M43/APSC/Full Frame - Best Suited to My Needs

richmorris73 · Nov 17, 2018

I am really torn between what route to take to upgrade my current camera.

I currently have a M43 Panasonic G6. I did have a few lenses with it, but have sold most now with the intention of upgrading to FF.

In fairness, at base and low ISO, with reasonable lighting the G6 is actually/probably perfectly adequate for my needs.

My photography is hobby only, and travel, landscape, family, a bit of sports - a mixed bag.

I rarely spend any time post processing. So mostly use OOC jpegs.

I print, mostly A4 size or less, and occasionally larger, but no bigger than A3 generally, if I have photo I like.

The reason I am looking to upgrade is for performance at high ISO, low light, where above ISO 800 or 1600 at a push, I find detail is lost as a result of noise/noise reduction. And it starts to be noticeable in larger (A4+) prints, so that I will not use them.

I am certain that some of this is related to my own skills.

Some of the issue might be resolvable with better/faster prime lenses. (My fastest lens was Leica 12-60 f2.8-4)

I found myself looking at upgrading to a Panasonic G9, and that would seem to offer an improvement in higher ISO performance, but maybe by 1 stop?

Then I thought about a Fuji X-T3, which seems to be maybe slightly better again, but not actually much improved over the G9 (at least at jpegs).

Then of course, I started to look at the latest full frame cameras Sony A7 iii and Nikon Z6 which maybe start to improve by 1 stop again. They are a real step up in IQ as ISO increases.

BUT, for my needs, will I really exploit that benefit at A3 print size, and notice much difference up to ISO 6400?

The other benefit of staying M43 is price and size, which although not critically important, means I would be able to buy, and carry a more versatile M43 kit with a couple of bright, fast primes as well as decent range of versatile zooms.

Or will I be disappointed with a slight improvement in M43, compared to what I would get in FF? It looks like that benefit starts to show from ISO 1600/3200.

I'd appreciate any comments or input based on experience of a similar situation and outcome.

Rich

ThrillaMozilla · Nov 19, 2018

tedolf said:
If you move to f/1.7 m/43 lenses it will be a wash with a full frame camera and constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lenses (which seems to be what all the pro's are using on FF) in terms of noise and DOF profiles.

Well, an f/1.4 M43 lens would be equivalent to that f/2.8 zoom at twice the focal length, except that:

1. It doesn't zoom.

2. An f/1.4 lens has a lot of aberrations at the edges.

3. That f/1.4 lens isn't f/1.4 all the way to the edge. It's usually a lot darker at the edges, and probably worse in that respect than the f/2.8 lens.

That's the essence of the FF advantage.

Michael Fryd · Nov 19, 2018

kiwi2 said:
Michael Fryd said:

...

Click to expand...

I find it strange you think exposure doesn't matter with digital cameras like it did with film cameras???

At 10:15 in this vid where they look at highlight recovery, any more than one stop overexposure loses highlight details on the Fuji. Wouldn't this this indicate that getting a good exposure is still advantageous with a digital camera?

Of course exposure matters with digital, but not in the same way as with film.

If your concern is about highlights, then you want to make sure you're not blowing them out. However, if your scene is so bright that you are in danger of blowing highlights at base ISO, then image noise is likely not your main concern. In the OP's case he is concerned about image noise and low light photography.

Keep in mind that with digital sensor, there isn't a "natural ISO" like there is with film.

On my canon camera there's a feature called "Highlight Tone Priority". It's intended to help preserve highlight detail. It does this by mucking with the ISO (note: not a scientifically accurate description of the process). If I was shooting at ISO 100 and turn on Highlight Tone Priority, the camera tells me my ISO is now 200. This encourages me to reduce my exposure by one stop, and presto, my highlights are preserved!

ThrillaMozilla · Nov 19, 2018

kiwi2 said:
You are overlooking a major factor of optics. The more you magnify something, the dimmer it gets.

You don't seem to have misunderstood. This has been taken into account. Larger sensors either require longer exposure times or receive less exposure (light per unit area) with the same DOF. But larger sensors can tolerate lower exposures (much better than film) without increasing shot noise, because they receive the same total light under equivalent conditions. If the exposure time can be increased, this is a bonus for FF.

Bobn is a professor of physics, I believe, and knows this very thoroughly. You probably know that by now. He and Michael Fryd have explained it well.

ThrillaMozilla · Nov 19, 2018

bobn2 said:
ThrillaMozilla said:

This is a case in which scientists or engineers probably misappropriated a word at least a century ago,

Click to expand...

Science always does that. It takes an existing word and gives it a precise meaning in that context.

In this case, someone screwed up. It's the same as redefining "window" to mean "size of window".

Michael Fryd · Nov 19, 2018

ThrillaMozilla said:
kiwi2 said:

You are overlooking a major factor of optics. The more you magnify something, the dimmer it gets.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to have misunderstood. This has been taken into account. Larger sensors either require longer exposure times or receive less exposure (light per unit area) with the same DOF. But larger sensors can tolerate lower exposures without increasing shot noise, because they receive the same total light under equivalent conditions. If the exposure time can be increased, this is a bonus for FF.

Bobn is a professor of physics, I believe, and knows this very thoroughly. I am sure he and Michael Fryd have explained it well.

The above diagram shows a simplified overview of a small and large sensor camera overlaid over each other.

In this example, the larger sensor is twice as tall as the smaller sensor, and twice as far from the lens.

You will note, that both sensors get the same number of photons. On the larger sensor that spread over a larger area, hence there is less light per unit area. You will also notice that the larger sensor is twice as far from the lens, this we would need a lens with twice the focal length.

My hope with this image is to show you that the as long as the angle of view is the same, and the aperture diameter is the same, then we are getting the same stream of photons. Therefore we are going to get the same image in terms of depth of field, diffraction, shot noise, etc. Sensor size merely tells us how far it needs to be from the lens (focal length) in order to get the desired angle of view.

ThrillaMozilla · Nov 19, 2018

Michael Fryd said:
ThrillaMozilla said:

I am sure he and Michael Fryd have explained it ~~well.~~ VERY well.

Click to expand...

richmorris73 · Nov 19, 2018

ThrillaMozilla said:
richmorris73 said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

richmorris73 said:

I tried making an assessment based on printing, at my usual sizes, samples from the DPR test scene.

....All samples look ok in good light. In low light, I start to see m43 iq reduced. Even on an A3 print, and very slightly on A4.

Click to expand...

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but there is one catch in viewing those DPR comparison images, which you might have missed.

Rule:

For the same DOF and shutter speed, to compare with FF, view APS-C at half the ISO setting and MFT at 1/4 the ISO setting.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

NOTE ADDED LATER: The above rule will give you photographically equivalent conditions.

ThrillaMozilla said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

Otherwise, if you are not constrained by DOF or shutter speed (i.e., if you can accept shallow DOF or long shutter speeds), you can compare using the same ISO setting for all sensor sizes.

The reason is that the larger f-numbers required for same depth of field with FF require larger ISO settings to compensate for reduced exposure (assuming same shutter speed). In the DPR tests the high-ISO setting test shots are made at reduced exposure (except when they are testing ISO-invariance).

Click to expand...

The settings for the different cameras types images was noted. All shot at same f-stop (not aperture size) but at mostly equivelant factored focal lengths.
Makes comparison not entirely straight forward.

Click to expand...

You don't need to be concerned about what f-number they used. They are not intending to compare any aspect of the lens or the lens setting. (They don't even specify what lens or what focal length they use, although they may mention it in various places.) Their only objective is to get as sharp an image as possible, so you can compare sensors.

And when you take your pictures, for constant DOF you will need different camera settings with different sensor sizes. I think you have understood that much. The part you may have missed is that if you are constrained by DOF, because you will also use different f-numbers (and exposures) for different sensor sizes, you will also need different ISO settings. That's why you also need to use different ISO settings for different sensor sizes in the DPR tests.

And when you use ISO settings according to the first rule, you will probably find that different sensor sizes are pretty much alike in terms of noise. That's because the noise in those images is dominated by the amount of received. And equalizing the amount of light per image is what Bobn and Michael Fryd have been telling you.

But to reiterate, FF cameras have a potential two-stop advantage in light gathering over MFT, provided you are willing to accept (or require) a smaller depth of field and have a suitable fast lens available. If you can't accept a shallower depth of field (and test under photographically equivalent conditions), then there is no noise advantage. Used according to my first rule above, the DPR test photos should pretty much verify that for you.

But there is one gotcha. Some cameras do have better sensor systems than others however, and may add electronic noise or other kinds of defects. Part of this will show up in the DPR tests on ISO invariance.

There are also two other advantages of FF cameras that may not have been mentioned. First, some of them have higher pixels counts, which may result in more detailed images. Second, they tend to have greater dynamic range than cameras with small sensors.

Maybe I misundestand something about your first rule, equivelance, or the test scene.
All images, irrespective of format are taken at the same f-number. Irrespective of ISO also.
Therefore they cannot have the same DOF, and cannot be equivalent?
Changing the ISO on the samples, only trades shutter speed for ISO. Which doesn't impact DOF?
Without having control of aperture, and knowing the lens focal length, I have no way of making them fully equivelant?

I thought I understood what bobn and Michael Fryd are suggesting regarding aperture, relative to light "gathering" on the sensor.

In order to equalise the light per your suggestion, the DPR test scene only decreases shutter speed. The apertures are unaffected. Changing shutter speed changes the captured image, in the case of motion. Surely to make equivelant photos, the SS, aperture and focal length all need to be equivalent.

I would not be surprised if by that rule, all the images were equally affected by noise. I think I have already seen it.

Which is fine, except for shutter speeds?

What have I missed?

Rich

ThrillaMozilla · Nov 19, 2018

richmorris73 said:
Maybe I misundestand something about your first rule, equivelance, or the test scene.
All images, irrespective of format are taken at the same f-number. Irrespective of ISO also.

They have a flat subject, so depth of field and F-number are essentially irrelevant in their tests. However, they are VERY relevant to your photography. If you take photographically equivalent pictures with different sensor sizes with same DOF, you will use different exposures for the two cameras. You will use 1/4 the exposure for FF as for MFT (for example, f/8 for FF, f/4 for MFT, same shutter speed). If they test MFT at ISO 1600 and FF at 6400, that's exactly what they are doing: giving FF 1/4 the exposure (light/area) (but the same TOTAL amount of light!).

It's a little confusing, I know, because they are not varying the f-number. But that's not necessary for this comparison.

bobn2 · Nov 19, 2018

Michael Fryd said:
ThrillaMozilla said:

kiwi2 said:

You are overlooking a major factor of optics. The more you magnify something, the dimmer it gets.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to have misunderstood. This has been taken into account. Larger sensors either require longer exposure times or receive less exposure (light per unit area) with the same DOF. But larger sensors can tolerate lower exposures without increasing shot noise, because they receive the same total light under equivalent conditions. If the exposure time can be increased, this is a bonus for FF.

Bobn is a professor of physics, I believe, and knows this very thoroughly. I am sure he and Michael Fryd have explained it well.

Click to expand...

Did you get the model from an agency? If so, can I have a link, please? You don't come across many models with that particular look.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

bobn2 · Nov 19, 2018

ThrillaMozilla said:
bobn2 said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

This is a case in which scientists or engineers probably misappropriated a word at least a century ago,

Click to expand...

Science always does that. It takes an existing word and gives it a precise meaning in that context.

Click to expand...

In this case, someone screwed up. It's the same as redefining "window" to mean "size of window".

The 'size' thing is generally implicit. You tend to say 'the force is 10 Newtons', not 'the size of the force is 10 Newtons'. There is a whole load that is implied about an 'aperture'. For a start, it's assumed that it's circular. Then it's assumed that it's either completely transmissive or not. Then we assume that we're measuring the diameter, not the area or radius. It's also assumed to be flat, on a plane, whilst the entrance pupil of a well-corrected lens is actually a section of a sphere (if it wasn't, ultra wide angle lenses would vignette even worse than they do). Then we assume that what we call 'f-number' is given by the focal length divided by the aperture, when that is only an approximation that works at infinity, and so on.

The screw ups happen because people are lazy, and don't want to use more words than they have to, so they leave out the ones that seem 'obvious'. Then, one hundred and fifty years later, people on a web photo forum decide that they should have been more precise just because a few of them are wilfully deploying the ambiguity.

ThrillaMozilla · Nov 19, 2018

bobn2 said:
ThrillaMozilla said:

bobn2 said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

This is a case in which scientists or engineers probably misappropriated a word at least a century ago,

Click to expand...

Science always does that. It takes an existing word and gives it a precise meaning in that context.

Click to expand...

In this case, someone screwed up. It's the same as redefining "window" to mean "size of window".

Click to expand...

The 'size' thing is generally implicit. You tend to say 'the force is 10 Newtons', not 'the size of the force is 10 Newtons'.

Force yes, windows no. Dogs no. Not where I come from. Maybe different over there.

Oddly enough, I looked up "force" in a (small) dictionary, but didn't see it defined to mean the measure of a force. That seems to be missing.

But in a rule I just made up, I draw the line at concrete objects. You might say "the length of the dog is 1 m", or "the dog is 1m in length", but you would not say "the dog is 1m". You can check with a scientific writing style manual if you wish, although I'm growing weary of the discussion.

I think you are right on the mark with talk of ambiguity. Force is only measured in units of force, whereas a window could be measure by its clarity, it's beauty, its area, etc. I guess that's why you have to say "window height" instead of "window", and "aperture diameter" instead of "aperture".

bobn2 said:
The screw ups happen because people are lazy, and don't want to use more words than they have to, so they leave out the ones that seem 'obvious'.

Yes.

tedolf · Nov 19, 2018

ThrillaMozilla said:
tedolf said:

If you move to f/1.7 m/43 lenses it will be a wash with a full frame camera and constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lenses (which seems to be what all the pro's are using on FF) in terms of noise and DOF profiles.

Click to expand...

Well, an f/1.4 M43 lens would be equivalent to that f/2.8 zoom at twice the focal length, except that:

1. It doesn't zoom.

True.

ThrillaMozilla said:
2. An f/1.4 lens has a lot of aberrations at the edges.

Depends on the lens. The Panny 42.5mm f/1.4 is pretty good out to the edges wide open. Some of the Canon white FF constant aperture f/2.8 zooms are not exactly stellar at the edges, particularly at one end or the other.

ThrillaMozilla said:
3. That f/1.4 lens isn't f/1.4 all the way to the edge. It's usually a lot darker at the edges, and probably worse in that respect than the f/2.8 lens.

Again this depends on the lenses. E.g. the Oly 75mm f/1.8 is pretty much perfect at all apertures.

ThrillaMozilla said:
That's the essence of the FF advantage.

In general I agree with you. The OP has to ask himself whether it is worth the cost and weight penalty for those incremental benefits.

Tedolph

richmorris73 · Nov 19, 2018

ThrillaMozilla said:
richmorris73 said:

Maybe I misundestand something about your first rule, equivelance, or the test scene.
All images, irrespective of format are taken at the same f-number. Irrespective of ISO also.

Click to expand...

They have a flat subject, so depth of field and F-number are essentially irrelevant in their tests. However, they are VERY relevant to your photography. If you take photographically equivalent pictures with different sensor sizes with same DOF, you will use different exposures for the two cameras. You will use 1/4 the exposure for FF as for MFT (for example, f/8 for FF, f/4 for MFT, same shutter speed). If they test MFT at ISO 1600 and FF at 6400, that's exactly what they are doing: giving FF 1/4 the exposure (light/area) (but the same TOTAL amount of light!).

