Shooting with the Panasonic S1 in Barcelona

[anonim]

3 minutes ago, DBounce said:

These silly arguments might make sense for someone who has never shot with M43, but frankly I've shot with M43 for years. So I am fully aware of the strengths and weakness of the system.  Native M43 glass always seems lacking when compared to full frame.

So arguments of others are silly because you are surely aware that you are aware and no one couldn't be aware as you with different conclusion.

What I really can't understand is - why you must call arguments of others "silly" or such?

Maybe there's some way to give some weight to words: please, show us exact examples where you, say, see that M43 glass always lacking when compared to full frame. Please, show us your utter examples of quality and lets prove that others are silly in their judgment.

[DBounce]

16 hours ago, Towd said:

Also, based on your experience and some other stuff I've read, I'm a little wary of Fuji's build quality.  Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic all make bomb proof cameras.

Yeah, my experience with the X-T3 was not great reliability wise; so I'm with you here. Also, I will confirm that Canon, Nikon and Panasonic have alway been very dependable in my experience. I would trust any of those three with a serious project. The S-line looks good, but falls short in important areas. I wish Panasonic would have pulled out all the stops. I hate to say it, but I think for real breakthroughs we now have to look to Nikon and Fuji. Neither of them has anything to gain by holding back on the video front. That said, Canon makes do with inferior specs, while still producing a more pleasing image. I'm not sure how they manage it?

8 minutes ago, anonim said:

So arguments of others are silly because you are surely aware that you are aware and no one couldn't be aware as you with different conclusion.

What I really can't understand is - why you must call arguments of others "silly" or such?

Maybe there's some way to give some weight to words: please, show us exact examples where you, say, see that M43 glass always lacking when compared to full frame. Please, show us your utter examples of quality and lets prove that others are silly in their judgment.

The "silly" argument, is the idea that a larger lens somehow lets in no more light than a smaller lens. It's deceptive because the case is made by stating, "F2.8 lens lets in the same amount of light per sensor area". Well naturally, if you are talking about the same sensor area, of course the amount of light is equal. F2.8 is still F2.8, regardless of sensor... However, we are not talking about the same sensor area. Full frame is 4X more sensor area than M43. So the overall amount of light is of course more. When shooting downsampled video, where the entire sensor is utilized, there is a distinct advantage in overall volume of light with a full frame sensor. I get a bit tired of people trying to obfuscate this simple truth.

This area is a point of confusing for many noobs. So I prefer to speak a bit more plainly, for the sake of clarity. 

[DBounce]

27 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Since when has 'volume of light' been a factor in image quality ( or any factor at all)?

Is this a trick question? Since... FOREVER! As an extreme example... ever shoot with a smartphone? Ever shoot with a 4 x 5 camera? Photography is ALL about capturing light. And Cinema is moving Pictures.

[Shirozina]

31 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Is this a trick question? Since... FOREVER! As an extreme example... ever shoot with a smartphone? Ever shoot with a 4 x 5 camera? Photography is ALL about capturing light. And Cinema is moving Pictures.

I'm familiar with 'quality of light' but not 'volume of light'? - does it go up to 11?

[DBounce]

8 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

I'm familiar with 'quality of light' but not 'volume of light'? - does it go up to 11?

Well I think most of us measure quantity/volume of light or light transmission in T-Stops, and to a less accurate degree F-Stops... what do you measure quality of light in? Squirrels? Sorry, I just can't bother... I'm just gonna assume you are joking. Have fun shooting.

[Shirozina]

Does more light = better quality?

[anonim]

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

I get a bit tired of people trying to obfuscate this simple truth.

This area is a point of confusing for many noobs. So I prefer to speak a bit more plainly, for the sake of clarity. 

 

Again, calling other people silly and noob, assuming, affecting and pretending that you are tired pure professional - only speaks about comical level of your self appreciation and funny appodictic arrogance.

Are you also in the same state of mind and tired with similar burden of professionalism when call Blackmagic team a "joke"?

Besides, I think there are many noobs with exceptional results (again, I'll be glad to see any of yours as foundation of professionalism) that think different on concerned matter - sensor gathering/spreading light  ratio -  I'd say even starting with the owner of this site.

So, no, it is not simple, but your truth - I'd say characteristically simplified or vulgarized, and actually also easy to be called extremely fanboy's and noob-ish one, because of so easy non including many relevant variables.

(Although the smaller lens only transmits 1/4 of the light compared to the larger lens, the larger lens has to spread that light over 4 times the area.  This is exactly the same reason a 2x teleconverter causes a 2 stop decrease in maximum aperture, because it doubles the size of the images by spreading it over an area 4 times the area of the sensor. Sensor size doesn't have an effect.  Pixel size does though, since increased resolution means there are more pixels sharing the same amount of light entering the camera... Iso performance is a different story. Three main factors effect ISO performance; sensor quality, image processor quality, and size of pixels. The first two don't depend on sensor size. The third doesn't either. The third is related to how large each pixel is on the sensor. This relates to how many pixels per area or pixel density and then the size of the sensor compared to that density. Smaller pixels mean they will gather less light then larger pixels, and in turn less information per pixel and more noise. Noise is the camera trying to compensate for lack of information at a given pixel. Smaller sensor does not mean smaller pixels. Reduce the pixel density on a smaller sensor and the pixels grow.)

[DBounce]

5 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Does more light = better quality?

All other things being equal...  yes... and if I am wrong, just use your smartphone and be done with it.

4 minutes ago, anonim said:

 

Again, calling other people silly and noob, affecting that you are tired professional - only speaks about comical level of your self appreciation and funny appodictic arrogance.

Are you also in the same state of mind and tired with similar burden of professionalism when call Blackmagic team a "joke"?

Besides, I think there are many noobs with exceptional results (again, I'll be glad to see any of yours as foundation of professionalism) that think different on concerned matter - sensor gathering/spreading light  ratio -  I'd say even starting with the owner of this site.

So, no, it is not simple, but your truth - I'd say characteristically simplified or vulgarized, and actually also easy to be called extremely fanboy's and noob-ish one, because of so easy non including many relevant variables.

("Although the smaller lens only transmits 1/4 of the light compared to the larger lens, the larger lens has to spread that light over 4 times the area.  This is exactly the same reason a 2x teleconverter causes a 2 stop decrease in maximum aperture, because it doubles the size of the images by spreading it over an area 4 times the area of the sensor.

Sensor size doesn't have an effect.  Pixel size does though, since increased resolution means there are more pixels sharing the same amount of light entering the camera.  But this can be equalised to a large degree by downsampling to a lower resolution, averaging out any noise - think one pixel of noise to 3 pixels of signal.")

I'm no pro... let me get that straight. But I've had plenty of experience with M43. If size and weight are not part of the equations... please tell me, what would be the appeal of M43 vs APSC? Or Full Frame? Certainly in the case of the GH5S, there is no cost saving. So the advantage is... what?

There is no case to be made... APSC is the new M43. Granted the GH6 might be awesome... but if it is not substantially better than the XH2... I think Panasonic will need to rethink things.

As for BMD... if you can call having customers wait for over a year for their product a good way to run a business, well lets just say I think we have different levels of expectations.

[Shirozina]

10 minutes ago, DBounce said:

All other things being equal...  yes... and if I am wrong, just use your smartphone and be done with it.

Thanks - great advice and good to learn new things.

[anonim]

34 minutes ago, DBounce said:

All other things being equal...  yes... and if I am wrong, just use your smartphone and be done with it.

I'm no pro... let me get that straight. But I've had plenty of experience with M43. If size and weight are not part of the equations... please tell me, what would be the appeal of M43 vs APSC? Or Full Frame? Certainly in the case of the GH5S, there is no cost saving. So the advantage is... what?

There is no case to be made... APSC is the new M43. Granted the GH6 might be awesome... but if it is not substantially better than the XH2... I think Panasonic will need to rethink things.

As for BMD... if you can call having customers wait for over a year for their product a good way to run a business, well lets just say I think we have different levels of expectations.

As you can see, today (as never before) so many (mutually compensating) technical variables are in the game... So, I'd say best rule is that there's no strict rule that will mean tomorrow all in all the same as today... and no reason to be fan of any sort of product or company name - too different cases, attempts, approach, cameras, products.

And It is obvious that you are not a pro, but more or less lovely enthusiast, depending of someone's taste  (Unfortunately I'm not lovely at all and to nobody.) But than I think it is nice to assume that there are people with at least equal experience, level of devotion and enjoy that have different conclusions to which they are fond - and there's no reason to easy call anybody silly and an ignorant person to be tired of.

(For example, I could be tired of your perpetual attempts to convince everybody that Canon EOS R image is "more pleasing" or "more cinematic" of all existing similar offerings... but I actually respect it such as a case of passion and elaborate angle of viewing or aesthetic.)

