Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,913
Like?
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?
In reply to MAubrey, Jun 9, 2013

MAubrey wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

FF in low light its a nightmare, unless you specifically want 1 eye in focus you have to ramp the aperture and hence the iso, FF is actually the opposite of what you want in low light.

Bump the ISO up by two stops and close your aperture by two stops and then its taken care of. A D600 has two stops better ISO than the E-M5...and if you downsize the images to the 16MP of the E-M5, then its even better. The one eye in focus issue is only a problem if you're shooting the eight year old 5Dc.

-- hide signature --

--Mike

In theory, that's correct. In practice it doesn't actually appear to work that way, as sensor performance doesn't scale exactly with size.

There was an experiment done here a while ago testing this, shooting a D800 at ISO 6400, against an Oly shooting at 1600, with equivalent lenses and apertures.

The Oly had a much better image, with less noise. Easily visible difference, without pixel peeping.

So, it is possible that if you're shooting for a larger DoF, that a smaller sensor may have some advantages. However, this is a somewhat rare situation so I don't think it balances in any way the larger shooting envelope at larger apertures.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
.New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow