Is it still rule today to think about m43 cameras as -2x light performance to full frame

[tugela]

On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 11:51 AM, cantsin said:

Yes, one can. Unless one believes that real life beats physics. (A bigger sensor lets in more light, just like an F1.4 lens lets in more light than an F2 lens.)

They do have better ISO, but other factors (like DoF - as you pointed out - or quality of denoising/signal processing) can even out the physical ISO advantage.

Not if you stick a telecompressor between the lens and the smaller sensor, then the smaller sensor receives exactly the same amount of light as the larger sensor would with the same lens.

[tupp]

23 hours ago, kaylee said:

@tupp your points are delightfully cromulent

Thank you, but my points were so cromulent that I fear I might have given them a little too much covfefe.

[Arikhan]

There is a very nice review of the m43 camera Olympus EM-1 ii of the Romanian photographer Mircea Bezergheanu - a former Nikon ambassador in Romania and a highly experienced and appreciated photographer (now shooting m43). Therein he discusses many aspects of m43 vs FF/APSC from the point of view of a passionated photographer and pro. This guy is technically very good informed and a realist, so some points could be very interesting to consider.

--> Olympus EM-1 ii review <--

Put it in your Google translator, read the story/review and take a look at his pictures...OK, he talks only photography, but there are many points you can apply on filming...Have fun.

[anonim]

15 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

There is a very nice review of the m43 camera Olympus EM-1 ii of the Romanian photographer Mircea Bezergheanu.

Thank you, really amazing shots and masterly elaborate article from practical point of view.

[IronFilm]

23 hours ago, noone said:

Yes it isn't a big difference but then it IS a difference in FAVOUR of the A7s and not the A7Rii.

 

So? My point is the the difference is so tiny it is basically close to irrelevant. 
If the difference was just ISO 5, would you even bother mentioning it? I'd hope not!

 

23 hours ago, noone said:

The DXO scores are also not just for stills but for RAW stills only too.

 

So? My point is be careful leaning too heavily on DXO scores when they are for stills (raw or not), as there can be a significant disconnect between stills and video performance. 

 

14 hours ago, tugela said:

Not if you stick a telecompressor between the lens and the smaller sensor, then the smaller sensor receives exactly the same amount of light as the larger sensor would with the same lens.

My bad, I was extraordinarily tired when I read you the first time. 
I realise now we're on the same page :-) 
(welll.... assuming the focal reducer gives the same FoV, then the light gathered is the same too)

[noone]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

So? My point is the the difference is so tiny it is basically close to irrelevant. 
If the difference was just ISO 5, would you even bother mentioning it? I'd hope not!

 

So? My point is be careful leaning too heavily on DXO scores when they are for stills (raw or not), as there can be a significant disconnect between stills and video performance. 

 

My bad, I was extraordinarily tired when I read you the first time. 
I realise now we're on the same page :-) 
(welll.... assuming the focal reducer gives the same FoV, then the light gathered is the same too)

I mentioned it because in another post it was stated the A7Rii was the better camera for low light/high ISO.

DXO is a wonderful resource and very useful as well as a nice way to pass idle time but should always be taken with a grain of salt (I love their Pro Optics 9 that was released free when I shoot RAW).

Their overall scores are subjective but some of the components that make that up are not though they can be based on DXO's criteria.

The HIGH ISO scores ARE ISOs but with their criteria IE against the A7Rii and EM-1 ii for instance that is ISO 3702, 3434 and 1312.

"An SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. Thus low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits.

A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable.

As cameras improve, low-light ISO will continuously increase, making this scale open."

https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores

Other people might be happy to vary some of the components, IE I am happy with lower levels for each so I shoot very often a LOT higher than ISO 3702 and it is at higher ISOs that the difference becomes greater.      Vary any one of the components and you would get different scores.

 The A7s never gets way above the A7Rii but at ISO 6400, the A7s does start pulling away and at ISO 102400 (that I do use sometimes) it has just over a stop more DR for instance and about half a stop at ISO 51200 I use a lot.       Against most other cameras (and on topic against M43), the difference is greater.     Of course, for video, the A7Rii is artificially limited to 25600 as well.

When using a ISO like 102400, one thing is that while it has greatly reduced DR, more times than not there isn't a whole lot of DR to be seen by my eyes anyway as the camera can "see" in light a lot lower than I can.     I do prefer to keep it a bit lower if I can but that isn't always possible.

As for putting a speed booster on, you just make the lens faster and of course you can always use a faster lens for a larger sensor if there is one available and there are limits to how fast a lens will be able to be "sped up".

 

 

[Arikhan]

@noone

Quote

and at ISO 102400 (that I do use sometimes) it has just over a stop more DR for instance and about half a stop at ISO 51200 I use a lot.

Speaking of DR at ISO 51.200 - 102.400? Seriously? It seems I have a complete different understanding of DR than yours...

Why not trying to stay realistic when comparing "DR" at such high ISOs?

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 6D,Nikon D750,Sony ILCE-7S

 

[noone]

Just now, Arikhan said:

@noone

Speaking of DR at ISO 51.200 - 102.400? Seriously?

Yes

The newspaper here used this as their FaceBook cover photo for a while recently (they wanted winter photos - it wouldn't have been my choice of the ones I sent but I had no issues sending it).       That it is lower DR doesn't really matter as it was dark and I wasn't seeing all that much DR anyway.      This is an as taken Jpeg.     Had I shot RAW it wouldn't have been much different and the A7s has seven and a half stops of DR at ISO 102400.       In better light where greater DR matters, I wouldn't be shooting at ISO 102400 and at 51200, the A7s has about the same DR as the GH5 at ISO 12800 (8.19 stops for the A7s).

The A7s at 51600 is very similar for DR for instance as the GX7 I have and the Pentax Kx I had at ISO 6400 and my former Canon 7D a bit lower still (and I would prefer the A7s at 51200 to those cameras at 6400).

As for my pet Nikon D50, the A7s DR at 51200 is bout the same as the D50 at bit above ISO 800.

 

[Arikhan]

@noone

What I mean is - as seen in the chart linked above - from ISO 6.400+ the "DR" of the mentionned cameras will be quite the same (OK, there is a lSO limit for Canon, Nikon, and even Sony where pictures become unusable)...Furthermore, there is a significant difference between a night vision device making pics in the dark and photography...No offense, but beeing the most capable camera to take pictures in the dark has nothing to do with DR...The real (and phantastic) DR of the A7S (ii) will show to advantage in daily situations (and low ISOs). "Picturing" the dark has nothing to do with DR and color reproduction.
I shoot sometimes in these situations too, but to be honest - these photos are far away from beeing beautiful. It's a kind of documentary shot. Sometimes necessary, but seldom beautiful...

BTW: Why didn't you use a long time exposure, while trying to keep your ISO quite low? Was it windy, so you feared to get motion blur within branches/trees? Just curious...

[noone]

44 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@noone

What I mean is - as seen in the chart linked above - from ISO 6.400+ the "DR" of the mentionned cameras will be quite the same (OK, there is a lSO limit for Canon, Nikon, and even Sony where pictures become unusable)...Furthermore, there is a significant difference between a night vision device making pics in the dark and photography...No offense, but beeing the most capable camera to take pictures in the dark has nothing to do with DR...The real (and phantastic) DR of the A7S (ii) will show to advantage in daily situations (and low ISOs). "Picturing" the dark has nothing to do with DR and color reproduction.
I shoot sometimes in these situations too, but to be honest - these photos are far away from beeing beautiful. It's a kind of documentary shot. Sometimes necessary, but seldom beautiful...

BTW: Why didn't you usae a long time exposure, while trying to keep your ISO quite low? Was it windy, so you feared to get motion blur within branches/trees? Just curious...

I shoot what I want when I want with auto ISO set to either 51200 or 102400 and while I would always prefer it was lower, I take what I get.       It just means I can use the A7s a lot longer and in much worse light than anything else.    I used ISO 102400 for that shot as A) it was very cold for me, B) It was hand held and C) it was shifted (using the 17mm f4 TS-E Canon).

It also means I can use a faster shutter speed than I would at night with other cameras EG for fast moving bands or night time sports.

Photos are not all about chocolate box images and the A7s has enough DR for good light shots too (not as good as many other FF recent cameras and some APSC cameras but at least as good or better than M43 so the choices are mine and a LOT more choices than other cameras.     Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway.

With M43, I NEED a fast lens (or long exposure time in low light but there is still a limit that I often exceed.     With the A7s I CAN use a fast lens or long exposure time (and do having accumulated four tripods now) but I don't HAVE too.

My A7s can not track to save its life and AFC is about 2fps at best and it is only 12mp and for many it isn't close to the best choice but for low light/high ISO it will do me.

These shots are at ISO 40000 (needed a faster shutter speed) and 51200 (was shooting a low light festival) and 102400 (same festival) and I could not have used any previous camera I have owned at all for the first and without a tripod for the later two (and that is many).