M43 vs canon apsc

No text.

CrisPhoto wrote:

...

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20M5,Canon%20EOS%20M6,Canon%20EOS%20M50,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M10

Sonsor is not THAT much bigger (it's no FF anyhow) and if sensor readout is less than perfect, the APSC "advantage" is gone ...

Although remember DR is the noise in the dark shadows, the noise you'll see most of the time is the noise that comes  in with the light, and that's just down to how much light you collect, so basically goes with sensor size.

Dr_Jon wrote:

Although remember DR is the noise in the dark shadows, the noise you'll see most of the time is the noise that comes in with the light, and that's just down to how much light you collect, so basically goes with sensor size.

Not just sensor size, combination of sensor and lens. The difference between sensor diagonals on m43 and Canon APS-C is about 1.24x, so a F/1.6 lens on m43 would collect the same amount of light as F/2.0 on APS-C. The difference between F/1.7 and F/1.6 is minuscule.

Sion H wrote:

siberstorm27 wrote:

Thanks everyone I've decided on the Canon. It's smaller and lighter than the e-pl9 with pancake, takes better pictures, and is much more discreet than the more fashion forward olympus. Best of all, grey market bodies are $200 cheaper than the Olympus. I had originally gotten the Canon but it took the seller over a week to ship so I canceled and got enamored over many other cameras. Still not too excited about the current camera innovation sluggishness, geared towards consumers and smartphone graduates anyway. A slightly bigger (but not thicker) ricoh gr with IBIS and a modern 24mp sensor and processing would kill....

The current Ricoh GR ii has better image quality and a sharper lens than both ... AF is of course awful.

There is rumored to be a new GR coming later this year.

Mark Ransom wrote:

Dr_Jon wrote:

Although remember DR is the noise in the dark shadows, the noise you'll see most of the time is the noise that comes in with the light, and that's just down to how much light you collect, so basically goes with sensor size.

Not just sensor size, combination of sensor and lens. The difference between sensor diagonals on m43 and Canon APS-C is about 1.24x, so a F/1.6 lens on m43 would collect the same amount of light as F/2.0 on APS-C. The difference between F/1.7 and F/1.6 is minuscule.

It's 2/3 of a stop, so f1.6 to f2 seems okay maths to me.

Dr_Jon wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

...

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20M5,Canon%20EOS%20M6,Canon%20EOS%20M50,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M10

Sonsor is not THAT much bigger (it's no FF anyhow) and if sensor readout is less than perfect, the APSC "advantage" is gone ...

Although remember DR is the noise in the dark shadows, the noise you'll see most of the time is the noise that comes in with the light, and that's just down to how much light you collect, so basically goes with sensor size.

While your statement is basically correct, the figure above already contains both

• read noise caused by the sensor electronics
• and photon noise, which you are referring to.

Therefore, if E-M10's overall noise behavior is better at ISO400, this tells alot about sensor readout weakness in Canons sonsor. The photon-advantage is lost completely ...

The case is even better for mFT if you take a high end model like E-M1 mark II. Results show that it might be better to look for good sensor tech instead of "sensor bigness":

E-M1 II dynamic range versus EOS M

siberstorm27 wrote:

M43 with f1.7 and 3 axis IBIS versus canon apsc with f2. Which is better in low light? Looking for trouser pocketable camera that is better than a 1" compact. Specifically the e-pl9 vs m100. Both are under 40mm. Add pancake around 60-70mm. The Canon has a bigger sensor and more megapixels and I like to zoom into pictures. However, the e-pl9 has IBIS which helps with the smaller sensor and videos look much better with it. I also like olympus color more. It would've been easier if there was an e-pm3 or something. Not into the panasonic look.

I use both a DSLR APS-C system (Pentax K3, see my gear list for lenses) and M43 Panasonic (G7+GM1, +lenses).

Never used Canon APS-C DSLR but IMO the RAW IQ and handling should be very close to that of Pentax or Nikon, the main difference between APS-C DSLR brands being ergonomy, AF technology and handling, and IBIS vs OIS.

Cannot speak for mirrorless Canon, though I understand the concern about the smaller lens choice.

IMO, most still photographers should not care about the hype around features and IQ: all recent cameras I or my friends used have an excellent IQ at base ISO in good light. The high ISO/low light performance is quite impressive even in M43.

The main difference I noticed between my APS-C and M43 photography:

• APS-C delivers more details (which matters only for landscapes but also allows for more cropping for action scenes when needed.
• APS-C raw files allow 1 EV more dynamic range in difficult high contrast light which, again, matters mainly for landscapes, or to rescue screwed capture settings
• M43 AF in good light is OK but, save for high end models like Olympus OMD-EM1-mkII, APS-C DSLR PDAF is more efficient in low light or to lock focus on moving targets
• M43 is truly lighter and smaller at a comparable shooting envelope (identical f stop and comparable lenses) but needs more expensive bigger lenses to get the same subject isolation/bokeh as APS-C.
• Many M43 EVF are OLED, which are very nice, better than some entry level DSLR OVF.

Though I seldom shoot video, IMO, amateur videographers will benefit of better features in mirrorless systems, a DSLR is crippled in video.

Most IQ differences underlined in web tests and forums dont matter in real life and are only visible to pixel peepers.

As for me, what matters most is the camera handling (haptics, ergonomy, viewfinder, size and weight), the AF performance (depending your kind of photography), and the lens offering in your budget envelope.

Shooting JPEG, the default in-camera settings are also different, each brand has its own preferences, usually M43 are more heavily processed and sharpened than APS-C, but you can customize these settings to your taste.

You will need different boring trials but, once you have done it with your new camera, you can get very close rendering with different bodies from different brands, and never bother again.

About size, though M43 bodies can be very slim and light (I chose Panasonic GM5 for its tiny size with 12-32 kit zoom), dont expect it to be really pocketable, as you must account for the lens.

If pocketable size is your choice, you are stuck with fixed lens 1", with various offering, depending your priorities between aperture, focal range, size and ergonomy.

siberstorm27 wrote:

Thanks everyone I've decided on the Canon. It's smaller and lighter than the e-pl9 with pancake, takes better pictures, and is much more discreet than the more fashion forward

The current strength of the m4/3 system is the lens, and small fast relative inexpensive prime les in particular.  Canon and almost all APS-C camera systems have thus far terrible support on small/fast/affordable prime lenses.  However, if they are committed to build up the M system, they must follow through with lenses that make the system shines.  They need to have a fast 16mm (24-ish mmFF eq) and 58 (85-ish mm FF) prime lens that are not too expensive to complete a 3 prime set.  If they limit the M-series lens to protect the entry level dSLRs, then you may be better off with m4/3.   The day that Canon announces these lenses is the day that the leak to m4/3, SONY, and Fuji will begin to stop.

Dr_Jon wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Dr_Jon wrote:

Although remember DR is the noise in the dark shadows, the noise you'll see most of the time is the noise that comes in with the light, and that's just down to how much light you collect, so basically goes with sensor size.

Not just sensor size, combination of sensor and lens. The difference between sensor diagonals on m43 and Canon APS-C is about 1.24x, so a F/1.6 lens on m43 would collect the same amount of light as F/2.0 on APS-C. The difference between F/1.7 and F/1.6 is minuscule.

It's 2/3 of a stop, so f1.6 to f2 seems okay maths to me.

P.S. note faster lenses only help if you can shoot at lower ISOs, as otherwise you don't get more light as the shutter speed is just shorter.

CrisPhoto wrote:

Dr_Jon wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

...

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20M5,Canon%20EOS%20M6,Canon%20EOS%20M50,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M10

Sonsor is not THAT much bigger (it's no FF anyhow) and if sensor readout is less than perfect, the APSC "advantage" is gone ...

Although remember DR is the noise in the dark shadows, the noise you'll see most of the time is the noise that comes in with the light, and that's just down to how much light you collect, so basically goes with sensor size.

While your statement is basically correct, the figure above already contains both

• read noise caused by the sensor electronics
• and photon noise, which you are referring to.

Therefore, if E-M10's overall noise behavior is better at ISO400, this tells alot about sensor readout weakness in Canons sonsor. The photon-advantage is lost completely ...

The case is even better for mFT if you take a high end model like E-M1 mark II. Results show that it might be better to look for good sensor tech instead of "sensor bigness":

E-M1 II dynamic range versus EOS M

How does it usefully contain the shot noise, as unlike the read noise the shot noise varies (as a % of signal, also less usefully absolutely) with light intensity? (Really asking.)

Dr_Jon wrote:

P.S. note faster lenses only help if you can shoot at lower ISOs, as otherwise you don't get more light as the shutter speed is just shorter.

If you're already at minimum ISO then I wouldn't worry about IQ differences, most systems can take great pictures in good light.

Mark Ransom wrote:

Dr_Jon wrote:

P.S. note faster lenses only help if you can shoot at lower ISOs, as otherwise you don't get more light as the shutter speed is just shorter.

If you're already at minimum ISO then I wouldn't worry about IQ differences, most systems can take great pictures in good light.

All DSLRs and most mirrorless can take great photos in most light. Currently Canon have the only AF system that really works for video (which is a shame as I've gone GH3->GH4->GH5 and so know the value of MF).

... that it is not useful for shooting anything that moves, which include people in normal activities such as talking, walking around slowly, areas that many entry levels users (new mom and dad) will most likely care about.  As long as you want to keep people sharply in focus without motion blur, you need to shoot at higher shutter speed, such as 1/125 sec of easter.  As long as every lens has IS when you need it, having it in the body is not a deal breaker.  Of course this can impact those who use adapted lens, but this is hardly a consideration for the targeted market segments.