M43 better for low light argument

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
guy_incognito1 Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: M43 better for low light argument

JakeJY wrote:

I see a lot of people don't actually read the article.

The key assumption the author is making is using "equivalent" apertures for both cameras (so that DOF and total light hitting both sensors remains the same). In such a case, the cameras he examined (a E-M1 II at ISO 400 vs a 1DX III at ISO 1600) the MFT camera actually is slightly better in SNR and color fidelity according to DXO.

However, in daylight scenes, shooting both at base ISO, the MFT camera is actually more limited (may have to resort to electronic shutter if no ND filter, available in order to not blow out highlights).

I see a lot of comments in that article going off into tangents ignoring that assumption being made.

Yeah, people didn't read the article, but the article is kind of obfuscating the real world implications.

The real conclusion should really be:

Micro 4/3 is superior to FF for INCREASED DOF.

Most people don't viscerally accept the conclusion "mft is better at shooting low light than FF" because usually in low light, and in fact the trend of most photography these days, shallower depth of field is a plus, not a minus.

Yes, a mft at f/1.4 needs a lower iso than ff at f/2.8... but you are comparing a f/1.4 lens to a f/2.8 lens.... and comparing an x mm image to a 2x mm image..

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
tko
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow