The ISO 100 is a total blast, but it goes downhill so fast after that! As an amateur I can't stay with ISO 100 for my normal shooting and the higher ISO noise defeats the purpose of a special sensor.
plasnu: Finally, the mirrorless cameras have become popular in US and Euro. According to CIPA, between Jan-May 2014
The shipment of Mirrorless +38%The shipment of DSLR -13%The shipment of Compact -40%
The cellphone workflow far outshines the small compact cameras. Take picture, quick adjustment, send it to your mom. Soon or later bigger cameras will have to compete with that workflow, the current wifi features are abysmal at best.
caravan: Great Price,too bad it has a tiny sensor,articulating LCD,touch screen,and zoom lens.
It is not tiny, but neither as good as the sony 1". The Pentax Q was tiny sensor and the price wasn't that far from N1.
forpetessake: There has been more than 1000 comments so far. What can be learned from them?
1) Many people don't read, at least don't engage their minds while reading, but nevertheless they are quick to reply. They don't read the replies to their replies either, or unable to comprehend them, because they keep repeating the same fallacies again and again.2) Many people have difficulty understanding simple laws of physics and elementary school arithmetic. It's really shameful state of affairs. Blame expensive government schools for that.3) the previous 2 problems are exacerbated by a "choice-supportive bias" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias). Notice that most (if not all) of the objections are coming from the people with small sensors (m4/3, 1").
Now, the really ugly thing is that most of those people are your average voters. I shudder thinking people with such cognitive faculties go to the voting booths.
It is all upside down.I am thankful for the article that spells the relation of different parameters and it can be printed and used when one actually needs it.The comments, that is a different story.
@ mostlyboringphotog: As for the equivalent FL, I read many comments and I don't think there is a single one that would have trouble to understand what the article explained about FL. I think most people (and me) had problem about the second part and that is "equivalent exposure" and most notably why do we should care. Because the F number works fine. Why do we need to recalculate it to equivalent aperture? We don't. F number is not broken. It is only when you want badly to match DOF of two different cameras with different sensor size.
I didn't read a single comment that would claim that small sensors are better or equal to a bigger sensors of the same or similar number of pixels. Or what else you mean by objections? Objections to what? To the article? The article math and statements are fine.
But for some reason this thread is full of comments asserting that photographers with 1" sensors absolutely for some weird reason think that their sensor must be better or equal much larger sensors. (like you mentioned in your 3) But where are those people?
nigelht: Physically masking a 36MP FF sensor to the same size as a m43 sensor results in an equivalent 9MP m43 sensor.
You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor which indicates that "total light" has little impact on noise or DR because it should be well understood that these characteristics are based on sensor/adc design and pixel size.
The "idea of equivalence" doesn't tell you anything about the noise potential low light performance of the sensor (relative to same generation sensors). The pixel size does. Larger pixels = less noise.
"Equivalent aperture" only addresses DOF equivalence.
But still, in general, larger the pixel sizes, the higher efficiency, the more data for the a/d to bump up the ISO = less high ISO noise, no? Irrelevant of how big is the whole sensor. Could be tiny sensor with few pixels or huge sensor with much more pixels of the same size. Noise would be the same.
LaFonte: To put more fuel to the fire, I think the article explained perfectly the first part"what is the equivalence" but failed to explain the second part "why should I care"Maybe a page 5 is needed with a real life situation for a photographer in the field with his camera, not a nerd in a lab with 4 different cameras taking picture of a single subject and comparing how they differ. I kind of don't use cameras like that and I don't think many photographers do that either.
So I am standing knee deep in a mud somewhere outside with my camera pointing at something. What should I take from the article that would help me take better picture. How does it relate to me and indeed why should I care about anything that was said (assuming of course I am not complete idiot and I understand that higher ISO means higher noise)
That's pretty level headed practical info Mr. Bustard the Great. At least someone here understand this whole can of worms.
What he is saying is that noise relates to the size of the photo wells, and what you are saying is that noise relates to the size of the sensor. I stand with the former.
Aha, so this would help me to buy more gear!Still the author should expand the article how to apply this theoretical knowledge in real life.
To put more fuel to the fire, I think the article explained perfectly the first part"what is the equivalence" but failed to explain the second part "why should I care"Maybe a page 5 is needed with a real life situation for a photographer in the field with his camera, not a nerd in a lab with 4 different cameras taking picture of a single subject and comparing how they differ. I kind of don't use cameras like that and I don't think many photographers do that either.
Jylppy: Figuring out this in the beginning of my hobbyist-photogapher career was a big "Heureka"-moment for me and the reason I sold off my 4/3 Olympus and bought Canon 5D. Yes, plenty of bulk to carry around, but I finally got the bokeh I was after. Everybody makes their own choices for the reasons important to them, but understanding "Equivalence" is fundamental to not to be fooled by the "F-numbers".
There is this weird assumption that more shallow dof the better. That doesn't work for a lot of photography and most social photography that 90% of people use daily actually benefit from large dof.
LaFonte: But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure? If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.So maybe call it equivalent DOF.Or is it that I totally don't get it?
Thanks Erik for translation, I actually understand what you are saying perfectly.The whole discussion reminds me the time when I was preparing for driving test and instructor was very slowly explaining that red traffic light means stop, yellow means get ready and green means go. Wow. What a revelation that day was.
Don't try to make me look more stupid than I am. Is this some kind of new revelation that ISO 12800 on 1" is not good in comparison to FF. Did you honestly think that I was in the impression they are the same? I assumed everybody here understand this fact years and years back that small sensors are noisy and smaller you go the more noise you get. How come this is now big news and what we trying to solve? To make ff as noisy as 1" because that is the only way to practically use this perfect theory of noise ratio. We obviously can't make small sensor less noisy.I still don't get it. Everyone who has a camera knows that his camera starts to stink after certain ISO, be it 800, 3200 or 12800. That's why there is auto ISO margin. I just don't get what are we trying to do because really we can only make better camera worse, not the other way.
I think you are mudding this even more. Sorry. So same f, same t and same ISO on two cameras will NOT produce the same exposure because I have to care about sensor size? because I don't know many photographers that calculate (or know how to) signal noise ratio etc as you describe above.We all know that smaller size sensor will have more noise and higher DOF, but I am kind of lost why my F1.8 cannot be used as yours F1.8 for proper exposure.Also I don't see it. I can't improve my noise ratio on my small sensor camera, I can only equivalently make your big sensor camera worse by bumping up ISO so they look equal. But why would I like to do it?????I just dot get it.
But why do I even have to care about equivalent or not exposure? If I say to two guys don't use your camera metering, pull out my old light meter and tell to two guys with very different camera: set your ISO 100, set 1/60, and aperture 2.2 and you will be fine, they would both get properly exposed picture. Right? Even that one geezer have 7d and the other have e-pm.As I understand, that is the whole point of having equivalent exposure that translates to everybody. So we understand each other without looking what size of sensor you have. Starting recalculating what aperture means in different sensor sizes is good only and only for assuming DOF not for exposure.So maybe call it equivalent DOF.Or is it that I totally don't get it?
Sven44: It's refreshing to see more and more people on this thread "getting it", and fewer and fewer coming out with rubbish like "f2=f2=f2".
One last time:
Bob shoots with a Panalympus (2x 'crop factor') with a 28mm lens at f/1.8, 1/60s at ISO 400
AND HIS PICTURES ARE DAMN NEAR IDENTICAL TO
John's 'full frame' 35mm camera with a 56mm lens shot at f/3.6, 1/60s at ISO 1600.
Same FOV. Same DOF. Same brightness of image. Same noise even - notice how Bob's shot was at ISO 400, but his sensor is smaller so intrinsically noisier - meanwhile John cranked up to ISO 1600 because he used a slower aperture.
The difference then? Bob's camera, and especially his wide angle lenses, are smaller. Hurrah for Bob! But sadly, his lens is slower (it's labelled 1.8 but shoots just like f/3.6), while John's lens really does open up to 1.8 to give him more blurred backgrounds and cleaner images at ISO 400. Hurrah for John!
Take your pick, then take lots of pics! :-)
You confused me even more. Why bobs lens is slower?If john does use the same ISO 400 then he would also need to open his lens to the same 1.8 to keep the same 1/60 right?So in general both bob and john can use the same 1.8 1/60 and 400 and get identically exposed images? So why is bobs lens slower, seriously I am totally confused now.
Amnon G: 8MP frames from a video creates a whole new capability of extracting the best photo out of a video instead of continuous shooting. This could be very handy for many things, from sports to kids to animals.
You are looking at a capture from perfectly still image. Things are different when everything moves around. At the end people wont be too happy with the results and perhaps ask you what's wrong with the camera because shots are blurry.
William Koehler: "Earlier this month the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 joined the RX10 in this newly-minted category boasting almost certainly the same sensor and a 25-400mm equivalent F2.8-4 lens."
I think it is highly doubtful that Panasonic is using a Sony sensor. Same size yes, but not the same sensor.
Thinks are changing. There is not much money making your own components. Sony and Samsung kind of circled the market.
Another 1" camera's IQ beats the shxt out of the V3.
Only idiots buy the V3 for 1200 bucks.
Issues? Personal vendetta? Did some v3 user did something really nasty to you?
George Veltchev: Come on guys ... the 'studio comparison' reveals that this 1' sensor battles with the noise as early as ISO200 ( just look the shadows at this settings ) ..ISO200 I am talking about !!!! WOW ...and on top of that this mediocre Leica lens is as soft as a poppy marshmallow on a hotplate, killing the detail even in the center of the frame, never mind the corners ... take it to the beach in summer, between 10:00am and 2:00pm, keep the ISO at 125 and you'll be happy as a scamp with new white leather shoes...... not bad for a lovely tight package with the modest $900 I guess !
But this thing is made for soccer moms and dads, birders and other amateurs. Those people do not care or even pixel peep in their image. They don't get paid for what they do as a hobby so who cares ISO 200 has some noise if they can zoom in on their kid playing in field and take focused image.