Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?

Started Mar 13, 2014 | Discussions
knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 6,018
Re: You might want to rethink this.

DtEW wrote:

Lab D wrote:

DtEW wrote:

MikeStern wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

daddyo wrote:

I think you misunderstood his deep DOF point. With m4/3's at any given aperture you have greater DOF than APS-C or FF. This is a real advantage in many shooting situations. Shooting at f/4 vs f/8, for example, gives you faster shutter speeds in any given lighting situation.

No, you can use any SS you want on any format. You are thinking about the same ISO, and there is no reason for that.

The big advantage of the m43 is the IBIS.

Just another canon shooter.

Smaller the size of the sensor larger the depth of field in general.
Of course one can stretch this fact as you can shoot full frame with small apertures to enlarge the field of focus. In the other hand, smaller sensors will lack the shallow depth of field so making bokeh shots will be less possible unless using very large aperture lenses. For some of us, larger depth of field is an advantage during landscape photography compared to blurring backgrounds for shallow depth of field portraits. I know of many photographers also using m4/3 cameras for this particular advantage.

Hope this clarifies your confusion.

PROTIP: ISO equivalence between formats for comparable .... DR, when everything else is held constant for the same output.

You might want to rethink this. I have yet to see a Full Frame sensor that provides 2 stops more DR at every ISO than the E-M1. The A7R is not even 1 stop at most ISOs.

But what is that range of parameters? Well, one that requires him to work at a FF equivalent of ISO800 and above, all other parameters being equal.

Meaning not "normal" landscape, because most landscape photographers shoot on a tripod at base ISO, and one using a FF sensor can stop down to achieve the same deep DoF, only at the expense of shutter speed. "Only", because most landscape photography is static. (Or even "super-static" as it will be for me this weekend as I use a Big Stopper to lengthen exposure times for water.) And notably, beyond the range of parameters a small sensor can match in order to achieve a much greater SNR, DR, and tonal range.

If, as you point out, landscape photography normally involves static subjects, then the smaller sensor photographer can stitch multiple exposures together and recoup the purported IQ losses of the smaller sensor in the landscape use case. And because the m4/3 photog can shoot his/her stitched images at the higher shutter speed, the need for a tripod is negated, especially when the camera has IBIS. As a landscape photographer who frequently practices this technique, I can assure you that it works fantastically and it's wonderfully liberating not to be burdened by a tripod. I rarely miss (or bother to bring) my DSLRs and tripod anymore. I can assure you the IQ of my landscape shots has not suffered in the least, but I'm willing to do the work in Photoshop at the back end (I actually enjoy it).

Lab D Veteran Member • Posts: 6,938
Re: You might want to rethink this.

knickerhawk wrote:

DtEW wrote:

Lab D wrote:

DtEW wrote:

MikeStern wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

daddyo wrote:

I think you misunderstood his deep DOF point. With m4/3's at any given aperture you have greater DOF than APS-C or FF. This is a real advantage in many shooting situations. Shooting at f/4 vs f/8, for example, gives you faster shutter speeds in any given lighting situation.

No, you can use any SS you want on any format. You are thinking about the same ISO, and there is no reason for that.

The big advantage of the m43 is the IBIS.

Just another canon shooter.

Smaller the size of the sensor larger the depth of field in general.
Of course one can stretch this fact as you can shoot full frame with small apertures to enlarge the field of focus. In the other hand, smaller sensors will lack the shallow depth of field so making bokeh shots will be less possible unless using very large aperture lenses. For some of us, larger depth of field is an advantage during landscape photography compared to blurring backgrounds for shallow depth of field portraits. I know of many photographers also using m4/3 cameras for this particular advantage.

Hope this clarifies your confusion.

PROTIP: ISO equivalence between formats for comparable .... DR, when everything else is held constant for the same output.

You might want to rethink this. I have yet to see a Full Frame sensor that provides 2 stops more DR at every ISO than the E-M1. The A7R is not even 1 stop at most ISOs.

But what is that range of parameters? Well, one that requires him to work at a FF equivalent of ISO800 and above, all other parameters being equal.

Meaning not "normal" landscape, because most landscape photographers shoot on a tripod at base ISO, and one using a FF sensor can stop down to achieve the same deep DoF, only at the expense of shutter speed. "Only", because most landscape photography is static. (Or even "super-static" as it will be for me this weekend as I use a Big Stopper to lengthen exposure times for water.) And notably, beyond the range of parameters a small sensor can match in order to achieve a much greater SNR, DR, and tonal range.

If, as you point out, landscape photography normally involves static subjects, then the smaller sensor photographer can stitch multiple exposures together and recoup the purported IQ losses of the smaller sensor in the landscape use case. And because the m4/3 photog can shoot his/her stitched images at the higher shutter speed, the need for a tripod is negated, especially when the camera has IBIS. As a landscape photographer who frequently practices this technique, I can assure you that it works fantastically and it's wonderfully liberating not to be burdened by a tripod. I rarely miss (or bother to bring) my DSLRs and tripod anymore. I can assure you the IQ of my landscape shots has not suffered in the least, but I'm willing to do the work in Photoshop at the back end (I actually enjoy it).

Excellent point, and I've use Microsoft ICE which supports RAW files many times.  This is another case where the 5 axis IBIS is helpful as you mentioned.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
DtEW Senior Member • Posts: 2,723
Re: You might want to rethink this.

knickerhawk wrote:

DtEW wrote:

Lab D wrote:

DtEW wrote:

MikeStern wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

daddyo wrote:

I think you misunderstood his deep DOF point. With m4/3's at any given aperture you have greater DOF than APS-C or FF. This is a real advantage in many shooting situations. Shooting at f/4 vs f/8, for example, gives you faster shutter speeds in any given lighting situation.

No, you can use any SS you want on any format. You are thinking about the same ISO, and there is no reason for that.

The big advantage of the m43 is the IBIS.

Just another canon shooter.

Smaller the size of the sensor larger the depth of field in general.
Of course one can stretch this fact as you can shoot full frame with small apertures to enlarge the field of focus. In the other hand, smaller sensors will lack the shallow depth of field so making bokeh shots will be less possible unless using very large aperture lenses. For some of us, larger depth of field is an advantage during landscape photography compared to blurring backgrounds for shallow depth of field portraits. I know of many photographers also using m4/3 cameras for this particular advantage.

Hope this clarifies your confusion.

PROTIP: ISO equivalence between formats for comparable .... DR, when everything else is held constant for the same output.

You might want to rethink this. I have yet to see a Full Frame sensor that provides 2 stops more DR at every ISO than the E-M1. The A7R is not even 1 stop at most ISOs.

But what is that range of parameters? Well, one that requires him to work at a FF equivalent of ISO800 and above, all other parameters being equal.

Meaning not "normal" landscape, because most landscape photographers shoot on a tripod at base ISO, and one using a FF sensor can stop down to achieve the same deep DoF, only at the expense of shutter speed. "Only", because most landscape photography is static. (Or even "super-static" as it will be for me this weekend as I use a Big Stopper to lengthen exposure times for water.) And notably, beyond the range of parameters a small sensor can match in order to achieve a much greater SNR, DR, and tonal range.

If, as you point out, landscape photography normally involves static subjects, then the smaller sensor photographer can stitch multiple exposures together and recoup the purported IQ losses of the smaller sensor in the landscape use case.

It is something that I've done before when I was using an APS-C sensor for completely static environments, but this technique has its limits when you are in good light in semi-static environments, like a sunny field with the wind blowing, i.e. you have enough light to shoot a FF camera at base ISO while stopped-down to achieve your desired deep DoF with a decent shutter speed.

In this case, you can enjoy the sort of SNR/DR/tonal range of a FF at base ISO in one shot that is still sufficiently fast to more-or-less freeze the action. However, you will have problems trying to merge all the shots of a small sensor camera, as it is the intervening time between the shots that will allow more action than can be merged without ghosting to occur.

If you think about it, it is not that uncommon of a situation as it doesn't have to be a grassy field. It just needs to be good-enough light in a semi-static scene where you can shoot the FF at low/base ISO stopped-down to the DoF you desire.

Obviously you can still take a shot with your smaller-sensor camera... but it's just that the multi-exposure-merge-to-approximate-higher-SNR/DR/tonal-range technique has real limits as to when it can be used effectively. The bigger-sensor camera basically just has more options to arrive at a higher quality when conditions permit.

And because the m4/3 photog can shoot his/her stitched images at the higher shutter speed,

Actually, no. The m43 photog has to shoot at a lower ISO and wider aperture relative to the FF photog at the same shutter speed to arrive at the same photo in terms of SNR/DR/tonal-range and DoF. This is the key to the idea of equivalence, and why there is a middle range of photographic conditions for which bigger or smaller sensors don't matter (and where small -sensor cameras hold an undeniable practical advantage for being smaller). As long as the conditions don't go out of that range... love your m43 cameras. Past that range... you can do do better and generate a better result with a bigger-sensor camera.

the need for a tripod is negated, especially when the camera has IBIS. As a landscape photographer who frequently practices this technique, I can assure you that it works fantastically and it's wonderfully liberating not to be burdened by a tripod. I rarely miss (or bother to bring) my DSLRs and tripod anymore. I can assure you the IQ of my landscape shots has not suffered in the least, but I'm willing to do the work in Photoshop at the back end (I actually enjoy it).

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with a smaller-sensored camera. All cameras in question will capture an image well in a wide range of conditions. The question is how demanding you want to get (arguably in the extremes), and how much latitude you want in the process.

Again, very few serious landscape photographers use small-sensored cameras. It might be comforting to believe that they are all old farts who can't come to terms with a newer paradigm... but you'd be doing yourself a disservice in the absolute sense, and ultimately limiting only yourself.

 DtEW's gear list:DtEW's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +17 more
knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 6,018
Re: You might want to rethink this.

DtEW wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

DtEW wrote:

Meaning not "normal" landscape, because most landscape photographers shoot on a tripod at base ISO, and one using a FF sensor can stop down to achieve the same deep DoF, only at the expense of shutter speed. "Only", because most landscape photography is static. (Or even "super-static" as it will be for me this weekend as I use a Big Stopper to lengthen exposure times for water.) And notably, beyond the range of parameters a small sensor can match in order to achieve a much greater SNR, DR, and tonal range.

If, as you point out, landscape photography normally involves static subjects, then the smaller sensor photographer can stitch multiple exposures together and recoup the purported IQ losses of the smaller sensor in the landscape use case.

It is something that I've done before when I was using an APS-C sensor for completely static environments, but this technique has its limits when you are in good light in semi-static environments, like a sunny field with the wind blowing, i.e. you have enough light to shoot a FF camera at base ISO while stopped-down to achieve your desired deep DoF with a decent shutter speed.

In this case, you can enjoy the sort of SNR/DR/tonal range of a FF at base ISO in one shot that is still sufficiently fast to more-or-less freeze the action. However, you will have problems trying to merge all the shots of a small sensor camera, as it is the intervening time between the shots that will allow more action than can be merged without ghosting to occur.

No you won't (at least not if you have any half-decent Photoshop skills).  The image below is a three shot stitch taken on a very breezy day.  The grass was rippling and made me think that the rock looked like an island in an ocean of waves.  Except for a few minor touch ups the merge was seamless.  No "ghosting" problems as you claim.  It was an overcast day.   At 1/100 the shutter was at the absolute minimum acceptable shutter speed for this shot.  I believe this was taken with an adapted Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, so I don't have the aperture setting.  It's not an ideal lens to adapt to m4/3 but it's what I had with me at the time.

If you think about it, it is not that uncommon of a situation as it doesn't have to be a grassy field. It just needs to be good-enough light in a semi-static scene where you can shoot the FF at low/base ISO stopped-down to the DoF you desire.

Obviously you can still take a shot with your smaller-sensor camera... but it's just that the multi-exposure-merge-to-approximate-higher-SNR/DR/tonal-range technique has real limits as to when it can be used effectively. The bigger-sensor camera basically just has more options to arrive at a higher quality when conditions permit.

Sure "when conditions permit" as you put it.  I was responding to your initial dismissal of small sensors in situations that call for low shutter speed and a tripod for FF sensors.  If you keep moving the goal posts, you might ensure that I can't score any points but it's also kind of cheating...

And because the m4/3 photog can shoot his/her stitched images at the higher shutter speed,

Actually, no. The m43 photog has to shoot at a lower ISO and wider aperture relative to the FF photog at the same shutter speed to arrive at the same photo in terms of SNR/DR/tonal-range and DoF. This is the key to the idea of equivalence, and why there is a middle range of photographic conditions for which bigger or smaller sensors don't matter (and where small -sensor cameras hold an undeniable practical advantage for being smaller). As long as the conditions don't go out of that range... love your m43 cameras. Past that range... you can do do better and generate a better result with a bigger-sensor camera.

Actually, yes.  The landscape scenario you originally presented called for use of low shutter speed and a tripod with the FF camera in order to utilize base ISO and a high enough f-number for sufficient DOF. Since the m4/3's f-number will be lower than the FF's for comparable DOF, it follows that shutter speed will be higher in that scenario.

the need for a tripod is negated, especially when the camera has IBIS. As a landscape photographer who frequently practices this technique, I can assure you that it works fantastically and it's wonderfully liberating not to be burdened by a tripod. I rarely miss (or bother to bring) my DSLRs and tripod anymore. I can assure you the IQ of my landscape shots has not suffered in the least, but I'm willing to do the work in Photoshop at the back end (I actually enjoy it).

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with a smaller-sensored camera. All cameras in question will capture an image well in a wide range of conditions. The question is how demanding you want to get (arguably in the extremes), and how much latitude you want in the process.

And how much you're willing to substitute software based solutions for physical ones...

Again, very few serious landscape photographers use small-sensored cameras. It might be comforting to believe that they are all old farts who can't come to terms with a newer paradigm... but you'd be doing yourself a disservice in the absolute sense, and ultimately limiting only yourself.

Well, I'm an old fart myself and was probably doing "serious landscape" work (whatever that's supposed to mean) before you were born, but somehow I've managed to transition to the new paradigm just fine.  I get a chuckle when young "whippersnappers" like you think they're the only one's who've got it all figured out. Been there...done that...moved on.  Now get off my lawn!  

DtEW Senior Member • Posts: 2,723
Re: You might want to rethink this.
2

As mentioned, I will be off shooting Saturday. So I won't devote much time to respond to this except:

knickerhawk wrote:

DtEW wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

DtEW wrote:

Meaning not "normal" landscape, because most landscape photographers shoot on a tripod at base ISO, and one using a FF sensor can stop down to achieve the same deep DoF, only at the expense of shutter speed. "Only", because most landscape photography is static. (Or even "super-static" as it will be for me this weekend as I use a Big Stopper to lengthen exposure times for water.) And notably, beyond the range of parameters a small sensor can match in order to achieve a much greater SNR, DR, and tonal range.

If, as you point out, landscape photography normally involves static subjects, then the smaller sensor photographer can stitch multiple exposures together and recoup the purported IQ losses of the smaller sensor in the landscape use case.

It is something that I've done before when I was using an APS-C sensor for completely static environments, but this technique has its limits when you are in good light in semi-static environments, like a sunny field with the wind blowing, i.e. you have enough light to shoot a FF camera at base ISO while stopped-down to achieve your desired deep DoF with a decent shutter speed.

In this case, you can enjoy the sort of SNR/DR/tonal range of a FF at base ISO in one shot that is still sufficiently fast to more-or-less freeze the action. However, you will have problems trying to merge all the shots of a small sensor camera, as it is the intervening time between the shots that will allow more action than can be merged without ghosting to occur.

No you won't (at least not if you have any half-decent Photoshop skills). The image below is a three shot stitch taken on a very breezy day. The grass was rippling and made me think that the rock looked like an island in an ocean of waves. Except for a few minor touch ups the merge was seamless. No "ghosting" problems as you claim. It was an overcast day. At 1/100 the shutter was at the absolute minimum acceptable shutter speed for this shot. I believe this was taken with an adapted Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, so I don't have the aperture setting. It's not an ideal lens to adapt to m4/3 but it's what I had with me at the time.

If you think about it, it is not that uncommon of a situation as it doesn't have to be a grassy field. It just needs to be good-enough light in a semi-static scene where you can shoot the FF at low/base ISO stopped-down to the DoF you desire.

Obviously you can still take a shot with your smaller-sensor camera... but it's just that the multi-exposure-merge-to-approximate-higher-SNR/DR/tonal-range technique has real limits as to when it can be used effectively. The bigger-sensor camera basically just has more options to arrive at a higher quality when conditions permit.

Sure "when conditions permit" as you put it. I was responding to your initial dismissal of small sensors in situations that call for low shutter speed and a tripod for FF sensors. If you keep moving the goal posts, you might ensure that I can't score any points but it's also kind of cheating...

I think the fact that you think of this in terms of "scoring points" and "cheating" belies your belief that our discussion is some sort of game to be won.

I started this by pointing out to the OP his flawed misunderstanding of the sensor size, performance, and DoF relationship. I educate on the fact that large-and-small sensors can actually be equivalent across a range of parameters, until you get to a point where you can go farther in quality with the larger sensor if the conditions permit.

You respond by pointing out a multi-exposure manner in which a smaller sensor can simulate the performance of the larger sensor (nevermind that the larger sensor can do the same trick as well to further put itself over the smaller sensor).

I respond with my own experience, where I've employed this very same multi-exposure method (when I was using a smaller sensor) to the same end, and when I found the technique to fail, realizing that it was not a cure-all for the smaller sensor's relative deficiency in all of those circumstances.

Your response is 1) a not-very-veiled implication that I suck at Photoshop, 2) that I'm "moving the goal posts, (I) might ensure that (you) can't score any points but it's also kind of cheating"

For a self-professed "old fart," you show yourself to have a young man's temperment.

And because the m4/3 photog can shoot his/her stitched images at the higher shutter speed,

Actually, no. The m43 photog has to shoot at a lower ISO and wider aperture relative to the FF photog at the same shutter speed to arrive at the same photo in terms of SNR/DR/tonal-range and DoF. This is the key to the idea of equivalence, and why there is a middle range of photographic conditions for which bigger or smaller sensors don't matter (and where small -sensor cameras hold an undeniable practical advantage for being smaller). As long as the conditions don't go out of that range... love your m43 cameras. Past that range... you can do do better and generate a better result with a bigger-sensor camera.

Actually, yes. The landscape scenario you originally presented called for use of low shutter speed and a tripod with the FF camera in order to utilize base ISO and a high enough f-number for sufficient DOF. Since the m4/3's f-number will be lower than the FF's for comparable DOF, it follows that shutter speed will be higher in that scenario.

You are correct. I misunderstood your original statement to have been independent of the bottomed-out small-sensor ISO situation I was describing.

the need for a tripod is negated, especially when the camera has IBIS. As a landscape photographer who frequently practices this technique, I can assure you that it works fantastically and it's wonderfully liberating not to be burdened by a tripod. I rarely miss (or bother to bring) my DSLRs and tripod anymore. I can assure you the IQ of my landscape shots has not suffered in the least, but I'm willing to do the work in Photoshop at the back end (I actually enjoy it).

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with a smaller-sensored camera. All cameras in question will capture an image well in a wide range of conditions. The question is how demanding you want to get (arguably in the extremes), and how much latitude you want in the process.

And how much you're willing to substitute software based solutions for physical ones...

Again, very few serious landscape photographers use small-sensored cameras. It might be comforting to believe that they are all old farts who can't come to terms with a newer paradigm... but you'd be doing yourself a disservice in the absolute sense, and ultimately limiting only yourself.

Well, I'm an old fart myself and was probably doing "serious landscape" work (whatever that's supposed to mean) before you were born, but somehow I've managed to transition to the new paradigm just fine. I get a chuckle when young "whippersnappers" like you think they're the only one's who've got it all figured out. Been there...done that...moved on. Now get off my lawn!

Yeah, not much I'm going to bother talking about here. I have to excuse myself for tomorrow, the girlfriend is bugging me to go to bed. Be happy with your shooting solutions.

 DtEW's gear list:DtEW's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +17 more
knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 6,018
Re: You might want to rethink this.

DtEW wrote:

As mentioned, I will be off shooting Saturday. So I won't devote much time to respond to this except:

knickerhawk wrote:

Sure "when conditions permit" as you put it. I was responding to your initial dismissal of small sensors in situations that call for low shutter speed and a tripod for FF sensors. If you keep moving the goal posts, you might ensure that I can't score any points but it's also kind of cheating...

I think the fact that you think of this in terms of "scoring points" and "cheating" belies your belief that our discussion is some sort of game to be won.

No, it belies my belief that you want to argue both ways. I originally jumped into the discussion to point out that there is a cropped frame alternative for "serious landscape photography" given the shooting conditions that YOU YOURSELF supplied (namely, an unmoving subject that permits the use of slow shutter speeds and a tripod). Rather than just concede the point you decided to double down with your observation about moving grass and then the abandonment altogether of scenes that permit the use of slow shutter speeds. That's moving the goal post.

I started this by pointing out to the OP his flawed misunderstanding of the sensor size, performance, and DoF relationship. I educate on the fact that large-and-small sensors can actually be equivalent across a range of parameters, until you get to a point where you can go farther in quality with the larger sensor if the conditions permit.

To the extent that what you were doing in responding to MikeStern was "educating" then the exact same thing can be said of what I did in responding to you.

You respond by pointing out a multi-exposure manner in which a smaller sensor can simulate the performance of the larger sensor (nevermind that the larger sensor can do the same trick as well to further put itself over the smaller sensor).

Indeed, and you also forgot to mention focus stacking for overcoming the DOF handicap for larger sensors. The real issue is separating the simplistic BS (on both sides) about big sensors vs. small sensors and get down to what are the practical needs and realistic applications of photographers. If all you plan to do is post lightly processed pictures on Flickr, then do you really need to obsess about IQ concerns that won't be visible at that display size? Do you really need FF and all of the associated accoutrements and weight associated with that decision? The OP who abandoned the FF Sony for the m4/3 made what looks to me like a well-reasoned personal decision that weighed in a number of real-world considerations instead of just allowing himself to be swayed by one factor that so many on these forums fixate on.

I respond with my own experience, where I've employed this very same multi-exposure method (when I was using a smaller sensor) to the same end, and when I found the technique to fail, realizing that it was not a cure-all for the smaller sensor's relative deficiency in all of those circumstances.

Your response is 1) a not-very-veiled implication that I suck at Photoshop, 2) that I'm "moving the goal posts, (I) might ensure that (you) can't score any points but it's also kind of cheating"

(1) If you were offended by my posting a specific example that directly illustrates that your comment was - at best - an exaggeration, then so be it. I said nothing whatsoever about your personal Photoshop skills. I merely responded to the EXACT scenario you claimed was problematic.

(2) I've already responded to this above.

For a self-professed "old fart," you show yourself to have a young man's temperment.

Do you mean the kind of temperament that compels someone to say things like the following [quoting below from your prior post]?

This is why I bothered to even respond to MikeStern's ridiculousness. No photographer of any experience chooses a smaller sensor for "normal" serious landscape photography, because achieving a deeper DoF is never the issue they have to fight for.

If you hadn't been so aggressive and dismissive in your response to MikeStern, I probably wouldn't have even bothered with pointing out the limitations in your own line of reasoning.

And because the m4/3 photog can shoot his/her stitched images at the higher shutter speed,

Actually, no. The m43 photog has to shoot at a lower ISO and wider aperture relative to the FF photog at the same shutter speed to arrive at the same photo in terms of SNR/DR/tonal-range and DoF. This is the key to the idea of equivalence, and why there is a middle range of photographic conditions for which bigger or smaller sensors don't matter (and where small -sensor cameras hold an undeniable practical advantage for being smaller). As long as the conditions don't go out of that range... love your m43 cameras. Past that range... you can do do better and generate a better result with a bigger-sensor camera.

Actually, yes. The landscape scenario you originally presented called for use of low shutter speed and a tripod with the FF camera in order to utilize base ISO and a high enough f-number for sufficient DOF. Since the m4/3's f-number will be lower than the FF's for comparable DOF, it follows that shutter speed will be higher in that scenario.

You are correct. I misunderstood your original statement to have been independent of the bottomed-out small-sensor ISO situation I was describing.

the need for a tripod is negated, especially when the camera has IBIS. As a landscape photographer who frequently practices this technique, I can assure you that it works fantastically and it's wonderfully liberating not to be burdened by a tripod. I rarely miss (or bother to bring) my DSLRs and tripod anymore. I can assure you the IQ of my landscape shots has not suffered in the least, but I'm willing to do the work in Photoshop at the back end (I actually enjoy it).

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with a smaller-sensored camera. All cameras in question will capture an image well in a wide range of conditions. The question is how demanding you want to get (arguably in the extremes), and how much latitude you want in the process.

And how much you're willing to substitute software based solutions for physical ones...

Again, very few serious landscape photographers use small-sensored cameras. It might be comforting to believe that they are all old farts who can't come to terms with a newer paradigm... but you'd be doing yourself a disservice in the absolute sense, and ultimately limiting only yourself.

Well, I'm an old fart myself and was probably doing "serious landscape" work (whatever that's supposed to mean) before you were born, but somehow I've managed to transition to the new paradigm just fine. I get a chuckle when young "whippersnappers" like you think they're the only one's who've got it all figured out. Been there...done that...moved on. Now get off my lawn!

