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.
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.
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.
hrt: Why does Sony change its models so frequently ?Does Sony think that consumers will continue to pay for such high frequency of model changes?
I love the RX100 M3 and have purchased it this time, but that doesn't mean that I will do it again.
What was the intention/meaning of launching RX100 M2 ????Sony's management policy only (irrespective of buyers' actual needs) ????
Answer me please, Sony !!!!
It is simple, they can sell the same thing to the same people. Look at forums how many people "upgraded" from m1 to m2 to m3. I say "upgraded" because in many of the cases they still have them all, just not using them because they are so "old".
freakpix: Seriously, I wish it would have come with 4K, perhaps RX IV ...
What would you do with a minuscule P&S camera that does 4K? Most consumers wouldn't be even able to edit it or do anything with 4K at all.
impressive image from such a tiny camera.
The fact that it is smaller size than Pentax Q, yet houses much larger sensor is pretty awesome!
Artistico: I'm impressed with Panasonic finally putting the "Micro" in Micro four thirds with their latest iteration. When I ditched my Canon 5D in favour of a Panasonic G1 some years ago, one of the most appealing qualities of the new system was being able to travel lighter.
I tried a Sony RX100 last year, but couldn't see what all the fuss was about. The quality from the 1" sensor was disappointing. I did like the size, though, and sold it a bit reluctantly as I did want to have a bring-everywhere camera that I could live with.
I've been tidying my kit over the last week, selling off lenses I hardly use, and I was considering getting the Oly 12-40mm f/2.8 as my do-all lens for my E-M5, but when I considered my options, I went for the GM-1 instead. I think it's right for me. It reminds me of the days when I went everywhere with just a Fuji F30. My holidays and walks were so much more enjoyable when I brought a camera but couldn't feel its weight.
"Disappointing" may be a bit harsh on RX100. I have one and also m43 and the difference in IQ is hardly that significant. I do like the GM1 on paper but same way I like RX100, it is small, takes decent pictures.
Johno23: This Camera seems pretty decent, it would definately suit anyone who would be interested in buying it. The video quality is great! But there's another camera which has not been compared with it yet and that's the new Panasonic Lumix GH4 model with 4K high quality video and New auto focus technology! :)Check out my review! http://1stdigitalcamerasreviews.blogspot.com.au
That is a totally different purpose of camera for totally different people. I don't even see what can be compared on the GH4 and GM1 - the name? The black paint?
Artistico: I was a bit pensive about the battery life when first I got the GM1. Over the last week is the first time I have stretched the battery a bit. I have taken 550 pictures and the battery indicator now shows one bar, so still not empty, but getting there. I have not been using flash for any of my pictures, which would reduce battery life significantly, but I have taken lots of pictures with 1 second shutter times, which presumably eats a bit more battery than the shorter shutters.
In short: I think it passes the battery life test with flying colours as far as I am concerned. The camera also seems to use hardly any juice when it falls asleep when the on/off button remains on, and it wakes up very quickly. This was one of the gripes I had with the Olympus EM-5 which seemed to use up battery really fast while sleeping as well as being sluggish to wake up from sleep mode, frequently giving me a lot less battery endurance than what I am now getting from the GM-1.
But 550 shots would not require any special habits, we are talking close to dslr battery life here (at least most basic dslrs that do 600 pics). 500 pics a day is a lot, even for the biggest tourist out there.
Hanging too much around luggage area in airport with those new wide straps?But to be honest I have one of their hand strap. The locking mechanism is quite secure. However the wide straps look really like a hipster talk, look I have a tiny camera on a huge professional strap.
It is a bit disconnected here because it is a random pick from the album. You should visit the original site on imgur because he kind of go by the day in life meme from morning to night and it makes a bit more sense as a complete album.