About Blackmagic team... maybe it is safer to say that they are sometimes, or often, extremely lucid and innovative Jokers.  Sad joke, for example, am I

[KnightsFan]

42 minutes ago, anonim said:

Although the smaller lens only transmits 1/4 of the light compared to the larger lens, the larger lens has to spread that light over 4 times the area.  This is exactly the same reason a 2x teleconverter causes a 2 stop decrease in maximum aperture, because it doubles the size of the images by spreading it over an area 4 times the area of the sensor. Sensor size doesn't have an effect.

Put a fullframe 50mm f1.8 on a FF camera. You capture all of the photons that land on the 24x36 sensor area. If you put that same lens on M43, the same photons exit the lens, but only 1/4 of them land on the sensor. The other 3/4 are reflected or absorbed by the area around the sensor. It's immediately apparent that at equivalent F-stop on the same lens, a smaller sensor gathers fewer photons. There is no "spreading" of light unless you add a teleconverter--which comes out exactly the same as using a smaller sensor.

The teleconverter analogy explains why a M43 camera gathers less light. Taking FF as a starting point, expanding the image circle 2x with a teleconverter is the same effect as shrinking the sensor size by 2x. In both cases, only 1/4 of the original photons land on the sensor, meaning 2 stops less light.

Of course, it's absolutely correct that "sensor quality, image processor quality, and size of pixels" affect ISO performance. We can easily find at least one example of a smaller sensor outperforming a larger one for noise. To use sound as an analogy, it's easy to find two amplifiers that output a different SNR even when given the same signal. The fact that some small sensors outperform some larger sensors does not change the simple fact that with the same lens, fewer photons land on a smaller sensor.

[thebrothersthre3]

Its true that you need a certain amount of light  to achieve a good photo. Once you have that amount you are good to go.

I mean you could argue the A7S2 takes higher quality video than any other camera as it arguably has better high iso performance than any other camera on the market.

[anonim]

Just now, KnightsFan said:

Put a fullframe 50mm f1.8 on a FF camera. You capture all of the photons that land on the 24x36 sensor area. If you put that same lens on M43, the same photons exit the lens, but only 1/4 of them land on the sensor. The other 3/4 are reflected or absorbed by the area around the sensor. It's immediately apparent that at equivalent F-stop on the same lens, a smaller sensor gathers fewer photons. There is no "spreading" of light unless you add a teleconverter--which comes out exactly the same as using a smaller sensor.

The teleconverter analogy explains why a M43 camera gathers less light. Taking FF as a starting point, expanding the image circle 2x with a teleconverter is the same effect as shrinking the sensor size by 2x. In both cases, only 1/4 of the original photons land on the sensor, meaning 2 stops less light.

Of course, it's absolutely correct that "sensor quality, image processor quality, and size of pixels" affect ISO performance. We can easily find at least one example of a smaller sensor outperforming a larger one for noise. To use sound as an analogy, it's easy to find two amplifiers that output a different SNR even when given the same signal. The fact that some small sensors outperform some larger sensors does not change the simple fact that with the same lens, fewer photons land on a smaller sensor.

Ok  I'd bet you know much better than me that there are million pro et contra words all around, coming from guys with highest master degree of Physics to serious moviemakers. Once upon a time, my truly humble amateurish attempt after reading thousands of opinions was: I made a several shooting experiments simultaneously with m43 and FF camera (Pany and Sony) with same aperture and same other values. Result: clips had always same level of brightness  Sun of T1.4-2 shines here the same as correspondent T1.4-2 there. Differences and quality? These ones depended of used products, their sensor generation, used lenses.

When UW angle, lowlight lack-of-noice performance and especially zoom solutions are concerned - in theory it is much easier to find combination of solution with FF cameras. In practice, for pro(sumer) video shooting FF struggles and lags in other areas. Just video/movie shooting.

Blackmagic is very serious Joker that produce very serious and earthquake like lessons - but: if they want, they easy can make m43 camera that fully will compete or be better tool than UMP. Simple reason why not: bigger sensor, bigger money. Panasonic also: why not new m43 pro-camcorder? Surely not because of any lack of resulting moving picture quality...

2 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I mean you could argue the A7S2 takes higher quality video than any other camera as it arguably has better high iso performance than any other camera on the market.

Even that is not consensual conclusion because of strong color shifting and noise reduction as variable in every iso above 1600.

[thebrothersthre3]

3 minutes ago, anonim said:

Even that is not consensual conclusion because of strong color shifting and noise reduction as variable in every iso above 1600.

I did say arguably. Other cameras definitely have less color shift at higher ISO's like the GH5S at 6400 iso. Though when you get to super high ISO's nothing competes with the A7SII at least in terms of having an image with reasonable amount of detail. That said its kind of a silly discussion. ?

[anonim]

Just now, thebrothersthre3 said:

I did say arguably. Other cameras definitely have less color shift at higher ISO's like the GH5S at 6400 iso. Though when you get to super high ISO's nothing competes with the A7SII at least in terms of having an image with reasonable amount of detail. That said its kind of a silly discussion. ?

I had A7SII - and yes, as far as I could see, you are right! I just regretted why I had no similar efficient mechanism in my mind: to see through darkness as it is romantic daylight.

[Shirozina]

36 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Put a fullframe 50mm f1.8 on a FF camera. You capture all of the photons that land on the 24x36 sensor area. If you put that same lens on M43, the same photons exit the lens, but only 1/4 of them land on the sensor. The other 3/4 are reflected or absorbed by the area around the sensor. It's immediately apparent that at equivalent F-stop on the same lens, a smaller sensor gathers fewer photons. There is no "spreading" of light unless you add a teleconverter--which comes out exactly the same as using a smaller sensor.

The teleconverter analogy explains why a M43 camera gathers less light. Taking FF as a starting point, expanding the image circle 2x with a teleconverter is the same effect as shrinking the sensor size by 2x. In both cases, only 1/4 of the original photons land on the sensor, meaning 2 stops less light.

Of course, it's absolutely correct that "sensor quality, image processor quality, and size of pixels" affect ISO performance. We can easily find at least one example of a smaller sensor outperforming a larger one for noise. To use sound as an analogy, it's easy to find two amplifiers that output a different SNR even when given the same signal. The fact that some small sensors outperform some larger sensors does not change the simple fact that with the same lens, fewer photons land on a smaller sensor.

Huh??? - fewer 'total' photons fall on a smaller sensor area but given identical sized photosites  the same amount of photons fall per photosite given the same exposure.

[KnightsFan]

3 minutes ago, anonim said:

Once upon a time, my truly humble amateurish attempt after reading thousands of opinions was: I made a several shooting experiments simultaneously with m43 and FF camera (Pany and Sony) with same aperture and same other values. Result: clips had always same level of brightness  Sun of T1.4-2 shines here the same as correspondent T1.4-2 there. Differences and quality? These ones depended of used products, their sensor generation, used lenses.

Yes, brightness will match because ISO is designed to make the same brightness across devices. It's crucial that the reading of your light meter match ANY camera you use, so equal ISO should always provide the same exposure on the final image. However, ISO does not equal gain. That is, if you take a ten year old sensor with terrible low light, you might need 12 dB of gain to get ISO 800, whereas you might have a modern sensor that only needs 3dB of gain for ISO 800. And probably that new sensor will have a higher SNR, despite producing the same "brightness".

For example, if you compare a GH5s vs a fictional hacked together camera consisting of 4 GH5s sensors in an array, then you would expect the array to have a higher SNR. However, after calibrating for ISO, both will produce the same "brightness" at equivalent ISO--it's just that the array will have a lower noise floor.

As far as quality, yes that's entirely dependent on the product. Some small sensors are extraordinarily good (GH5s, for example), and some FF sensors are pretty bad. I think one of the main reasons for that is that new tech arrives at the smaller sensors first. It's a much larger investment to improve FF sensors than cell phone chips. Like I said, you can find some MFT sensors that outperform some FF sensors. And sensor performance isn't the ONLY factor in choosing a camera. Just trying to add some perspective on this specific "low gathering ability vs sensor size" debate. There's a reason NASA uses massive CCDs in their telescopes--I'm sure it would have been easier to launch the Hubble with a 2/3" sensor!

2 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Huh??? - fewer 'total' photons fall on a smaller sensor area but given identical sized photosites  the same amount of photons fall per photosite given the same exposure.

So if the photosites are the same size, then the FF camera has MORE photosites. This means you will be downsampling, which improves SNR.

[Shirozina]

12 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

 

So if the photosites are the same size, then the FF camera has MORE photosites. This means you will be downsampling, which improves SNR.

Not necessarily - that's a different concept altogether.

[KnightsFan]

1 minute ago, Shirozina said:

Not necessarily - that's a different concept altogether.

What is a different concept altogether?

[Shirozina]

8 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

What is a different concept altogether?

Downsampling - as you said it improves the S/N ratio. It also improves resolution over 1:1 sampling. So 2 aspects or the image quality that are improved.