It's a little confusing, I know, because they are not varying the f-number. But that's not necessary for this comparison.

Thanks, actually, I eventually worked out what you were saying myself. Just took me a while! Understood completely now, thank you!

Rich

richmorris73 · Nov 19, 2018

tedolf said:
ThrillaMozilla said:

tedolf said:

If you move to f/1.7 m/43 lenses it will be a wash with a full frame camera and constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lenses (which seems to be what all the pro's are using on FF) in terms of noise and DOF profiles.

Click to expand...

Well, an f/1.4 M43 lens would be equivalent to that f/2.8 zoom at twice the focal length, except that:

It doesn't zoom.

Click to expand...

True.

tedolf said:

An f/1.4 lens has a lot of aberrations at the edges.

Click to expand...

Depends on the lens. The Panny 42.5mm f/1.4 is pretty good out to the edges wide open. Some of the Canon white FF constant aperture f/2.8 zooms are not exactly stellar at the edges, particularly at one end or the other.

tedolf said:

That f/1.4 lens isn't f/1.4 all the way to the edge. It's usually a lot darker at the edges, and probably worse in that respect than the f/2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

Again this depends on the lenses. E.g. the Oly 75mm f/1.8 is pretty much perfect at all apertures.

tedolf said:

That's the essence of the FF advantage.

Click to expand...

In general I agree with you. The OP has to ask himself whether it is worth the cost and weight penalty for those incremental benefits.

Tedolph

Hi Tedolph,

That is what I am trying to do! And it is easy to get caught up in FF is better, of m43 is better arguements. Which I am trying to avoid! Each has their merits.

I have no particular desire for any particular format. What I do desire, is to improve the IQ (noise) of photos taken in poor/low light.

If a brighter lens may be the answer, I'm not wholly sure. Maybe a brighter lens, and latest generation camera? Or maybe a brighter lens and a bigger sensor.

I plan to make a list of lenses I'd like in each format, and work out the cost and weight for each set up.

Inevitably there will be compromises, as sometimes there are not equivalent lenses (eg there is no m43 equivelant to a FF 50mm f1.8)

I love a list, maybe it will help, especially when I see the price and weight!

Rich

bobn2 · Nov 20, 2018

tedolf said:
Depends on the lens. The Panny 42.5mm f/1.4 is pretty good out to the edges wide open. Some of the Canon white FF constant aperture

(constant f-number, the aperture changes as it zooms

)

tedolf said:
f/2.8 zooms are not exactly stellar at the edges, particularly at one end or the other.

tedolf said:

3. That f/1.4 lens isn't f/1.4 all the way to the edge. It's usually a lot darker at the edges, and probably worse in that respect than the f/2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

Again this depends on the lenses. E.g. the Oly 75mm f/1.8 is pretty much perfect at all apertures.

Both the above depend on what you call 'perfect'. Certainly ,many mFT lenses have a very consistent performance edge to edge (it comes from them being oversize for their aperture) but very often at an absolute level, their edge performance can't match the edge performance of FF lenses. It's just that the FF lenses get a lot better in the centre. And since the arrival of mFT's oversize lens philosophy in FF, it's not actually short of fast lenses with edge to edge performance that surpasses mFT easily.

Every single system is a compromise. It's your choice what is the balance of compromise that suits you best.

tedolf said:
tedolf said:

That's the essence of the FF advantage.

Click to expand...

In general I agree with you. The OP has to ask himself whether it is worth the cost and weight penalty for those incremental benefits.

Which seems to be exactly what the OP is doing, thoughtfully and systematically.

kiwi2 · Nov 20, 2018

richmorris73 said:
Inevitably there will be compromises, as sometimes there are not equivalent lenses (eg there is no m43 equivelant to a FF 50mm f1.8)

And this is why I think it is largely silly talking about and trying to compare equivalence between different camera formats. Sure you can say f/4 on FF is the same as f/2 on m4/3s, but then you could always put a f/2 lens on the FF camera as well.

Any camera system is always going to benefit from faster lenses in lower light.

That's why we are buying interchangeable lens cameras after all.

Michael Fryd · Nov 20, 2018

kiwi2 said:
richmorris73 said:

Inevitably there will be compromises, as sometimes there are not equivalent lenses (eg there is no m43 equivelant to a FF 50mm f1.8)

Click to expand...

And this is why I think it is largely silly talking about and trying to compare equivalence between different camera formats.

Perhaps a better word would be "Comparison" instead of equivalence.

kiwi2 said:
Sure you can say f/4 on FF is the same as f/2 on m4/3s, but then you could always put a f/2 lens on the FF camera as well.

But if you are already shooting f1.8 on your full frame, you need to know whether you can get the same shot on an M43. If you can, you can take use the lighter and smaller M43 camera. If you can't then you need the larger format.

Without the proper tools to compare, you can't make an informed decision on which camera to use for a particular job.

kiwi2 said:
Any camera system is always going to benefit from faster lenses in lower light.

It depends on what you mean by "faster". If you mean "a lens that allows you to use high shutter speeds to stop action, and yields low noise photos" then the definition of "fast" will vary with sensor size. An f/4 lens on a large medium format body is fast enough to allow good low light photography. An f/4 lens on a cell phone is going to result in noisy low light photos.

kiwi2 said:
That's why we are buying interchangeable lens cameras after all.

Yes, the range of available lenses (in terms of aperture diameter and angle of view) varies with format. Take a 50mm f/1.8 lens on a full frame. This is a relatively inexpensive lens. On an M43 you would need a 25mm f/0.9 lens in order to get the same results. That's not an easy to find lens.

tedolf · Nov 20, 2018

richmorris73 said:
tedolf said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

tedolf said:

If you move to f/1.7 m/43 lenses it will be a wash with a full frame camera and constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lenses (which seems to be what all the pro's are using on FF) in terms of noise and DOF profiles.

Click to expand...

Well, an f/1.4 M43 lens would be equivalent to that f/2.8 zoom at twice the focal length, except that:

It doesn't zoom.

Click to expand...

True.

richmorris73 said:

An f/1.4 lens has a lot of aberrations at the edges.

Click to expand...

Depends on the lens. The Panny 42.5mm f/1.4 is pretty good out to the edges wide open. Some of the Canon white FF constant aperture f/2.8 zooms are not exactly stellar at the edges, particularly at one end or the other.

richmorris73 said:

That f/1.4 lens isn't f/1.4 all the way to the edge. It's usually a lot darker at the edges, and probably worse in that respect than the f/2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

Again this depends on the lenses. E.g. the Oly 75mm f/1.8 is pretty much perfect at all apertures.

richmorris73 said:

That's the essence of the FF advantage.

Click to expand...

In general I agree with you. The OP has to ask himself whether it is worth the cost and weight penalty for those incremental benefits.

Tedolph

Click to expand...

Hi Tedolph,

That is what I am trying to do! And it is easy to get caught up in FF is better, of m43 is better arguements. Which I am trying to avoid! Each has their merits.

If you are in the shooting envelope of each camera (and there are large overlaps in the shooting envelopes) then there is no practical difference in IQ.

richmorris73 said:
I have no particular desire for any particular format. What I do desire, is to improve the IQ (noise) of photos taken in poor/low light.

See above.

richmorris73 said:
If a brighter lens may be the answer, I'm not wholly sure. Maybe a brighter lens, and latest generation camera? Or maybe a brighter lens and a bigger sensor.

More light is always the answer. With a smaller format, that means a brighter lens.

Or, if possible, add light. That is independent of format.

richmorris73 said:
I plan to make a list of lenses I'd like in each format, and work out the cost and weight for each set up.

Now that makes sense.

richmorris73 said:
Inevitably there will be compromises, as sometimes there are not equivalent lenses (eg there is no m43 equivelant to a FF 50mm f1.8)

Actually there is: 25mm f/0.95 Voigtlander.