Yeah, not much I'm going to bother talking about here. I have to excuse myself for tomorrow, the girlfriend is bugging me to go to bed. Be happy with your shooting solutions.

Don't forget the tripod!

joyclick
joyclick Veteran Member • Posts: 3,039
Re: Thankfully i never entered.....
2

the Sony Path.....  

-- hide signature --

student4ever

Joseph T Lewis III Veteran Member • Posts: 3,485
Re: Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

MikeStern wrote:

Just another canon shooter.

Smaller the size of the sensor larger the depth of field in general.
Of course one can stretch this fact as you can shoot full frame with small apertures to enlarge the field of focus. In the other hand, smaller sensors will lack the shallow depth of field so making bokeh shots will be less possible unless using very large aperture lenses. For some of us, larger depth of field is an advantage during landscape photography compared to blurring backgrounds for shallow depth of field portraits. I know of many photographers also using m4/3 cameras for this particular advantage.

Hope this clarifies your confusion.

You seem to be the confused one. What I am saying is that m43 has no large DOF advantage.

You can say it as much as you like, but you will still be wrong.  The E-M1 has a smaller sensor than the Sony, thus it will provide a deeper depth of field than the big sensor camera at the same aperture.

By the way, many people don't see this as an advantage, since they want the nice blurry background a large sensor camera provides.  It is harder to achieve a blurred out of focus background with a m4/3 camera than with an APS-C or FF.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 Joseph T Lewis III's gear list:Joseph T Lewis III's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Olympus E-M1 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +6 more
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?

Joseph T Lewis III wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

MikeStern wrote:

Just another canon shooter.

Smaller the size of the sensor larger the depth of field in general.
Of course one can stretch this fact as you can shoot full frame with small apertures to enlarge the field of focus. In the other hand, smaller sensors will lack the shallow depth of field so making bokeh shots will be less possible unless using very large aperture lenses. For some of us, larger depth of field is an advantage during landscape photography compared to blurring backgrounds for shallow depth of field portraits. I know of many photographers also using m4/3 cameras for this particular advantage.

Hope this clarifies your confusion.

You seem to be the confused one. What I am saying is that m43 has no large DOF advantage.

You can say it as much as you like, but you will still be wrong. The E-M1 has a smaller sensor than the Sony, thus it will provide a deeper depth of field than the big sensor camera at the same aperture.

Another confused one. Who said the same aperture?

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
Joseph T Lewis III Veteran Member • Posts: 3,485
Re: Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?

DtEW wrote:

MikeStern wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

daddyo wrote:

I think you misunderstood his deep DOF point. With m4/3's at any given aperture you have greater DOF than APS-C or FF. This is a real advantage in many shooting situations. Shooting at f/4 vs f/8, for example, gives you faster shutter speeds in any given lighting situation.

No, you can use any SS you want on any format. You are thinking about the same ISO, and there is no reason for that.

The big advantage of the m43 is the IBIS.

Just another canon shooter.

Smaller the size of the sensor larger the depth of field in general.
Of course one can stretch this fact as you can shoot full frame with small apertures to enlarge the field of focus. In the other hand, smaller sensors will lack the shallow depth of field so making bokeh shots will be less possible unless using very large aperture lenses. For some of us, larger depth of field is an advantage during landscape photography compared to blurring backgrounds for shallow depth of field portraits. I know of many photographers also using m4/3 cameras for this particular advantage.

Hope this clarifies your confusion.

The fact that you think anybody needs to be explained the sensor-size/DoF relationship is extremely telling.

Obviously SOMEONE needs to explain it to Just Another Canon Shooter, because he apparently doesn't understand it at all.  Or, he is just a troll trying to stir up arguments for fun.  He won't listen to anyone else; why don't you have a go at it with him?

-- hide signature --

Tom

 Joseph T Lewis III's gear list:Joseph T Lewis III's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Olympus E-M1 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +6 more
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?

Joseph T Lewis III wrote:

Obviously SOMEONE needs to explain it to Just Another Canon Shooter, because he apparently doesn't understand it at all. Or, he is just a troll trying to stir up arguments for fun. He won't listen to anyone else; why don't you have a go at it with him?

Well, I listen to this guy. You should, too.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
TrapperJohn Forum Pro • Posts: 16,488
About what I saw...
2

When I went by my local camera store to pick up an EM1, I took some time, actually a couple of hours, to try out the latest and greatest they had on display, including a Sony A7.

There were things to like about the A7, but it felt about half finished, as if it was rushed to market. Handling is... okay, sort of different. Shutter is loud, very loud. No IS. AF was a bit dodgy, and not particularly quick. Glass selection is weak, and so far Sony hasn't been able to build FF glass for the A7, or the Alpha FF line. There is a lot of promise in the concept of a multiaspect sensor, but it won't be fully realized with this iteration.

In contrast, the EM1 sits very nicely in the hand. Thumbwheels are right where they should be. A couple of programmable buttons that can be used to activate sets, three if you count the video button that I wouldn't normally use anyway. The lenses are small, very sharp, and AF very fast. The VF works with you, in a variety of ways.

So I'd have to agree... whatever small amount of IQ I didn't get, what I did get was a finished, polished package, with a very good and growing line of native, fast AF'ing, very compact lenses.

Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,928
Funny that you say it ..

TrapperJohn wrote:

When I went by my local camera store to pick up an EM1, I took some time, actually a couple of hours, to try out the latest and greatest they had on display, including a Sony A7.

There were things to like about the A7, but it felt about half finished, as if it was rushed to market. Handling is... okay, sort of different. Shutter is loud, very loud. No IS. AF was a bit dodgy, and not particularly quick. Glass selection is weak, and so far Sony hasn't been able to build FF glass for the A7, or the Alpha FF line. There is a lot of promise in the concept of a multiaspect sensor, but it won't be fully realized with this iteration.

In contrast, the EM1 sits very nicely in the hand. Thumbwheels are right where they should be. A couple of programmable buttons that can be used to activate sets, three if you count the video button that I wouldn't normally use anyway. The lenses are small, very sharp, and AF very fast. The VF works with you, in a variety of ways.

So I'd have to agree... whatever small amount of IQ I didn't get, what I did get was a finished, polished package, with a very good and growing line of native, fast AF'ing, very compact lenses.

I also tried EM1 and A7 side by side, and although I did not go deep into the menues and comparisons I felt Sony was the most comfortable mirrorless camera I ever held in hand. As for lenses I would initially have one prime on it only, pretty much what I usually have on my D800 (and I have quite a selection to pick from), as like every other mirrorless camera out there, Sony is not as versatile as most dSLRs are. It is very good for some types of photography, but it is not do-all type of a camera as I see it.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Forum Pro • Posts: 11,928
I do not see how this illustrates anything ..
1

knickerhawk wrote:

..The image below is a three shot stitch taken on a very breezy day. The grass was rippling and made me think that the rock looked like an island in an ocean of waves. Except for a few minor touch ups the merge was seamless. No "ghosting" problems as you claim. It was an overcast day. At 1/100 the shutter was at the absolute minimum acceptable shutter speed for this shot. I believe this was taken with an adapted Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, so I don't have the aperture setting. It's not an ideal lens to adapt to m4/3 but it's what I had with me at the time.

On a windy day, and for this image, you might as well have used a camera phone, why even bother with anything else to carry - by your reasoning,

Of course, you can do the same with any camera, including A7 with one lens, but what exactly the point are you trying to make?

-- hide signature --

- sergey

Len_Gee
Len_Gee Veteran Member • Posts: 9,686
Re: Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Joseph T Lewis III wrote:

Obviously SOMEONE needs to explain it to Just Another Canon Shooter, because he apparently doesn't understand it at all. Or, he is just a troll trying to stir up arguments for fun. He won't listen to anyone else; why don't you have a go at it with him?

Well, I listen to this guy. You should, too.

Didn't he get banned from DPR years ago?

Sorry, I don't remember  the reason.

Maybe some old timers know why.

 Len_Gee's gear list:Len_Gee's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm X100T Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus PEN-F +8 more
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?

Len_Gee wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Joseph T Lewis III wrote:

Obviously SOMEONE needs to explain it to Just Another Canon Shooter, because he apparently doesn't understand it at all. Or, he is just a troll trying to stir up arguments for fun. He won't listen to anyone else; why don't you have a go at it with him?

Well, I listen to this guy. You should, too.

Didn't he get banned from DPR years ago?

Yes, but he is back (Great Bustard).

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
OP MikeStern Junior Member • Posts: 29
Re: Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?
1

Camley wrote:

MikeStern wrote:

I sent back my A7r with CZ 55mm f1.8 to amazon and bought the oly em1 with 12-40 pro lens f2.8 constant, 75mm f1.8 and recently Rokinon fisheye.
I am very content.

I have been an avid sony guy since f707. I followed f828 then nex 5, 5n, 6.

A few reasons I sent back the sony a7r.
Dpreview and a few other websites chose both the oly em1 and em5 (last year) as the best products of the year.
So I wanted to find out what's so cool about them.

My experience with olympus is fantastic in terms of making pictures. Image quality is not as good as a7r.
Em1 gave me a great user interface. I can stay on the EVF and everything I need is under my right hand. I shoot manual mode. The lever option that gives me the chance of combining shutter speed, aperture, white balance and ISO all handled easily.
And customization is overwhelmingly, positively complex. Easy to get used to it.

A7r failed on me in terms of shutter speed and shake issues. My CZ 55mm didn't have IS. So I couldn't take sharp images below 1/50th of a second. Had to carry around my tripod. I spent thousands of dollars for the combination and had to walk around with a tripod. In my workflow this maddened me. Your workflow might be different. 36mp resolution gave me the chance of cropping. But later realized that also made me lazy properly composing in camera. I have 16mp now and I make sure to use it all. Sony 55mm lens is tested as almost perfect lens. But giant sensor on the a7r gave purple cast on the corners. Many people don't talk about this. This something when you edit on ACR to be found after challenging the image. Cast is there and you can avoid seeing it with proper exposure without editing the image further. Other than the native few ef lenses, most of the other lenses, (more on the 3rd party) will suffer from that problem in different levels.

With the oly em1 I can take sharp pictures as low as 1/2 of a second. I am not kidding. 5 axis stabilizer is a magic.
I safely comedown to 1/6 of a second. My good nex6 with the OSS 35mm f1.8 Lens used to give me 1/8 without issues.

This 5 axis stabilization is also helping me during videos. I can pull it off easily hand held. Dof is larger on m4/3 so focusing is easier during video recording. 12-40 f2.8 lens is spectacular.

Lenses for m4/3 are much lighter. A7r body being small doesn't mean the full frame lenses will be small. I can't carry all that weight and don't have enough space in my bag.

About dof. We craved for it as apsc shooters. I also tried the speed booster to get the f/1.2 etc. played with all that. A7r had that certainly going on with it. Fun. But in order to take sharper pictures in depth, I had to squeeze to f/8 and above. Then in indoors shooting that comes with hi ISO requirement since no OSS to come down to slow shutter speeds. I realized owning the em1, larger dof is an advantage. To me more important than being able to have shallow dof. My 75mm f/1.8 on em1 is highly satisfactory with shallow dof and bokeh. Shallower dof means more sharpness overall the frame in 3 dimensional space.

Here is the cool thing I have been playing nowadays. This may work with a7r as well. But here is what I do with my oly em1:
I bought a cheap used, clean canon speed light 430ex MII flash for $200. Bought phottix transmitters $45. I put my camera far away, operate it on my iPhone with oly app as a remote control. Have all the options, previewing, delay shutter release, shutter speed, aperture, ISO and focusing. Then fire my flash with the transmitters. So I can keep the flash off body bouncing from a wall.

Fantastic results. I am a happy photographer. Oly em1 inspired me to do more pictures and watch all the adorama TV episodes about flash and reflector photography. Already did a nice wedding session in hawaii this month. This counts more than anything right? I love doing photography more than ever now.

M

So you sent back your a7r and bought a camera with lower image quality and you are pleased with your choice!

This is how you understood my whole post? You are amazing.
I already said that the image quality was a step down for me, if you understood what I wrote you would get the point of: there is more than image quality in photography.

AnotherCanonShooter, I can not try again to make understand a simple idea that smaller sensor will expectedly provide larger depth of field. You are working too hard to prove the opposite and makes you ridiculous. Just give up as I am giving up on you now.
Shallow depth of field, craving for bokeh is not for all of us photographers, this is my point. Just live with it.

Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Why returned sony A7r for Oly em1?

MikeStern wrote:

AnotherCanonShooter, I can not try again to make understand a simple idea that smaller sensor will expectedly provide larger depth of field. You are working too hard to prove the opposite and makes you ridiculous. Just give up as I am giving up on you now.
Shallow depth of field, craving for bokeh is not for all of us photographers, this is my point. Just live with it.

You did not even understand my posts.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
Kawika Nui Contributing Member • Posts: 798
Re: About what I saw...

TrapperJohn wrote:

When I went by my local camera store to pick up an EM1, I took some time, actually a couple of hours, to try out the latest and greatest they had on display, including a Sony A7.

There were things to like about the A7, but it felt about half finished, as if it was rushed to market. Handling is... okay, sort of different. Shutter is loud, very loud. No IS. AF was a bit dodgy, and not particularly quick. Glass selection is weak, and so far Sony hasn't been able to build FF glass for the A7, or the Alpha FF line. There is a lot of promise in the concept of a multiaspect sensor, but it won't be fully realized with this iteration.

In contrast, the EM1 sits very nicely in the hand. Thumbwheels are right where they should be. A couple of programmable buttons that can be used to activate sets, three if you count the video button that I wouldn't normally use anyway.

If you reprogram the video button, could you use the shutter button to shoot video if the situation suddenly arose?

The lenses are small, very sharp, and AF very fast. The VF works with you, in a variety of ways.

So I'd have to agree... whatever small amount of IQ I didn't get, what I did get was a finished, polished package, with a very good and growing line of native, fast AF'ing, very compact lenses.

gandalfII Senior Member • Posts: 1,952
Re: You might want to rethink this.

Lab D wrote:

DtEW wrote:

MikeStern wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

daddyo wrote:

I think you misunderstood his deep DOF point. With m4/3's at any given aperture you have greater DOF than APS-C or FF. This is a real advantage in many shooting situations. Shooting at f/4 vs f/8, for example, gives you faster shutter speeds in any given lighting situation.

No, you can use any SS you want on any format. You are thinking about the same ISO, and there is no reason for that.

The big advantage of the m43 is the IBIS.

Just another canon shooter.

Smaller the size of the sensor larger the depth of field in general.
Of course one can stretch this fact as you can shoot full frame with small apertures to enlarge the field of focus. In the other hand, smaller sensors will lack the shallow depth of field so making bokeh shots will be less possible unless using very large aperture lenses. For some of us, larger depth of field is an advantage during landscape photography compared to blurring backgrounds for shallow depth of field portraits. I know of many photographers also using m4/3 cameras for this particular advantage.

Hope this clarifies your confusion.

PROTIP: ISO equivalence between formats for comparable .... DR, when everything else is held constant for the same output.

You might want to rethink this. I have yet to see a Full Frame sensor that provides 2 stops more DR at every ISO than the E-M1. The A7R is not even 1 stop at most ISOs.

That is exactly why we do equivalence calculations, so that we are comparing apples to apples.  If you compared them at the same, rather than equivalent ISO's you would think the A7R had better DR.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads