Sony FF vs Olympus EM1-II: Creative choices vs. user experience

[drmarkf]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

Loading…

j.mp

 

[Jer81]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

 

[paul cool]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Not only that why would you buy the sony nikon or canon well canon and nikon have no choice but sony on the other hand has the new sigma art 85 f1.4 and it is going to be very good, lighter ,sharper and cheaper than the others here ,no brainer .Although not as cheap as f1.8 equivalents or in weight . But there are lots of options in focal range for sony samyang 75mm f1.8 also looks nice ,for my use i will get the macro 90mm g lens for portrait use it will possibly be to sharp for portrait but i find f2.8 a little more forgiving in some instances.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/58365044@N05/

 

[drmarkf]

Careful, now...

 

[bobn2]

Very good points!

I think it's a tricky decision because for some of your requirements the Olympus will win (long end, build quality, travel) and for others the Sony will win (shallow DoF, starry sky photography). People rave about Sony AF, but there are plenty of people out there proving that Olympus' is perfectly capable and I doubt you'd struggle with kids, especially with an Olympus pro lens.

That is exactly the conundrum.

Have you priced up the cost of the body and lenses you would want for each system? With the free f1.2 lens the Olympus may come in significantly cheaper.

It does, actually. Especially if I follow the very good advice to go at least for an A7 III.

An alternative may be to get an older Sony body (a7) and an astro lens and use it only for that since you'll be manually focussing anyway, and the E-M1 for everything else.

True. That way, the only thing I would be missing out on would be more DoF control in my travel zoom kit.

As a final point, have you physically held these two cameras? If not, try and get down to a bricks and mortar shop stocking both and have a play about.

I did, back before Covid. I liked both very much. Much more than the Z series to my surprise. I haven't checked the R series yet. This surprised me as Sony is usually criticised for its economics while Nikon is praised. I think this is coming from people who hold the cameras in their hands for very long periods of time, which I don't. It's either on a capture clip, a tripod, or a sling.

I've gotten used to the rear dial on the Sony. I have it assigned to ISO, which makes manipulation of the exposure triangle (aperature, ss, and iso) pretty effortless.

Well, it might be a triangle, but not an 'exposure triangle'. 'Aperature' isn't a thing, and ISO isn't an exposure parameter.

This explains what I was referring to:

https://fstoppers.com/education/exp...ure-shutter-speed-and-iso-work-together-72878

It's a good idea not to pick up your ideas from articles like that. It's full of mistakes and errors, and the authors certainly haven't a clue what 'ISO' is.

They've tried to include a disclaimer to cover their ignorance ("Nowadays, we can control the sensitivity of the digital sensor on the fly, though technically, we’re not controlling the sensitivity; this actually controls a post-image gain applied to the signal, but for all intents and purposes, you can think of this as sensitivity.") but the result is still a nonsense. You cannot control either the 'technical' or 'all intents and purposed' sensitivity of your sensor, and the ISO setting does not determine or specify what should be the sensitivity of your sensor. The idea that raising the ISO 'allows' you to work with less light is false. You can work with any amount of light you want, you don't need ISO's permission. The penalty for using little light is that you get more noise - it has nothing to do with ISO - they have that all back to front.

It's interesting that practically every promoter of the exposure triangle has no idea what ISO is, and a fair few don't know what exposure is either. These ones don't, they start off with 'The exposure triangle is a common way of associating the three variables that determine the exposure of a photograph: aperture, shutter speed, and ISO' This is nonsense. Exposure is determined by the f-number (not the aperture), shutter speed and scene luminance (plus a factor for the transmission of the lens if we want to be very accurate). ISO cannot determine exposure because ISO is defined by exposure. They also don't know what 'Exposure Value' (EV) is. The say 'We call a specific combination of f-number, shutter speed, and ISO an exposure value (EV)'. This is wrong too. An exposure value is a way of expressing the combined effect of shutter speed and f-number only.

Shame on them for publishing such a poor, misleading and utterly wrong article.

and thanks for catching the spelling error. I seem to repeat that error for some reason.

Many people do. I don't know why.

If someone just getting into photography wants to be able to function, I would not present your argument.

What on earth does that mean?

And, that's clearly the audience that the F-Stoppers article is oriented towards.

What, people who like to get the basics of photography wrong? If those are the people who appreciate this kind of work, it's clearly got its audience exactly right.

I would not get into ISO invariant sensors, shot noise, T-stops, or any of that stuff.

No need to. Just get the definition of 'exposure' right. That's a good start. Then get the definition of 'ISO' right. That's a good second. There is no excuse for a photography tutorial that gets wrong the very basics of photography, as in what is 'exposure' - which is universally seen as a core concept of photography.

When using a digital camera, I am constantly varying SS, aperture, and ISO, as well as other settings, to achieve a desired result based on my knowledge of what the camera will produce as output.

But you're very likely not doing it to the best effect, because having been misled by this tutorial you don't know what the controls are actually doing.

And, the output, of course, is going to have many characteristics such as the amount of noise in different zones, retention of highlight and shadow detail and color, and so forth. And, it takes quite a bit of experience with a camera these days to get a feel as to what the output is going to be for a specific scene because even raw files have been processed in-camera to a great extent.

I'm not even sure what the definition of ISO is these days, as opposed to film, when we could measure the density of a negative when the camera was imaging an 18% gray card.

The definition of ISO is what ISO says it is. It's all written down in ISO standard 12232.

On my A7RII, for example, a second native ISO kicks in around ISO 640 or so, and I exploit that a lot. But, I'll push the ISO up if I need to, and the mental calculation which I do is to visualize how the reduction in dynamic range is going to affect the image.

That's irrelevant to what ISO is. That's how the camera has been engineered, a completely different matter. It's like saying that to know the ISO rating of a film you have to know the film grain chemistry. The whole purpose of ISO is to provide an exposure index system that cuts away all that stuff.

So, all that I am saying is that having 3 dials on the camera to control these factors is quite convenient in manual mode, even if ISO does not work like it did in film days (which I still use from time to time.)

No disagreement there. But it doesn't make this completely wrong tutorial right, or excusable.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

 

[drmarkf]

Thank you for the very thorough answer! You make some excellent points.

Seeing that you apparently shot both with the Oly 17 1.8 and Oly 17 1.2, how would you say their capabilities differ? What kind of shots are you drawn to with either? I often feel that different lenses bring out different photographers in me.

I use them differently. The 17/1.8 tends to travel with the PEN-F. It's a bit soft wide open but focus is quick, accurate and silent. The snap-back manual focus clutch is nice but it doesn't have a physical linkage to the focus elements. It's still fly-by-wire and the increments are not as fine as I would like (but that's nitpicky). The 17/1.8 has been around for a while and easily available in excellent condition second hand for great prices. $400 new for one is a little steep I feel but they do go on sale regularly.

The 17/1.2 I use primarily for run and gun video but when I switch to stills I'm very impressed. It is rugged and balances well on the EM1 bodies. AF is near instant and it tracks very well in C-AF. Focus is completely silent. Focuses very well even in extremely low light. Resolution and contrast are very, very good. Flare is well controlled. I've seen some purple fringing in video on the GH5 in strong backlit situations wide open. If you're not opposed to grey market , the 17/1.2 can usually be found for ~ $800 USD. Used market is about the same price point.

It boils down to a question of "will you carry it". The 17/1.2 is the better lens but only if you'll carry it.

As a compromise, the Sigma 16/1.4 isn't so small but by all accounts very good and very affordable.

I’ve owned both of those, and I agree with all that. The 17 f1.2 is my favourite street lens when visual impact of my equipment for candid photography doesn’t matter much, and when ultimate portability isn’t needed. It allows reasonable subject isolation at 8-15 feet that is well within the CAF capabilities of the equipment at full aperture for people walking briskly by. Yes you can get softer backgrounds with FF gear, but you need the best-focusing bodies and considerable skill IMHO to exploit it reliably.

I agree 100% about the rolling shutter issues with a lot of FF bodies, so you need to invest in an A9 if you’re going to work candidly in that way with a Sony.

I had the 17 f1.8 quite a few years ago and wasn’t very impressed with the corners at full aperture for critical use (doesn’t matter for the average street image for social media, and I’m not a pixel peeper, but printing the full image could show up softness in some images). People say that more recent copies of the lens have improved, but I haven’t tried again.

I found the Pan-Leica 15 f1.7 noticeably better for full aperture sharpness, and it’s now my weapon of choice for ‘compact, low-impact’ street, especially with the M5iii.

I’d add that the M5iii is a killer for that sort of shooting - easily the most enjoyable & versatile camera body for it that I’ve ever used, short of really low-light (I take the A7S) & I do like dragging the shutter (switching in the M1iii’s 5-stop ND is brilliantly convenient).

 

[James Stirling]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really the self destructing plastic fantastic E-M5III is nowhere near the build quality of the Z6 or the likes of the E-M1II/III ,G9 etc . Though it is a nice match for the equally cheap and cheerful build of the 45mm F/1.8 which does not even have basic weather resistance. The 45mm also does the same job as a FF 90mm F/3.6!

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-nikon-z7-mirrorless-camera/

If you compare it to even a closely equivalent m43 lens the differences are not so much. The 85mm F/1.8 does the same job as a weather resistant AF m43 42.5mm F/0.9 . Of course no such lens exists , the closest are the F/1.2 "pro" lenses.


The only m43 comparisons that work out the "m43 way " are when you compare apples to bananas . When/if you can find m43 lenses to be fast enough to be even close to equivalent FF lenses, they are in the same size and weight category and always more expensive.
The 45mm "pro" is indeed shorter by 1.5cm { because it is only equivalent to a FF F/2.4 lens. } it also costs £150 more. We can only imagine how large, heavy and expensive a pro f/0.9 lens would be



In fact there are no m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equivalent to any Nikon Z FF lens. I suspect if there were they would be at least as large , heavy and definitely would be more expensive

14-30mm F/4 m43 equivalent 7-15mm F/2

24-70mm F/4 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/2

24-70mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/1.4

24-50mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-25mm F/2-3.2

24-200mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-100mm F/2-3.2

20mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 10mm F/0.9

24mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 12mm F/0.9

35mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 17.5mm F/0.9

50mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 25mm F/0.9

58mm F/0.95 m43 equivalent 29mm F/0.47

85mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 42.5mm F/0.9

70-200mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 35-100mm F/1.4

--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Not only that why would you buy the sony nikon or canon well canon and nikon have no choice but sony on the other hand has the new sigma art 85 f1.4 and it is going to be very good, lighter ,sharper and cheaper than the others here ,no brainer .Although not as cheap as f1.8 equivalents or in weight . But there are lots of options in focal range for sony samyang 75mm f1.8 also looks nice ,for my use i will get the macro 90mm g lens for portrait use it will possibly be to sharp for portrait but i find f2.8 a little more forgiving in some instances.

Paul, the 90mm macro is superb bit of glass { too sharp for portraits if pointed at my face} .But like most macro lenses even with the limiter it is not the fastest focussing lens. It is also heavier and larger than 85mm lenses. I use it now on my Z7 thanks to the TZE-01 adapter at least for my needs I see any FE lens as just another option







I have no need for F/1.4 FF lenses but the new Sigma looks interesting as it appears to be a true mirrorless design. It is a couple of mm shorter than the Nikon 85mm though heavier. I think it is also coming out in L mount

--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Jer81]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really

Yep, really I do like the compact, lighter and cheaper MFT more. We don't all have the same taste as members of the full frame evangelist group. Luckily we do have a choice.

And I do know that f/1.2 pro lenses are superior to consumer f/1.8 lenses.

 

[James Stirling]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really

Yep, really I do like the compact, lighter and cheaper MFT more. We don't all have the same taste as members of the full frame evangelist. Luckily we do have a choice.

There is nothing wrong with preferring the lighter set-up . I feel the same in some scenarios such as shooting video. It is the pointless endless inaccurate apples to oranges comparisons that get irksome. Luckily we don't all feel the same need to delude ourselves comparing lenses that do wildly different jobs.

From a DOF,subject isolation, total light gathering perspective . Comparing an F/1.8 ,m43 lens to a FF m43 lens is the same as comparing. The 40-150mm F/4-5.6 to the 40-150mm F/2.8 . Better tell all those guys that as far as you are concerned 2 stops better light gathering and DOF control apparently does not matter.



If you ignore the consequences { DOF control/subject isolation, system resolution, total light gathering } of lenses with the same effective focal length and nominal aperture. The the 1" cameras win hands down and with far closer to m43 image quality than m43 is to FF.

Two cameras, 20mp sensors, same resolution EVF ,one can do 24fps bursts with full AFc , one can only do 18fps with AFc, one has a 315-point phase-detection autofocus. Both with "fast" standard zooms one a nominal F/2.8 one a nominal F/1.8-2.8. My god that Olympus set-up is huge





This forum would be far better served if folk did not endlessly compare to FF at all. Or if they must then at least do it in good faith and compare lenses that do the same job. In any system or across systems smaller and lighter comes at a cost there is no free lunch. Even within a system if a lens that has the same effective focal length .Is much smaller than the other, like the 40-150's above it comes at the cost in DOF control and total light gathering

--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Jer81]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really

Yep, really I do like the compact, lighter and cheaper MFT more. We don't all have the same taste as members of the full frame evangelist. Luckily we do have a choice.

There is nothing wrong with preferring the lighter set-up .

I know.

 

[James Stirling]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really

Yep, really I do like the compact, lighter and cheaper MFT more. We don't all have the same taste as members of the full frame evangelist. Luckily we do have a choice.

There is nothing wrong with preferring the lighter set-up .

I know.

Excellent once you know why it is lighter perhaps you will stop making stupid comparisons

 

[Jer81]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really

Yep, really I do like the compact, lighter and cheaper MFT more. We don't all have the same taste as members of the full frame evangelist. Luckily we do have a choice.

There is nothing wrong with preferring the lighter set-up .

I know.

Excellent once you know why it is lighter perhaps you will stop making stupid comparisons

It's only a stupid comparison in the eyes of the full frame gestapo. I won't be intimidated.

 

[James Stirling]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really

Yep, really I do like the compact, lighter and cheaper MFT more. We don't all have the same taste as members of the full frame evangelist. Luckily we do have a choice.

There is nothing wrong with preferring the lighter set-up .

I know.

Excellent once you know why it is lighter perhaps you will stop making stupid comparisons

It's only a stupid comparison in the eyes of the full frame gestapo. I won't be intimidated.

You will not be educated you mean. Given how many times equivalence has been explained here and in countless articles across the internet in ways a 3yr old could understand. There are very few reasons why people persist with comparing apples to bananas. One you are two stupid to understand it, two you are in some form of self-denial or three you are attempting to deliberately deceive the gullible. None of them are flattering .

 

[LightCameraAction]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really the self destructing plastic fantastic E-M5III is nowhere near the build quality of the Z6 or the likes of the E-M1II/III ,G9 etc . Though it is a nice match for the equally cheap and cheerful build of the 45mm F/1.8 which does not even have basic weather resistance. The 45mm also does the same job as a FF 90mm F/3.6!

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-nikon-z7-mirrorless-camera/

If you compare it to even a closely equivalent m43 lens the differences are not so much. The 85mm F/1.8 does the same job as a weather resistant AF m43 42.5mm F/0.9 . Of course no such lens exists , the closest are the F/1.2 "pro" lenses.

The only m43 comparisons that work out the "m43 way " are when you compare apples to bananas . When/if you can find m43 lenses to be fast enough to be even close to equivalent FF lenses, they are in the same size and weight category and always more expensive.
The 45mm "pro" is indeed shorter by 1.5cm { because it is only equivalent to a FF F/2.4 lens. } it also costs £150 more. We can only imagine how large, heavy and expensive a pro f/0.9 lens would be



In fact there are no m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equivalent to any Nikon Z FF lens. I suspect if there were they would be at least as large , heavy and definitely would be more expensive

14-30mm F/4 m43 equivalent 7-15mm F/2

24-70mm F/4 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/2

24-70mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/1.4

24-50mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-25mm F/2-3.2

24-200mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-100mm F/2-3.2

20mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 10mm F/0.9

24mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 12mm F/0.9

35mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 17.5mm F/0.9

50mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 25mm F/0.9

58mm F/0.95 m43 equivalent 29mm F/0.47

85mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 42.5mm F/0.9

70-200mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 35-100mm F/1.4

But, why assume everyone wants/needs lenses that are "equivalent" to full frame?

There are really no full frame options that are the size of a panasonic 20mm, Olympus 45mm f1.8, etc. The small size has benifits (easier to fit in a diaper bag, does not get in the way when chasing a toddler around the park, etc.)

Truthfully, micro 4/3 can produce great images in most cases. If one is ok with the higher noise levels at lower exposures and values size micro 4/3 can be a great option.

 

[James Stirling]

Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt

Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t

Really the self destructing plastic fantastic E-M5III is nowhere near the build quality of the Z6 or the likes of the E-M1II/III ,G9 etc . Though it is a nice match for the equally cheap and cheerful build of the 45mm F/1.8 which does not even have basic weather resistance. The 45mm also does the same job as a FF 90mm F/3.6!

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-nikon-z7-mirrorless-camera/

If you compare it to even a closely equivalent m43 lens the differences are not so much. The 85mm F/1.8 does the same job as a weather resistant AF m43 42.5mm F/0.9 . Of course no such lens exists , the closest are the F/1.2 "pro" lenses.

The only m43 comparisons that work out the "m43 way " are when you compare apples to bananas . When/if you can find m43 lenses to be fast enough to be even close to equivalent FF lenses, they are in the same size and weight category and always more expensive.
The 45mm "pro" is indeed shorter by 1.5cm { because it is only equivalent to a FF F/2.4 lens. } it also costs £150 more. We can only imagine how large, heavy and expensive a pro f/0.9 lens would be



In fact there are no m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equivalent to any Nikon Z FF lens. I suspect if there were they would be at least as large , heavy and definitely would be more expensive

14-30mm F/4 m43 equivalent 7-15mm F/2

24-70mm F/4 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/2

24-70mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/1.4

24-50mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-25mm F/2-3.2

24-200mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-100mm F/2-3.2

20mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 10mm F/0.9

24mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 12mm F/0.9

35mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 17.5mm F/0.9

50mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 25mm F/0.9

58mm F/0.95 m43 equivalent 29mm F/0.47

85mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 42.5mm F/0.9

70-200mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 35-100mm F/1.4

But, why assume everyone wants/needs lenses that are "equivalent" to full frame?

I don't assume that at all. It is the BS comparisons of gear that does not do the same job at all that get tiresome

There are really no full frame options that are the size of a panasonic 20mm, Olympus 45mm f1.8, etc. The small size has benifits (easier to fit in a diaper bag, does not get in the way when chasing a toddler around the park, etc.)

Actually my Samyang 35mm F/2.8 or the more expensive Sony version are not that far away from my GX8+ 20mm combo.

Truthfully, micro 4/3 can produce great images in most cases. If one is ok with the higher noise levels at lower exposures and values size micro 4/3 can be a great option.

No one said other wise , I am as well as being a FF Gestapo member have been using m43 since 2009. All I am asking for is factual honest comparisons or as I say better yet cut out the BS comparisons to FF.

--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Iliah Borg]

I'm not even sure what the definition of ISO is these days, as opposed to film, when we could measure the density of a negative when the camera was imaging an 18% gray card.

What criteria do you use to determine ISO speed of a negative?

 

[buratino]

I'm not even sure what the definition of ISO is these days, as opposed to film, when we could measure the density of a negative when the camera was imaging an 18% gray card.

What criteria do you use to determine ISO speed of a negative?

oh, an interesting question from the past... It should relate somehow to a chosen/specific density of a toe area of the curve and probably its slope if I am not mistaken, leaving alone it might be not an ISO but "true" speed or so. I wait for refreshing comments.

 

[Iliah Borg]

I'm not even sure what the definition of ISO is these days, as opposed to film, when we could measure the density of a negative when the camera was imaging an 18% gray card.

What criteria do you use to determine ISO speed of a negative?

oh, an interesting question from the past... It should relate somehow to a chosen/specific density of a toe area of the curve and probably its slope if I am not mistaken, leaving alone it might be not an ISO but "true" speed or so. I wait for refreshing comments.

BW negative, from ISO 6:93 (second edition), "Photography - Black-and-white pictorial still camera negative film/process systems - Determination of ISO speed" https://www.iso.org/standard/3580.html

"The method for determining speed is illustrated in figure I. Point m is located on the curve at a density of 0,10 above base plus fog density. Point n is located on the curve where the base 10 logarithm of the exposure is 1,30 (log10, ib) units greater than that at point m. The development time of the negative material is so chosen that the density difference, ΔD, between points m and n is 0,80 (see annex A). Then, Hm represents the exposure, in lux seconds, corresponding to point m when the above condition is satisfied."



Annex A, Suggested method of determining log10 Hm:

"The value of log10 Hm can be determined by plotting log10 H, at a point where the density is 0,10 above base plus fog density, against ΔD, the difference in density between this point and a point where the base 10 logarithm of the exposure is 1,30 units greater. This is then repeated for a development series.

Draw a smooth curve through the points. Determine the log10 H corresponding to ΔD = 0,80 which is designated log10 Hm."



With colour negatives, Hn is not even used (ISO 5800:1987, "Photography - Colour negative films for still photography - Determination of ISO speed") https://www.iso.org/standard/11948.html

"Determination of Hm

Speed is calculated from the exposures required to produce red, green, and blue densities that are 0,15 above the corresponding minimum density values for each of the three curves. The exposure, Hm, is computed by the use of the formula:

Hm = sqrt ( HGreen * HSlowest_layer)

The exposure, Hm, represents the sensitometric parameter from which speed is computed.

If the green layer is also the slowest, Hm will equal HGreen."



--

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[MFiftysomething]

I have both systems -your Sony idea is a good one but get an A7 with a z battery- the old one sucks.