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.
trunksye: Why wouldn't one choose a combo like: Olympus M43+ lens 75-300mm? That's 150-600mm equivalent. I know there is this aperture factor, but the large sensor and better iso compensate a bit for this. And you get the flexibility of switching lens...
If I had to choose I would probably go with pany, even though I really like how Sony build stuff with premium feel.
chim91: Once more Panasonic has designed a very useful and capable camera, which today may be the the best compromise between size, versatility, picture quality and price. A logical continuation of the outstanding DMC-FZ50 in 2007. I have also used LX3, LX5 and LX7 and found their lens and picture quality far better than expected from a small camera. However the customer service at least here in Switzerland is horrible. Actually the exact opposite of a customer service. The customer service however is as much an integral part of a camera as the other issues discussed here. In my view this reduced significantly the value of the otherwise charming camera
I didn't hear too much love for Sony Cs either... well, they were repairing my 707 for a year telling me how it is almost ready only to tell me at the end they didn't even receive it!???
jkoch2: One vast advantage of 4k video, even in a world of lower display resolution, is the ability to crop, stabilize, or adjust for rotation in post, without IQ loss.
The irony is that the FZ1000 can't offer 5-axis stabilization or "level shot" when shooting at 4k. This presents problems, especially when shooting at 400mm equivalent. Sad it has no internal NDF feature either.
The 400mm equivalent zoom reach is great for wildlife or other travel shots, but also means the FZ1000 will fit in no pocket. 80%+ of the time wide-angle and pocketability matter.
The discontinued coat-pocket LX7 (now very cheap) has internal NDF, as well as a colored bar option that indicates horizon. One fears the forthcoming LX8 may not.
The RX10 and RX100 series are both strong competitors, but cost more, and neither offer 4k video.
Geez, my father is calling me every day because he wants to edit a simple hd video and it takes hours and hours and always have some problem.I can't imagine that he would get 4k camera and attempt to edit that. Omg, I would need to block his number.Seriously, what people are going to do with 4k, and I mean people who buy cameras like the panny ,not obvious pros that are not the target audience of commercial point and click superzoom? This would be like total nerve wrecking experience to do anything with home made 4k footage. And, then where would you store it? What would play it?
PerL: A few comments regarding the final thoughts. Personally I would definitely prefer to carry the better camera for an exclusive trip like that. And a 7D with a 70-200 is really not that behind in reach - 320 eqv vs 400 eqv on the super zoom. Not to mention that the 400 mm on the 7D is a 640 eqv, quite a bit longer. Finally, the AF of the 7D should be more capable of dealing with breaching whales (read M Reichmanns experiences from Antarctica).
Mixing two things. The people who would buy rx10 are not the same people who would spend money on 7d and expensive lenses, nor even think of carrying that. If you already have 7d then there is no point buying those superzooms. And in a year the superzooms will be sold with a big discounts like all Ps superzooms.
steve_hoge: Pg 4 "Body and Design" shows an external mic input behind the door.
Pg 2 "Specifications" says "No" under "Microphone Port".
Should trust the photo?
V2 has external mic, so should the V3, unless they made it "modular" as well.