E-M1 to A7 movers: What do you miss?

Started Mar 4, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
EarthQuake Senior Member • Posts: 1,981
Re: I have no idea ...

Jack Hass wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

Agreed. Im not saying a larger sensor with better high ISO is never better, but it is the minority. There are three basic shooting scenarios. Low light, where motion is fairly slow or stationary, moderate light (such as gyms and very overcast days) where action is taking place, and bright sunny days or bright lights where action is taking place.

  • Low light: nobody is really going to try to shoot action here, so SS are going to be as low as possible to keep ISO down. In this scenario, IBIS can make up for better ISO figures. One with IBIS/OIS can shoot slower SS and lower ISO and get away with it.
  • Moderate light, action: This is where better ISO performance will shine, but it's only 1/3 of the deal. In this light, SS need to be higher, and it will be high enough to negate camera shake, but since light is in demand ISO will need to be high. In this scenario, better ISO performance is preferred. Indoor sports for example is an example where larger sensor/larger lenses are a benefit. This is why, IMO, Canon haven't bothered to add IBIS. They are much more sports oriented with cameras like the 7D, and sports shooters will have SS high enough to negate camera shake anyway. Plus there are also OIS lenses for when that is a must.
  • Bright light, action: This is a situation where light is so abundant that action is possible without ISO getting too high. Most action shots can be made without going over ISO 800, as long as the lens is fairly fast. In this case, better ISO performance is much less an issue as everything looks fairly good since ISO is low. Once again, IBIS/OIS is not needed since SS is fast enough to freeze normal camera shake.

This is of course a generalization, but it's accurate. Any other situation, like portraits in good light, isn't worth comparing since ISO is low, SS is less of an issue, or one can use flash, ect. The above 3 distinctions pretty much cover what is necessary, and non stabilized high ISO monsters only benefit in 1 out of 3. Don't get me wrong, something that is FF AND stabilized is best overall, but this comparison is based on the A7 vs something like an EM1 that has IBIS. The real world difference comes out surprisingly small.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about - FF is one benefit out of three? FF has many benefits, many more than the three topics you list here...

Note i said it was a generalization, and no, FF has no innate benefits. It does a few things slightly better, and a few slightly worse, than sensors of other sizes. Stabilization is something i would say offers benefits.

Whether or not you freeze SS, you can view all formats as being able to shoot equivalent, as the right exposure relationship between SS, f-stop and ISO levels roughly equates to similar levels of DOF and noise at equivalent settings (if possible).

That's the point, with IBIS, it's not always going to be equivelant. IBIS allows you to shoot at lower ISO for slow moving subjects with EVERY lens. In this case, SS, f-stop and ISO levels are not even.

FF just gives you a broader range than a smaller sensor does (you can open wider). Both formats let you stop down to similar result levels.

Totally depends on your purpose. Like i said, some benefits, some things are worse. Take for example the peak of lens resolution. If i need to stop down to my lens's sharpest aperture, is FF going to be at the same F stop as MFT? No, MFT lenses tend to hit their peak at around F2-F4. FF tend to hit theirs between F4 and F8. This is one advantage of smaller format lenses, they have less falloff at the fast end.

If you throw around IBIS, you have to identify what types of shooting this is about. OSS for FF is available (e.g. if you want to do video). But, general numbers are that IBIS give you three stops of compensation over non-IBIS, whereas FF gives you two stops over m43. In other words, a m43 IBIS versus a non-OSS FF comparison is only about a one stop advantage. I probably would prefer the FF, because SS longer than around 1/80th give blurry people subjects,

That's why i classified my last post into three types. Two were action, one was static. I was explaining when IBIS would be more useful than a larger sensor without IS, which is more often than many think.

and if I can shoot at 1/20th or so, I don't need IBIS, since the scene allows me to use a bean-bag, tripod, or otherwise.

You seem to be downplaying the importance of IS, but there is a reason every system either has IBIS or OIS lenses.

I remember reading that m43 users often talk about lack of shallow DOF. Sure, there are techniques, but it pales in comparison to FF flexibility. But then AF is fast(er). A bit, the A7 is no slough.

Actually more often i wish i had more DOF, so i can get both eyes in focus even when my subject is not squared to the lens. All i have to do to get more separation is change the ratio of my and the background's subject distance.

Also, as I am shooting FF more nowadays, I begin to appreciate the FF benefits more and more, each time that I use it. And yes, I do have to remind myself sometimes to STOP DOWN - as for some cases I do want a large DOF and high sharpness result. My little trick? I use iAuto then - works like a charm.


And the extra resolution? Much more useful than with the Nex-7. With the Nex-7 I did not want to raise ISO and then crop afterwards, With the A7, sure!

And the 7 had no IBIS either.

-- hide signature --


-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

RE: 3 stops of IBIS being negated by 2 stops...

This is only if you shoot your fast lenses wide open all the time, which is often a detriment in low light with FF, (not always, but often), the ISO difference is only about 1.5 stops anyway, so if you stop down from f1.4 to f2, you only have a half stop of ISO advantage, and you're losing somewhere in the range of 3-5 stops when looking at unstabilized primes (every FF prime you could use on E system). You can use a zoom with OIS, but then you're limited to F4, which is another 3 stops slower than a 25/1.4 or similar lens on M43rds. A stationary subject, like a night landscape where you want more DOF, not less, handheld with an F4 zoom is going to need a much higher ISO than with a 1.4 M43rds prime on an OMD.

Its true that FF does offer more flexibility in terms of ISO, DR and shallow DOF, but these advantages are not always an advantage. If you need a fast shutter speed in low light and you want very narrow DOF, FF has a a clear advantage, but that rarely happens and you will have lots of trouble hitting focus on your fast moving object in this situation anyway. In good light FF obviously has the advantage because its simply more flexible, and in moderate light generally as well, again if you can live with narrower DOF.

I know narrow DOF is always talked about as if its the holy grail, but as someone who shoots both FF and M43rds, getting enough in focus can often be tricky on FF, especially if say, you have more than one person in a shot. Again if you've gotta stop your lens down and raise the ISO, you no longer have any advantage over the smaller sensor, and smaller/lighter system.

FF sensors are clearly better in theory or on paper, but in real use its not as cut and dry.

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