The amount of light from change in AOV depends on the scene illumination. For example there may be point sources or only part of the scene illuminated in which case the amount of light would remain the same or close to the same from a change in AOV.
Of course. I thought I was writing about light gathering potential, but clearly I edited the "potential" out.
Ahh so it went back
such as the ability to take just one photo and the ability to not take loads more when placed in a bag switched on, or breathed on or looked at sternlyAmazing cameras does it all but for me it just did not have whatever the GX8 has that makes me love it
.Prob be Getting another myself and I`m going to get one of the places who do IR conversions (therefore know how to take a sensor stack apart) to replace the AA filter with plain glass ..... or get a Pen-F which is the same thing with IBIS, no AA filter and no shutter shock in a cooler but more expensive package (or is before any AA mods)
So a 50 mm f1.8 designed for full frame gathers more light than 50mm f1. 8 designed for the mft system? So then the correct exposure on a 35mm sensor would not be the same as for an mft sensor.
I thought you were talking about using the cameras for the same purpose, so the focal length on the two cameras would be what it needed to be to give the framing you wanted - that is if 25mm was right for mFT then 50mm would be right for FF. So, the 25mm f/18 and 50mm set to f/3.6 have the same aperture (which is why they give you the same depth of field). You're collecting light from the same scene (and the same portion of the scene, in case there's any confusion about that) through the same size hole, so you're collecting the same amount of light. You can't be doing anything else. The same amount of light ends up on the two sensors.
Only the light that makes it to the sensor counts. Since the sensor in the mFT is one quarter of the area, you put the same lens in front of it and in front of an FF sensor, and the mFT sensor collects one quarter of the light. However, the framing will be completely different. so if you were trying to create a particular photo, you wouldn't be using a 50mm lens in front of both camera, you'd be using a 25mm in front of the mFT.
Exposure isn't an amount of light, it's the density of the light (how much light there is per unit area).
Okay. I don't want to clog up this thread so just one more question as I'm still a little confused. If I shoot with the same settings on an mft and 35mm sensor camera (same lens) the exposure will be the same? The FOV would be different but will the exposure be as well?
This is actually a good question, and the answer is yes. But as @bobn2 pointed out, it does not really matter.
Exposure will be the same, but that's because it is designed to be.
I might answer as well. Yes, the exposure is the same. The exposure depends on the F-number* of the lens and the scene, nothing else. Sensitivity (ISO) is often mentioned to be one of the exposure parameters, but strictly speaking it is not.
I hummed and hawed Adam but eventually came to the conclusion that the things the G9 did better { quite a few of them }. Were not that important to me . At least I got to scratch the latest and greatest curiosity.
That G9 button did take a bit of getting used to maybe letting a Wyatt Earp fan decide the trigger speed was a boobsuch as the ability to take just one photo and the ability to not take loads more when placed in a bag switched on, or breathed on or looked at sternlyAmazing cameras does it all but for me it just did not have whatever the GX8 has that makes me love it
Shutter shock has never been a problem for me { though I know others had issues with certain lenses }. The AA filter on the GX8 does add a dash of softness but cuts down on moire a bit
me too but I was saddened that it didn`t go with the GH5 EVF and button as otherwise it fit the bill , but there you go ,,,,,
I`ve never had moire issues with the EM1-II or saw any of any issue in the G9 in the day I had it but the GX8's AA is pretty strong, was amazed at how heavy they made it comparing RAW develops to the EM1-II . deffo rip the one off the next one so long as it doesn`t shove the price up toi PENF levels - minty GX8s can be had for £300 .great buy
Agreed that the recital is painful. You would think a company of that size would have at least a couple of "high execs" who could speak English half decently.
Generally - and especially in the case of Panasonic - the terms "marketing" and "thinking" are a perfect example of an oxymoron...
Looks like a GX9 with an optional bigger eye-cup. If only it were a true GX8 MkII...
That perfect camera remains ever allusive
As I say I have my spare GX8 ready
I am not sure why they made the AA so strong. Sometimes Panasonic's decisions are a mystery
Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.As I say I have my spare GX8 ready
I did think about that but arguably their GH4/5 are far more video centric models and they don't seem to have such a strong AA.Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.As I say I have my spare GX8 ready
I felt bad until I saw the PC 24mm chart.I did think about that but arguably their GH4/5 are far more video centric models and they don't seem to have such a strong AA.Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.As I say I have my spare GX8 ready
In an other thread that ran out I would have to disagree with you about the Nikon 19mm PC , i think it is overall the best wide PC lens on the market .I did buy and try the Canon 17mm F/4 TSE and the mk 1 24mm when I was using Sony FF. The Nikon had better edges .
I have tried all three adapted to Sony though I have been able to use it natively on my D810. Either way I think it is a bit of a hair splitter. As central performance on them is excellent The more niche use of such lenses cuts down the numbers of serious comparisons . It could have been vagaries of adapters or lens copies . I picked up the Canon models used . Given the price of the Nikon , I shall use a dash of confirmation bias to self-justify the emptying of my wallet
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-perspective-control-lenses/
The 24mm looks stronger at the centre and the Nikon stronger at the edges . Definitely prior to the 19mm , Canon TSE lenses across the board were better . Though if you are looking at longer focal lengths that Canon 135mm F/4 TSE is a star. I assume longer focal lengths are easier to design but that is a superb performer no matter how you look at itI felt bad until I saw the PC 24mm chart.I did think about that but arguably their GH4/5 are far more video centric models and they don't seem to have such a strong AA.Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.As I say I have my spare GX8 ready
In an other thread that ran out I would have to disagree with you about the Nikon 19mm PC , i think it is overall the best wide PC lens on the market .I did buy and try the Canon 17mm F/4 TSE and the mk 1 24mm when I was using Sony FF. The Nikon had better edges .
I have tried all three adapted to Sony though I have been able to use it natively on my D810. Either way I think it is a bit of a hair splitter. As central performance on them is excellent The more niche use of such lenses cuts down the numbers of serious comparisons . It could have been vagaries of adapters or lens copies . I picked up the Canon models used . Given the price of the Nikon , I shall use a dash of confirmation bias to self-justify the emptying of my wallet
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-perspective-control-lenses/
Andrew
You're right there. Nikon seems to have pulled it back.I did think about that but arguably their GH4/5 are far more video centric models and they don't seem to have such a strong AA.Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.As I say I have my spare GX8 ready
In an other thread that ran out I would have to disagree with you about the Nikon 19mm PC , i think it is overall the best wide PC lens on the market .I did buy and try the Canon 17mm F/4 TSE and the mk 1 24mm when I was using Sony FF. The Nikon had better edges .
I have tried all three adapted to Sony though I have been able to use it natively on my D810. Either way I think it is a bit of a hair splitter. As central performance on them is excellent The more niche use of such lenses cuts down the numbers of serious comparisons . It could have been vagaries of adapters or lens copies . I picked up the Canon models used . Given the price of the Nikon , I shall use a dash of confirmation bias to self-justify the emptying of my wallet
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-perspective-control-lenses/
