From what I've read, the only tech on the horizon that could yield a substantial improvement is the organic sensor being developed by Panasonic (and Oly? Fuji?), which could realize about one stop more sensitivity. It might also deliver a global shutter, which would eliminate rolling shutter and enable use of flash with e-shutter. This is still probably at least two years away from commercial application.
I think there's still the unknown factor of graphene. They can make nearly everything out of it, including the wiring. It's very conductive so it will be interesting if they can get it into cameras.
Don't think so.
)
That graph is about DR { and a very specific definition of it } nothing to do with noise if you look at the 6D the noise performance is competitive with other FF cameras its problems is low ISO DR
} . For someone shooting for maximum image quality using base ISO which makes up the vast majority of what I shoot the advantage is very real
The size weight and ergonomics depends very much on the camera lens combo you choose. Where you can find a m43 lens fast enough or a FF lens slow enough to be equivalent the lens sizes are very similar
Robbie this has been explained literally hundreds of times here and in numerous articles including a very good one from DPreview. It is not just DOF the critical factor is total light gathered.The end result an image is what matters a P&S with a tiny sensor would give you the same shutter speed aperture combo at a given ISO as an E-M1 II , however just as with m43 and FF the end result is not the same.
And gather the same total light
It is extremely basic if you want to create equivalent images . You just need the following , same diagonal AOV lens , same DOF and the important one same total light gathered. The reasons so many are rabidly against it is that they perceive it as some criticism of their gear choices
And yet you are still happy to promote nonsenseNo need to be rude.Oh please save that nonsenseIs it a constant f4? If not, apples to oranges.The Sony 24-240mm is only 2.5mm longer
I do know that.
Perhaps instead of promoting disinformation you could have explained why F4 lenses on different formats have very different results
Well I would take a 24-105mm FF F/4 at 42mp and stretched out to 157.5mm in 18mp APS mode over a FF equivalent 24-200mm F/8 at 20mp but each to their ownI know you were. And the comparison is still not apt.Just because equivalence discussions have been all but banned from here does not change reality
I know I was just pointing out that the higher MP Sony camera allow more flexibility in cropping.The Oly gives you 200mm EFL, so apples to oranges again.Though I would much rather have the Oly
Yes, if you can capture the three components at each location in place of the Bayer, you capture the same light currently captured by a 35mm FF with a sensor the size of m43.
Current sensor's QE is also far from 90%. Noise is still being the plaque.
Another consideration. Sensor chip can not work alone. The supporting chips are not less important than it. However, it's "out of sight, out of mind".
.......
Even if all the chips (sensor included) are perfect, the software is not. It slowly crawls, can't speed up. Proper and good softwarse make different.
Btw, softwares include those that being embedded in the chips too.
..
If you had shot raw, you may observe that processing the old raw with new (camera engine) may give you more DR, less noise, better color, etc. Software development require sciences and lot of imaginations (day dreams may be included
--
Flashes of my Memory.
Dude, that's what I was referring to 4 posts above yours.
Me, too! I didn't know it was called "OPF", although I had seen Panasonic's announcement.
It is only ridiculous if using m43 with the latest Canon APS sensor and particularly any of the APS cameras using Sony sensors it is simply a non-issue as there are no severe penalties for doing so . And yes I agree of course it is an extreme example to show just how big a difference is possible. I do not need to push shadows quite this far but in real life use , with landscapes I often need to push shadows to balance an exposure due to the typically large DR of the scene
If you bother to read before attacking I specifically stated that m43 is handicapped by the too high base ISO believe me I have been lusting after a much lower true base ISO m43 camera for years .
Again the cameras are using their respective base ISO settings , which is exactly how I would use them in real life. If m43 had a true base ISO of 50 the gap with APS would be closed , with 25 ISO the gap with FF would be closed . We cannot avoid the current size disadvantage in sensor size , however we could certainly stop exacerbating it by using a higher base ISO than larger sensors.
I have made my point about shooting at the respective base ISO to achieve the best results in any system. This is perfectly reasonable and hardly controversial. I would love a m43 camera with a true 50 heck even 25 base ISO { if they throw in a few more MP better still
} . We have an excellent selection of fast lenses and the best IBIS on the market available to us so a lower base ISO would be easy to take advantages of certainly for most scenarios I shootActually the EM1.2 has a base ISO of 64 if you care so much about shadow noise.
Here is a better comparison using your cameras of choice.Again the cameras are using their respective base ISO settings , which is exactly how I would use them in real life. If m43 had a true base ISO of 50 the gap with APS would be closed , with 25ISO the gap with FF would be closed . We cannot avoid the current size disadvantage ins sensor size , however we could certainly stop exacerbating it by using a higher base ISO than larger sensors
I have made my point about shooting at the respective base ISO to achieve the best results in any system. This is perfectly reasonable and hardly controversial. I would love a m43 camera with a true 50 heck even 25 base ISO { if they throw in a few more MP better still
I am sorry that again offence is being taken for what is a fair point. I can easily see the consequences of the 200 base ISO using my own gear.
Not following this logic. When you need base ISO, wouldn't that be in a situation where highlights were the issue? And why not compare extended (which as pointed out above shows comparable results)?
Scenario 1: keep same AoV and DoF
Same resolution isn't a good assumption, but it really doesn't make any difference in the calculations.
Completely agree.
I think you meant to say the FF lens would have less DoF.