Olympus 25mm f/1.2 comes very close. Within half a stop.

My personal experience is that f/1.7 lenses on m 4/3 give me everything I need in terms of DOF and low light capability, and there is a very good selection of lenses with that speed.

richmorris73 said:
I love a list, maybe it will help, especially when I see the price and weight!

Rich

TEdolph

tedolf · Nov 20, 2018

Michael Fryd said:
kiwi2 said:

richmorris73 said:

Inevitably there will be compromises, as sometimes there are not equivalent lenses (eg there is no m43 equivelant to a FF 50mm f1.8)

Click to expand...

And this is why I think it is largely silly talking about and trying to compare equivalence between different camera formats.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a better word would be "Comparison" instead of equivalence.

Michael Fryd said:

Sure you can say f/4 on FF is the same as f/2 on m4/3s, but then you could always put a f/2 lens on the FF camera as well.

Click to expand...

But if you are already shooting f1.8 on your full frame, you need to know whether you can get the same shot on an M43. If you can, you can take use the lighter and smaller M43 camera. If you can't then you need the larger format.

Without the proper tools to compare, you can't make an informed decision on which camera to use for a particular job.

Michael Fryd said:

Any camera system is always going to benefit from faster lenses in lower light.

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "faster". If you mean "a lens that allows you to use high shutter speeds to stop action, and yields low noise photos" then the definition of "fast" will vary with sensor size. An f/4 lens on a large medium format body is fast enough to allow good low light photography. An f/4 lens on a cell phone is going to result in noisy low light photos.

Michael Fryd said:

That's why we are buying interchangeable lens cameras after all.

Click to expand...

Yes, the range of available lenses (in terms of aperture diameter and angle of view) varies with format. Take a 50mm f/1.8 lens on a full frame. This is a relatively inexpensive lens. On an M43 you would need a 25mm f/0.9 lens in order to get the same results. That's not an easy to find lens.

Actually you have a couple of native choices.

With speed booster adapters, you have a lot of choices.

TEdolph

tedolf · Nov 20, 2018

bobn2 said:
tedolf said:

Depends on the lens. The Panny 42.5mm f/1.4 is pretty good out to the edges wide open. Some of the Canon white FF constant aperture

Click to expand...

(constant f-number, the aperture changes as it zooms )

I should have been ready for that.

Yes, I should have said "constant F-number".

Blame Canon for the nomenclature error.

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

f/2.8 zooms are not exactly stellar at the edges, particularly at one end or the other.

bobn2 said:

3. That f/1.4 lens isn't f/1.4 all the way to the edge. It's usually a lot darker at the edges, and probably worse in that respect than the f/2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

Again this depends on the lenses. E.g. the Oly 75mm f/1.8 is pretty much perfect at all apertures.

Click to expand...

Both the above depend on what you call 'perfect'. Certainly ,many mFT lenses have a very consistent performance edge to edge (it comes from them being oversize for their aperture)

Yes.

bobn2 said:
but very often at an absolute level,

Also true.

bobn2 said:
their edge performance can't match the edge performance of FF lenses.

I haven't seen much to demonstrate this but I will take your word for it.

bobn2 said:
It's just that the FF lenses get a lot better in the centre. And since the arrival of mFT's oversize lens philosophy in FF, it's not actually short of fast lenses with edge to edge performance that surpasses mFT easily.

Every single system is a compromise. It's your choice what is the balance of compromise that suits you best.

Yes.

The point I am trying to make, especially to a beginner is that the difference may not be as great as intuition might suggest, and there are ways (within limits) to work around things if you are using a smaller sensor.

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

That's the essence of the FF advantage.

Click to expand...

In general I agree with you. The OP has to ask himself whether it is worth the cost and weight penalty for those incremental benefits.

Click to expand...

Which seems to be exactly what the OP is doing, thoughtfully and systematically.

Agreed, and he should be credited for making the effort.

TEdolph

M43/APSC/Full Frame - Best Suited to My Needs

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts