camera comparisons), and somehow this does not count because his lenses are too wide? This is based on real-world experience with everything from an IMAX down to a super 35 camera. He even admits in the article that his matching is not perfect due to practical limitations (t-stops and f-stops not aligning, lenses not matching exactly to their equivalent counterparts, etc.), but his argument is that the likeness between shots is so convincing and consistent that the sensor size obviously does not play a role in the actual image, and that any perceived difference is due to bias or particular (non image circle-related) lens characteristics, not due to the size of the film back. In fact, where you have been previously arguing about recognizing a larger format due to increased lens blur (in your examples where you are circling a number of shots), the Alexa 65 actually seems to have slightly LESS lens blur in the examples provided by Steve Yedlin, likely due to my aforementioned reasons. This, again, seems to provide an argument that any perceived differences are more likely to be due to individual lens characteristiscs or other uncontrolled variables which are not related to the film back size. EDIT: I hope this does not come off as argumentative, as I do appreciate -and enjoy- the discussion!

Late to the conversation here and haven't read all the replies. I moved from my crop-sensor a6500 to a full frame Panasonic S1 for the better low light ability / increased dynamic range, and for the 10-bit 4:2:2 codec. But that is because I shoot real estate and have to deal with ambient lighting. When shooting real estate videos, there often isn't time (or a budget) to set up lighting. So I often have a COUPLE of shots per video which are at the ISO 1600 to 3200 range. Other times I am dealing with extreme levels of dynamic range. The S1 does pretty well in these situations. Far better than the a6500.

I don't think you are wrong at all, and rather that it is indeed very important how you make the client feels, and this factor shouldn't be ignored. Disagree though that the EVA1 "looks like a 90's camcorder". Wish it has a MFT option, a true AF100 successor... finally! But with the launch of L Mount, it seems that ship has finally sailed for good, and now will never ever happen. This is why it is a tough sell to be convinced to buy anything other than a FS7 (or maaaaybe a C300mk2), because the FS7 is by far the most requested camera in the low/mid range of work.

The only reason I downvoted you is because I intensely dislike your post-truth, conspiratorial worldview: I think it stands in the way of productive discussion. You calling me (a yearlong, very inactive member who has basically only posted about Blackmagic and RED during his time here) a Canon shill, instead of applying even a modicum of Occam's Razor and just assuming I'm someone in disagreement with your tone and ideas, really goes to prove my point. Anyhow.

Interesting that BM fanboys got triggered after I post this on the Panasonic S1 group, something to do with guy not setting up BM camera correctly or something. Fanboys 🤨

No, I need not, we need not. This is exactly the moral of the story, for me at least. Market economy is the best democracy, I decide who I support with my money. I can not support companies, which tries to sell their products with misleading information and incorrect promises. I wanted to upgrade this year but don't know how this pandemic continues. I am affraid, I don1t need new equipment for jobs and I couldn1t really pay it either. Even if everything was OK with the R5, I would think twice about spending 4000+ for the body and the same on lense, as I don't need 8K at all. Sony has some good cameras and all the lenses for them, what Nikon unfortunately is missing, Panasonic's new little model looks promising, Fuji might surprise us with the X-H2.... I have just seen Matt Granger selling all his old gear but not buying anything, just awating which systems offers most when we can really word again.

Ah, passion and anti-"post-truth" ideology. No fact can match that. Sorry for mislabeling you.