What will happen to Olympus now??

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
sportyaccordy
Contributing MemberPosts: 944
Like?
Re: No, we live in the real world
In reply to TrapperJohn, 9 months ago

TrapperJohn wrote:

In the real world, that 'two stops advantage' is only really visible above ISO6400, maybe one stop at ISO3200. Below that, where most of us tend to shoot, there's no real visible difference between the two as concerns noise at the same ISO, so stopping down two stops is irrelevant when you're at ISO200, 400, 800, or 1600.

Don't take my word for it, go pull up the dpr comparameter and put the D800 up against the tiny little EM5. I won't say the EM5 is better than the D800 even though some parts of the DPR image tend to hint that it is, but if it's not as good, it's very close.

Strange that you harp on me about spec sheets, but then fall back to what is essentially lab test talk. The advantage isn't in IQ, it is in flexibility. You keep the ISO, aperture and field of view the same, FF is faster by 1 stop. In less than ideal conditions, again, that's the difference between a motion blurred shot or a clear one. Or the difference between razor thin DoF and usable DoF. Etc.

Plus even just talking ISO, FF is as clean at ~ISO3000 as MFT is at ISO1000. So that 1 stop all of a sudden turns into dang near 3 when you need it the most. You don't think that's worth anything?

In the real world, we shoot telephoto, where FF needs a huge lens, or where one has to guess at the composure and crop later. There's still no substitute for seeing the final composition in the VF.

No, in the real world YOU shoot telephoto. I don't, and I haven't in years. Does that mean it doesn't matter at all? No, but then if one's only defense for a platform are its specialized uses rather than its benefits for general photography it's probably not the stronger platform. There are 30x zoom supercompacts... they are still inferior for the type of photography most people do. Most people are not taking portraits of their families from a quarter mile away.

Yes, the larger sensor is still better - in some ways. However, the gap has closed in most ways since the days of the 5D, while the size difference and price difference and telephoto difference, especially with lenses, is still as great as it always was.

This is what you learn when you actually use the equipment, rather than read the spec sheet.

I've used the equipment in the way I use it. Telephoto shooting is of no concern to me, so while I understand it matters to some I personally don't care about it. I have been shooting with the kit zoom on my NEX-C3 for years and have no problems with it.

Given the practical facts of lens size, lens cost, lens availability, my best estimate is that most A7's will be used with NEX or Sigma glass in APS crop mode. The APS Zeiss 28 would probably work pretty well on the A7.

Which begs the question - why put a FF sensor on a small camera if lens size and lens cost make using the FF feature to its full advantage impractical? The FF sensor is starting to look more like a marketing gamble, than a practical advantage.

This is a ridiculous statement, sorry. Why would anyone buy the A7, only to pair it with a cropped lens they could have used on a body costing 1/6th the price? No, folks who buy the A7 will use it with its full coverage lenses, as well as other mount full frame MF lenses. I would be fine with the kit zoom and some MF primes to play with.

At the end of the day, no camera can be everything for everybody. If shooting telephoto is top priority then by all means go with as small a high quality sensor as possible so you can get all the reach + IQ you need. But for general, walkaround "standard zoom" FL range photography, the bigger the sensor the better. The size disadvantage is marginal- again you are not putting any MFT body and 2.8 zoom in any shirt or pant pocket. The kit zoom on a full frame ranges from being as fast to nearly a stop faster than the MFT 2.8 zoom, and IIRC the EM5 + 2.8 zoom costs AND WEIGHS the same as the A7 + kit zoom, while being slower and having less resolution. For someone who does general shooting FF is the obvious choice in this comparison, and I am sure Sony will release even cheaper versions of these cameras to push the pendulum further.

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