miksto: And after all the talk about light weight of Sony cameras (at the cost of poor battery life and poor ergonomics).Looking at the example of most common general purpose 24-70mm lens it comes larger and heavier than corresponding Canon lens. Sony's 'light' camera will feel awkward with these lenses. Poor ergonomics.
Sony SEL2470GM: 886g, 87.6 x 136 mmCanon 5175B002: 805g, 88.5 x 113 mm
According to DXO report Canon's can resolve 32 megapixels. We are yet to see Sony's optical resolution but so far Sony was poor on optical resolution front.
Mind it the Canon's is a 4 year old technology. Sony still struggling to beat it.
@miksto, The Sony G 90mm macro has the best resolution among ~100mm macro lenses. It is near pointless to compare different focal lengths to each other.
But you clearly have a point, Canon has far larger (and often even more affordable) lens portfolio with several best-in-class lenses. Sony has one (the 90mm macro). Also, 3rd party lens makers still prioritize Canon and Nikon mounts over E-mount although E-mount support is improving.
Br, A Canon FF user with 10+ EF lenses
But at least Sony's new G 90mm macro beats competition. So definitely this G-series is something to watch after. I wait LensRentals test runs since they test multiple units and sample variance. Test results from "Golden Samples" does not too tell much.
Jylppy: 600mm/8f lens at $2500. How exciting...
It costs only 40% more than Canon equivalent (300L/4f IS + 2x extender) and it is 16% lighter. But it seems to be a great lens for m43, definitely.
But let's not indicate it is comparable to 600mm/4f lenses on FF, it is not. It is a 600mm/8f lens on FF terms.
The point is that the new Oly 300mm/f4 is a likely a great 600mm/f8 lens in FF terms that are used as reference points what comes to focal lengths. I'm quite certain it is better than Canon 300mm/f4 L IS + 2x extender. But the optical characteristics are the same (FoV, DoF).
Arkienkeli: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)"
Totally misleading. DOF is true, but there is no need to expose with this lens two shutter speeds longer, as f/4 is always f/4 no matter you look at it. "Light gathering" is totally irrelevant, it is the amount of illumination on the sensor which is always the same with the same f-stop absolutely no matter which lens is used, which is the beauty of the relative f/X aperture system.
@Naveed, I would say that the reason for smaller sensors getting latest tech first is economical. The probability of defects on processed silicon is x% per Area. Therefore defect-free probability (i.e. production yield) is (1-x%) per area A. If the area is 4x like in case of FF vs m43, then the production yield is (1-x%)^4, which is far smaller number than (1-x%). In simple terms, sensor level yields diminish exponentially according to sensor size. And considering how DSLR/MLC volumes and high-end DSLR volumes especially are not that big then it becomes obvious that it takes very mature manufacturing process to economically produce large sensors.
Smartphone sensor lead the pack and smartphone imaging sensor business is multiple times (3-6x?) bigger business than DSRL/MILC sensor business due to vast volumes.
@Naveed, apologies. I think I misread your post. I think you agree with the equivalence-article?
You are right about 4x being an approximate rule. It describes theoretical situation when sensor technology is equal. But Canon has so bad sensors that the difference is only 3x+ vs the best m43 systems. Sony sensors get closer to the theoretical limit.
In any case the difference in light gathering capabilities is far larger than the difference between sensor technology generations.
Mobile phones have the best sensor tech per pixel, but the advantage is nowhere near to compensate the vast difference in sensor sizes to any ILC system.
Oh, Flat Earth Society hit again! Arkienkeli & Naveed, it does not matter what you like. Optics are rather exact field of science and not based on "likes" or voting among laymen. Pls just read the Equivalence article happens to be correct.
Arkienkeli, when you put 300mm/f4 FF lens in front of m43 camera, could you please tell us is the FOV the same as if the lens were attached on FF camera? Or would it happen to be that the lens becomes actually 600mm focal length/ FOV equivalent in FF system?
And once one parameter changes the rest will change too.
Read the Equivalence article.
It is misleading to refer m43 lenses with their f-values as if they would be comparable to FF-systems f-values in terms of optical characteristics.
Within m43 system one can refer the lenses with their nominal f-values, but once comparisons are made to other systems, then it is correct to compare those on equal terms.
As an analogy, 1M Zimbabwe dollars are nowhere as valuable as 1M USD. Of course if you think so, I am happy trade my ZWD to your USD at 1/1 rate :-)
And pls read the Equivalence article. It is all there explained. Just accept it as a fact.
@Fri13, sorry but you have misunderstood how the equivalence works. At image level, FF sensor has the similar noise characteristics to m43 sensor when FF sensor has 4x ISO (i.e. FF ISO == 4x m43 ISO). DPR has all this explained with example photos in its Equivalence-article. Please read it.
If you doubt DPR, just go to DxOMark and do camera comparison and you see how even old, "crappy" FF sensors like Canon 5DII beat the latest and greatest m43 sensors despite older and worse sensor technology.
Having said this, I believe the new Oly is fantastic 600mm/8f FF-equivalent lens.
Uups. Canon 300mm/4L IS + 2x extender is only 3% heavier since Oly weights 1470g with collar.
@Arkienkeli, Digital camera ISO is just a post-sensor amplification that is sensor/system specific. The point is that by "correcting" FF camera's ISO to 4x that of m43 system (ISO 1600@FF == ISO 400@m43), you can use exactly the same shutter times as in m43 at the same DoF equivalent aperture and Focal length.
When you set FF system to DoF-equivalent of Oly 300mm/4f that is 600mm/8f and then equivalent ISO on FF system is 4x that of m43 system (e.g. 1600 vs 400). Then you compare systems on equivalent settings and "surprisingly" the FF system uses the same shutter speeds as m43 and has roughly the same Image level noise.
When you say ISO400, 1/250s, f/4, 300mm on m43, the equivalent settings on FF system is ISO 1600, 1/250s, f/8, 600mm. If you insist ISO 400 on FF then you are asking FF system to trade significantly longer shutter speed for lower noise. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Just read the DPR Equivalence article. My first DSLR was Oly E-510 (43-sensor), btw.
Ross the Fidller: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms),"
To mention "light gathering" at all & in that context is typical FF fanboism BS. Why did you even mention it?
I'll correct that whole statement for you!"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, its still impressively small and light for 600mm equivalent lens. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."
Please, stay credible by not looking like a FF fanboi.
Of course, being 300mm it is going to be smaller & lighter than a 600mm lens!
This lens is equivalent of 600mm/8f on FF system. Canon 300/4L IS + 2x extender weight 19% more, but Oly costs 40% more.
But I do not think Canon 300/4L IS + 2x extender reaches the same image quality as this Oly does. 1.4x extender is great, but 2x is getting quite soft.
Of course with high-Mpx bodies like Canon 5DR one can just crop the image and use the 300mm/4L IS as such making the lens even lighter than Oly. But I still doubt it can match the optical quality of Oly "600mm/8f".
@Arkienkeli, do you understand that ISO values are not comparable across different systems / sensor sizes? It is not as ISO 400 is the same sensitivity in m43 and FF, but that IS400 has similar post-sensor amplification (i.e. image-level noise) as ISO 1600 in FF. Therefore this "F8 equivalence" is perfectly valid. Pls re-read the great DPR Equivalence article and just accept it as a fact.
600mm/8f lens at $2500. How exciting...
photo perzon: The Fuji 35mm 1.4 is $ 399
@straylightrun, How about re-reading the Equivalence article at DPR?
Jylppy: How shall this remind me of all the cry of "poor DR" in Canon sensors. Now the same writers try to explain how lossy RAW compression is "OK". Whatever, Sony makes interesting cameras. It seems nobody is perfect.
That's not the point. The point is there is technical glitch and its reasons can be whatever. And while Canon receives Spanish Inquisition, fanboys try to bend the reality and say "compression is kind of OK" instead of giving Sony the same Spanish Inquisition. Btw. Usually such an solutions have been developed for an reason (e.g I/O bottleneck on image processor or memory buses).
How shall this remind me of all the cry of "poor DR" in Canon sensors. Now the same writers try to explain how lossy RAW compression is "OK". Whatever, Sony makes interesting cameras. It seems nobody is perfect.
cesjr: Nothing against this lens or FF DSLR, but when people wonder why Fuji ILC here's exactly why. I'm not saying this lens and FF Canon offer nothing over an XT-1 and 23 mm. But if you want something higher quality on the lens front but don't want the huge size and cost of Canikon FF, Fuji is a very good option. Everything is a compromise in size and cost. And I just like the balance struck by Fuji between quality, size, and cost. It does offer something over Canikon - higher quality somewhat lower cost APS-C. Nobody else seems to be doing that. Not the M4/3 folks. Not Sony. Not Canikon.
Yes, Fuji has fantastic system for APS-C - only if they were to move to better (and bayer-array) sensors. Sony clearly got lot if wind to its sails with MILC Alphas. I would not discount Sony either.
With FF sensor one can choose "slower" lens for space/weight savings and still get the same amount of light to the sensor (~equal noise). It is definitely an interesting time to select a camera system.
Canon & Nikon have unbeatable lens selection and availability of 2nd glass. But yeah, those are old-fashioned DSLRs ;-)
Mike Ronesia: You people crack me up. It is truly funny to read many of these posts.
If you want to really compare how different the sensors are add the phase one to the chart and you will see just how silly trying to pick apart these subtle differences is. I understand that for most here this analysis is more of a hobby then photography, but get real and use the benchmark camera in your comparisons if you want to get to the truth.
Methodology looks good.