G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: No ...
1

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

"Also the FF camera can always get the DOF of the m43 camera. You just stop down 2 more stops. Photography 101"

Yes ... and thereby loose whatever light-gathering advantage FF has!

if you need that extra dof of course, depends on the lens being used and the distance to the subject, none of these is ever discussed in these pointless arguments

Oh they certainly are. See here for example (fourth of the newly added remarks):

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65499458

Same point can be made about noise. If you can tolerate a bit more noise depends on ...

As to your finding the discussion pointless: Why would the rest of us care?

in a single post for a single picture, i think you'll find 10cm would be enough dof for such a shot,

I already found it isn't and the image I posted demonstrates it. Then add the complication of nailing focus on an erratically moving subject.

that isn't an erratically moving subject

It was very much an erratically moving subject within the 10 cm you erroneously claimed would suffice for DoF.

she's playing into a mic mate, she aint running around the stage lol shaking her head like an idiot, it's fairly obvious she has to be a certain distance to the mic otherwise her performance will get louder and quieter.... and we aren't talking about the dynamics of the piece either..

Beware of the strawman fallacy. The fact that you are repeatedly using it just reveals your lack of any valid arguments. As everyone can see for themselves, I obviously didn't claim that she was running around the stage shaking her head like an idiot. I merely pointed out that she was moving enough to make the very limited depth of field a problem.

i never claimed you said she was running about, she is clearly playing into a mic and as a professional musician she'd know not to move to far away unless using it for dynamics, of course musicians move, they have to lol, trombone players have an arm that goes back and forth for instance, you might get the odd head shake that will cause a problem but of you know the piece you'd obviously go for the parts where you'd expect less movement to get the shot, or use a faster shutter speed to compensate

You're just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. My point is and was that she was moving her body enough as she was playing to pose a challenge for nailing the focus as required by the very limited depth of field. You weren't there. I was. So your theorizing about the matter doesn't help at all.

And yeah, she is playing into a mic all right. But not a micthat would force her to keep her upper body in a specific position. When talking about photographs, it's usually a good idea to take a good look at the photograph in question before talking about it.

nope you're just making a storm in a teacup mate, i should mention i have a history in the music industry and have spent time in the recoding studios at Golders Green in London where the BBC Concert Orchestra recorded and performed,

Yes, I can imagine you in a recoding (sic) studio. You do take a lot of work to recode.

i looked at the photo and it's a good shot in my opinion...well done.

Oh, so you've finally looked at it now. Did you notice the cable and associated mic attached to her violin, I mean the one you missed when you said she'd have to stay put in order to play into the mic (the one on a stand to the left in the photo).

As for my theorising you're just doing the same with FF, unless you do an identical shot it's just an opinion and a single sided argument weighted in the favour of some particular gear that you own....in other words completely biased.

Why would I need an identical shot on FF to prove that the DoF in my image would have been the same if it had been shot with an FF camera at 150 mm and f/3.5? Ever heard of equivalence? Or DoF calculators?

Furthermore, as you'd found if you had bothered to read, it isn't the only post where the matter is discussed. And the single picture illustrates a general point: That's what you're up against if you'd like to shoot half-figure portraits of on a concert stage.

ISO 400 and f/1.8 really isn't that dark

Where did I say it was?

this isn't really a discussion though....

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

the picture shows what can be done with m4/3rds and nothing else

No. It additionally shows what the DoF is like when shooting a half-figure portrait on any camera using an equivalent f-stop (e.g., f/3.5 on FF).

only the face is in focus, 10cm is more than enough for that

You confuse focus with DoF. The focus is on her right eye. Her face is fortunately just within the DoF, which is about 20 cm. So as the image shows, 10 cm would not have sufficed.

i believe that is your opinion, i personally think slightly less DOF would have little impact on the shot, just my opinion on something subjective

It's not subjective. What the DoF is and is not is a matter of fact.

Photography is subjective mate, more or less DOF is nothing but that when regarding a photograph presented as something more than a test scene....is this a test scene?

Where did I say that photography doesn't have subjective sides. But DoF isn't one of them. Again, have you heard of DoF calculators?

this is an erratically moving subject and it shows you can do lots of different kinds of photography with different gear

That you can do lots of different kinds of photography with different gear is a truism and fortunately not the topic of this thread.

then i'd say get the Z7II for this type of photography, better sensor, more pixels, you can downsample and lose much of the noise, seems simple

For reasons already explained, an FF sensor offers no noise advantages within the DoF requirements at issue.

erm yes it would, because you can downsample if you need to raise ISO to compensate for DOF,

You are just revealing your ignorance. Downsizing doesn't help increase the distance between the FF and the MFT sensor. In theory, the difference at the same display magnification is two stops at the same exposure and none for equivalent photos . In reality, it is often less than that.

Nope, you're showing your ignorance, if you have twice the megapixels and twice the ISO then resizing the shot will remove most of the noise to make little difference

Yet another display of ignorance. Consider an 80 MP FF sensor with pixel-level performance equal to that of an MFT sensor. Each quarter of the FF sensor would then deliver a DR equal to that of the MFT sensor at the same exposure. Yet, if you downsize the entire 80 MP FF image to 20 MP, the DR difference would amount to just one stop, not two, at the same exposure. Can you figure out why?

Bottom line: For equivalent images, FF would lose out badly in terms of DR.

sensor invariance can also come into play and that is something newer FF sensors are very good at, then any penalty is lessened even more and you get an even cleaner image

"Sensor invariance": Can you please explain to all of us precisely what you imagine that is and exactly how it would help FF in this comparison. Looking forward to your reply.

no need for ignorance, DPR has a test scene where they show this, m4/3rds is always way behind modern FF sensors in this regard, learn how a digital camera uses ISO and how invariance works.

Thanks for conceding that you have no idea of what you are talking about. I am pretty sure what invariance you are desperately searching your memory for. But I can assure you that it wouldn't help you one iota in this debate if you found it.

, if i was doing it as a living i'd pick a FF camera with a high pixel count

Why would the rest of us care?

passive aggressive response, just what i expected....

I asked why anyone would care about your unsubstantiated opinions. Your lack of a meaningful response is revealing.

no one cares about your meme mate

I know that there are at least a few rational readers on this forum and I am confident that they care about the fact the meme points to.

BTW: What's the reason for your persistent interest in MFT? According to your gear list you own some old Nikon series 1 gear, some even older APS-C gear and an aging Finepix. And what's the reason for your interest in concert photography? Your gallery doesn't exactly indicate that this is a favorite undertaking of yours?

i have known some wonderful concert photographers chap, Tony Woolliscroft for example, i take the odd concert shot when i meet some friends at gigs, i can get press passes...

Wow! You've known some concert photographers and you can get press passes. You're really pressing on to impress irrelevantly.

i don't want them. I have old cameras as i prefer the output from them...

You said that MFT has lousy sensors. So on what grounds do you prefer lousier?

i have shot concerts with a Nikon 1 BTW... it's something i do when taking pictures of friends who are musicians.

Even more irrelevant efforts to impress. But not a word in response to the questions I actually asked. Telling!

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +20 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow