G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 45,431
Now, now!
5

jwilliams wrote:

Anders W wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Can you please explain how gaining roughly one stop with respect to shadow noise (see the DR graph below) at the expense of two stops worth of DoF would make this a better concert photograph?

No.

Well that’s exactly what I suspected.

I'm not interested in that graph because I have something much more useful ... real world experiences with both the G9 and a Canon R (which isn't even current state of art FF).

Quite a few people make the mistake of ignoring systematic empirical evidence due to an exaggerated faith in their own subjective impressions. But of course the rest of us don’t have to make the same mistake.

He wants to shoot in low light. A FF camera does that MUCH bette than any m43 camera in that environment. I know this because I've used them. No graphs needed.

Quite a few people also appear to think that merely repeating a contention challenged by the evidence somehow helps to substantiate it. No need for the rest of us to make that mistake either.

BTW concentrating on DR isn't the best metric to obsess over for this application,

According to the perceptions of the large majority of forum members it was when I asked them last.

but you're free to obsess over whatever metric you desire.

Since when did presenting a bit of evidence amount to obsessing over anything? Using judgmental language, as you do, is just another fallacy that the rest of us should beware of since it merely reveals an inability to offer valid arguments.

Also the FF camera can always get the DOF of the m43 camera. You just stop down 2 more stops. Photography 101. I've never owned a FF lens that didn't have an aperture small enough to get more DOf when I wanted it.

When and where did I say anything to the contrary? Also, what you somehow forgot to mention is that if you stop down the FF camera to the same DoF, it is at a disadvantage rather than at an advantage as far as noise is concerned.

Yeah, I figured so too. Being an Armchair Quarterback is an easy job. I'm not surprised at all.

Well, I'm something of an Armchair Quarterback, myself. 

In the end, of course, it's the final photo that matters.  But I think the numbers go a long way into helping us understand what the differences may be.  I say "may" because, quite honestly, differences in processing make a huge difference, and can easily outweigh the differences in the equipment (especially if shooting OOC jpgs).

That said, yes, to get a less noisy photo, you need to use a wider aperture (resulting in a more shallow DOF, but the OP said he didn't care about that, although he may feel differently after getting photos with half the DOF), a longer exposure time (which increases the risk/severity of motion blur, which the OP did say he cared about), and/or add in additional light (which is not an option for the OP).

With regards to the OP, based on what he said his needs were, I, personally, think FF is the best choice with regards to IQ.  Not that mFT can't get the job done -- just that FF would do it better (again, with regards to IQ).

But FF may very well not be the best choice with regards to size, weight, price, and operation.  Since he's willing to rent all the various equipment, I think that's a good for him to decide what's best for himself.

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