Another Olympus E-M1 and SONY a7 walkabout test, high ISO

Started Jan 29, 2014 | Discussions thread
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,557
Re: Lol, YOU missed it...

Lab D wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

Lab D wrote:

Thanks for the samples, they are very helpful.

I would remind everyone that Olympus has wider aperture lenses and IBIS too. This means if you use the Olympus 12-40mm F/2.8 as a walkabout lens, not only will you have a greater range and more uses (also a great close-up lens), but you will get 1 extra stop of light over the new Sony 24-70mm F/4 lens.

And if you are using primes, the FE primes don't have IS, so the IBIS will in some cases also give you a couple extra stops advantage.

For me it doesn't matter. There are no avaialbe long lenses fo rthe A7 and the focusing is still not good. For me the Sony is not even a consideration because it can't do what I want.

Since you are having a hard time to grasp the concept, why don't you consider the Sony (yes Sony) RX10 camera?

It has a constant f/2.8 aperture zoom lens, which has an FF-equivalent reach from 24mm-200mm in FF equivalent terms.

The RX10 is great camera. It also is an good example of what I said (glad to see you are agreeing with me again). Smaller sensors outperform larger sensor when you account for the size difference. For example, you would expect the A7 to be 2.7 stops better than the RX10, but is not (see diagram). It is only about 1.5 stops better, so if you use lenses that account for the 2.7 stop difference, the RX10 comes out ahead by a full stop as some ISOs. In fact, the RX10 with it's F/2.8 lens will beat the A7 F/5.6 zoom at 70mm and at some ISOs. Since there is no A7 lens that is longer than 70mm today, the RX10 is the best option for someone needing 100-200mm.

I loved my RX100, but the fixed lens made it too restrictive. I would get the RX10, but the size is a deterrent for me. I can put my GM1 in almost any pocket and I can attach a 300mm lens when I need it. Still, I highly recommend those Sony cameras.

I am done side tracking this thread, sorry Dan.

You keep nibbling on whether the "better" is quantified at 2x, 1.65x or 1.5x (see how early on I mentioned this?).

My point is that it is qualitatively better. The exact number is irrelevant, to a large degree.

I don't want to nitpick the graphs, they are what they are. Your understanding of them needs a little bit of work. Take some pictures, for starters.

If you can shoot low ISO - a smaller sensor is easier to work with if you can tolerate large DOF.

But if you shoot at high ISO - a larger sensor is your friend.

FWIW, you seem to not be able to understand that.

And by the way - your meandering by twisting subjects and attacking the messenger(s) does not change what was being discussed here: a 24Mp FF camera is a better choice at high(er) ISO levels than a 16Mp m43 camera. Pictures don't lie, especially the ones posted.

So go and enjoy your RX100??? (You actually purchased a Sony camera, lol?)

None of your side-discussions have any bearing on the main point: sensor size matters. For if it did not, we'd all be shooting with cell phone cameras, wouldn't we?

-- hide signature --


 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a7 II Sony a7R II +36 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow