Full-framer logic

tkbslc wrote:

I'm seeing funny and absurd comments with all the frenzy around the A9.

On the one hand we have people saying there's no way a pro would ever consider using a tiny sensor like 4/3 because it is noisy and has no DOF control. So don't even try to compare the E-M1 II to the A9.

And then on the other hand we have people trying to justify the Sony lens lineup by saying that it's fine that the only super telephoto is a 400mm f5.6, because FF high ISO is so good.

So let me get this straight, 2 stops is super important at the sensor, but irrelevant in the lenses? Makes me laugh to think of geniuses out there using f5.6 lenses on a $4500 camera at ISO 6400-12800 because 4/3 with a 40-150 f2.8 is somehow lesser grade.

If the M43 camera gives you the neccessary IQ, then a FF camera is overkill and a waste of money.

Most of the time M43 does provide the IQ shooters want.   But there are some times when people need more and that is what FF is for.   But it is a relatively small amount of the time.

Every single camera system is a compromise. It's solely up to oneself to decide what's going to be yours.

In the internet gearhead wankfest, one can rationalize (troll?) black to white.

If gear is in the centre of discussion, especially 'what's better for someone else', it's a sure sign to get out.

tkbslc wrote:

I'm seeing funny and absurd comments with all the frenzy around the A9.

On the one hand we have people saying there's no way a pro would ever consider using a tiny sensor like 4/3 because it is noisy and has no DOF control. So don't even try to compare the E-M1 II to the A9.

And then on the other hand we have people trying to justify the Sony lens lineup by saying that it's fine that the only super telephoto is a 400mm f5.6, because FF high ISO is so good.

So let me get this straight, 2 stops is super important at the sensor, but irrelevant in the lenses? Makes me laugh to think of geniuses out there using f5.6 lenses on a $4500 camera at ISO 6400-12800 because 4/3 with a 40-150 f2.8 is somehow lesser grade.

...this guy?

For traditional professional sports work, you need to have access to most of the following:

• 200/2
• 300/2.8
• 400/2.8
• 500/4
• 600/4

For versatility, throw in a 200-400/4.

For the sidelines to be full of Sony shooters some say, Sony has to either make all those lenses, or convince photographers that they don't need the speed, and come out with a line of slower, but professional-grade lenses.

I personally hope they do the latter, and employ a lot of phase Fresnel technology.

Well you obviously missed the posts that said that Sony isn't done with lenses for this camera.  There will be fast long tele lenses coming.  The camera makes no sense without them.  They are on their way.

Brian P Smith wrote:

....... it's just comical to me to see daily threads in each forum of people trying to justify their system/purchase over others instead of using the time to go out and use the darn equipment.

Remove them and the forum would be very quiet, just like the Casio Talk forum where they only use cameras to take photos and pop occasional questions in. Last post 20 mins ago at this time, and the bottom post on the page was 8 months ago.

Nice and quiet and no FF comparison nonsense with those tiny sensor cameras, yet they still seem to get results that they like.

Hey, I seem to have 5 Casios of various vintages in the house that all get used at times by my wife and I when we want photos without fussin'.

Regards.... Guy

tkbslc wrote:

So let me get this straight, 2 stops is super important at the sensor, but irrelevant in the lenses?

Yes. The FF logic is often great. But it seems not to stop on FF, it can be on the 4/3" as well.

The one of the newer threads about the E-M1 Mk2 reviews by the professional wildlife photographer saying how E-M1 was so bad in noise that ISO 400 was the limit, but with the Mk2 she could use ISO 3200.... That is 3 stop difference! And then people started again questioning how can she (or generally) get the 4/3" "2-stop advantage in light gathering for the DOF" etc when the sensor is smaller...

But that just shows again how the ISO is personal measurement based to output and not scientific, why equivalence theory doesn't hold up as the difference can be very well 3-5 stops or just 1 stop or no difference. All depending from so many factors that claim "2 stop difference" is nothing else than bold claiming at the best.

yesterday I was playing around with my old pentax ME and had to stop down to f8 to get correct exposure because the shutter speed only goes to 1000 sec, my F3 only 2000sec f4 so my em5ii can be shot at 16000 f1.8 so didn't anyone shoot sports 20 years ago

Don

Brian P Smith wrote:

Note: Not saying the OP is doing this, it's just comical to me to see daily threads in each forum of people trying to justify their system/purchase over others instead of using the time to go out and use the darn equipment.

Mainly for me the difference is that I can't leave work to take photos during the day, but I can squeeze a lot of pointless web forum chats in between tasks.

jwilliams wrote:

Well you obviously missed the posts that said that Sony isn't done with lenses for this camera.

I certainly saw a lot of rumors, hopes and dreams that said that, but no concrete announcements.

There will be fast long tele lenses coming.

That's not what the comments I was chuckling about were saying.    They were saying you don't even need them.  But you definitely need FF.   Slow lenses and FF are the best.

The camera makes no sense without them.

I tend to agree

They are on their way.

faith-based gear chat isn't my specialty.

Okapi001 wrote:

Fun 4 all wrote:

Most of the time M43 does provide the IQ shooters want. But there are some times when people need more and that is what FF is for. But it is a relatively small amount of the time.

Sure, but you need good and fast lenses if you want to take advantage of the larger sensor. It's the same problem with mirrorless medium format cameras, Fuji and Hasselblad. If you don't have proper lenses, you cannot take full advantage of larger sensor.

Exposure is shutter speed as well, not just the aperture and sensor size....

You don't need fast lens to get benefits ie. landscape where you can use 1/30 or 1/60 shutter speed instead 1/1250 or 1/2000.

Same thing is with the f/4 or f/5.6 lenses when you can use flashes to do the work. Exposure isn't just the camera but it is as well the scene illumination.

The problem is the people who is continually arguing for "identical photograph" like a single method would be only correct way. Like every portrait is needed to be with narrow DOF or blurred background is the quality stamp for sports and wildlife photography, or low noise is the quality requirement etc.

All those are nothing else than gear heads lies to itself to deny the creativity and acceptance of it itself. Easier to blame the gear "If I just would had the FF, I would had a masterpiece!"

Often it looks like people are grabbing the camera and saying:

"Today I am going to make a two masterpieces and get my name to hall of fame as long I follow the rules:

• Narrow DOF
• ETTR
• Fastest possible shutter speed
• Lowest possible ISO"

See isn't it easy to go out and do the masterpieces? That you can translate to shopping list:

1. Get the lowest noise FF sensor
2. Buy the "fastest possible lenses"

Isn't it simple? You walk to the store and you say those two requirement and they will hand you what you want. Then you will go and apply the rules above and you are creating masterpieces no time!

Donald B wrote:

yesterday I was playing around with my old pentax ME and had to stop down to f8 to get correct exposure because the shutter speed only goes to 1000 sec, my F3 only 2000sec f4 so my em5ii can be shot at 16000 f1.8 so didn't anyone shoot sports 20 years ago

Wasn't sports invented not later than 25 years ago?

1965

1950's

1960

1967

1967 Boston Marathon

1961 rally

1955 boxing

Look at those sports cameras! AF have been so ultra fast back then! They even use cable releases!

tkbslc wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Well you obviously missed the posts that said that Sony isn't done with lenses for this camera.

I certainly saw a lot of rumors, hopes and dreams that said that, but no concrete announcements.

There will be fast long tele lenses coming.

That's not what the comments I was chuckling about were saying. They were saying you don't even need them. But you definitely need FF. Slow lenses and FF are the best.

The camera makes no sense without them.

I tend to agree

They are on their way.

faith-based gear chat isn't my specialty.

Sony would do themselves a favor by stating their intended lens lineup.  For some reason the only company that gives definitive status of future lens developments in Fuji.  Not sure why, but nobody else does this.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

yesterday I was playing around with my old pentax ME and had to stop down to f8 to get correct exposure because the shutter speed only goes to 1000 sec, my F3 only 2000sec f4 so my em5ii can be shot at 16000 f1.8 so didn't anyone shoot sports 20 years ago

Wasn't sports invented not later than 25 years ago?

1965

1950's

1960

1967

1967 Boston Marathon

1961 rally

1955 boxing

Look at those sports cameras! AF have been so ultra fast back then! They even use cable releases!

great photos and captured at the peak of the action

Don