G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
drusus Contributing Member • Posts: 845
Re: ... and the unwillingness to learn

Anders W wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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?


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.

Hammers. Let's look at it like were selecting a hammer for a job.

Pounding a large stake in the ground? A large sledge hammer works best.

Nailing together a delicate piece of furmiture? A finishing hammer works best.

Now we can debate how much better or worse either hammer would work for the other job, but in the end no sensible person is going to say the finishing hammer does a better job of pounding a spike.

Now maybe the person buying the hammer cares about how heavy it is or how much it costs or whatever else. Certainly valid to consider, but in the end that doesn't really change which hammer suits what job the best.

The OP can certainly explore different solutions to what he wants to do. Certainly you can make almost anything work to some extent, but I don't think any reasonable person would say a m43 camera is better for concert work than a FF Camera.

The OP can choose whatever he wants. I was just telling him what is the best tool for the job. It may be too big to carry or cost too much for him, but that doesn't change what is the best tool for the job.

BTW I'm not trying to argue with you at all. As usual, you use sound reason for whatever you post. The other poster above this post however is one who is convinced a finishing hammer is just as good as a sledge hammer to drive a pike and he probably belongs to some sort of finishing hammer cult

He's already on the ignore list so I'll never even read his last post. Not worth it.

The logic of jwilliams remains flawed and his last line demonstrates that he is also unwilling to learn.

First, the OP didn't ask what's the best tool no matter what. He asked what might be the best solution for him in view of what he already have and certain cost constraints.

Second, as I showed in my first reply to jwilliams here, MFT might actually be a better tool for the job than FF regardless of price and size considerations whenever DoF is in short supply. The reason is that the difference with regard to noise between FF and MFT is often somewhat less than two stops at the same exposure due to differences in sensor performance for a given amount of light. The difference in DoF, however, remains two stops.

Finally, if the sledge hammer is too big too carry, it certainly isn't the best tool for the job. It won't get the job done at all.

I don't think that numbers and graphs count as systematic evidence or better evidence than real-world experience, especially the experience of one person who has used a camera of each sensor format. And I don't think that resorting to numbers automatically makes the reasoning more logical. The human eye and brain are far too non-linear in how they process images for comparisons like "twice as much light" to provide the final answer. If one wants to collect a certain amount of light with a certain amount of chroma noise and a certain upper limit on blur, numbers are useful. If one wants to take a photograph, numbers are not sufficient. A person's experience is much more useful.

One limitation is that a reader cannot know how reliable that person's judgment is, or how much experience it's based on. That's a reason to get more opinions from real-world experience, not for switching to a different metric. Resorting to number comparisons for the final answer ignores a factor--human vision--which is too important to ignore in photography.


 drusus's gear list:drusus's gear list
Nikon Z fc Nikon Z 16-50mm F3.5-6.3 VR +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow