JIP— take on Fuji Locked

BluenoseNS wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

Compare t-stops for FF vs MFT and MFT will lose almost all the time.

By design it's MUCH easier to get a higher t-stop value for a larger optic.

It's also cheaper.

Read Falk Lumo.

Are you a full frame missionary? What is your drive here?

Will you not rest until the m4/3 masses capitulate and acknowledge that they were foolish to have m4/3 kit?

Are you like a hyper-vigilant error seeking robot on a quest to correct every single wrong statement you see in the forum?

I'll save him the trouble, no need for correction. I have owned over 20 bodies (from 5 systems), including 3 FF, over the last 9 years. If all other things are equal yea, larger sensor is better, but all other things are almost never equal.

It comes down to what features a person values most, and we don't all need the same things in equal amounts. Anybody who insists sensor size is the ONLY factor that matters can't think outside their own bubble and shouldn't be listened to.

BluenoseNS wrote:

This seems to make sense but the opposite seems just as reasonable. If you only have a small niche you might not want to bet all your chips on one particular style, for if that style fails you go under completely

this is a good point and may very well be correct. Unlike others her I don’t pretend to completely understand the economics and marketing involved.

My thinking was more in lines of a stereotypical American business style of confronting your competition directly and quickly and winning or dying and not drawing things out half heartedly.

All speculation here too, im not sure any market with millions of moving parts can really be figured out. It's like any poll taken out there, how do they really know why we buy what we do? Nobody has ever asked me anything in a poll, ever, in fact i don't know anybody who was ever polled for anything.

Market data isn't something i put much faith in.

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Missing my point here, just stating the amount of light captured is a factor of many variables. The lens playing a big part which you missed. You have to be shooting lenses at the same T-stop for there to be an advantage, whereas they may be the same if you use "equivalent" lenses. Can't just look only at the sensor.

For example back then the people buying the popular A7 II 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit isn't getting 2-stops better than someone shooting with MFT f/2.8 lenses or primes.

That just makes the difference even greater.

To get "equivalent" t-stop on MFT against FF you need a faster, costlier lens.

It doesn't change the math that FF captures 4x the light over MFT.

Not really, plenty of relatively inexpensive primes available like the 14mm f/2.5, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.7, 19/30/60mm f/2.8. Again you are ignoring the lens part of the equation in making comparisons.

Compare t-stops for FF vs MFT and MFT will lose almost all the time.

By design it's MUCH easier to get a higher t-stop value for a larger optic.

It's also cheaper.

Read Falk Lumo.

Talking past each other here. The T-stop differences aren't going to change the comparison. The FE lens in question ranges from 28 T3.5, 35 T4.4, 50 T5.2, 70 T6.0.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28-70mm-F35-56-OSS-mounted-on-Sony-A7R-II---Measurements__1035

The primes in question are (tested by DXO, 14mm unfortunately not): 20mm T2.0, 25mm T2.0, 19/30/60mm T3.1-3.2.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/

There won't be 2-stops of difference even if you compare T-stops.

Max Iso wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

This seems to make sense but the opposite seems just as reasonable. If you only have a small niche you might not want to bet all your chips on one particular style, for if that style fails you go under completely

this is a good point and may very well be correct. Unlike others her I don’t pretend to completely understand the economics and marketing involved.

My thinking was more in lines of a stereotypical American business style of confronting your competition directly and quickly and winning or dying and not drawing things out half heartedly.

All speculation here too, im not sure any market with millions of moving parts can really be figured out. It's like any poll taken out there, how do they really know why we buy what we do? Nobody has ever asked me anything in a poll, ever, in fact i don't know anybody who was ever polled for anything.

Market data isn't something i put much faith in.

Wow you seem rational and able to see many sides to ideas and not think in black and white and also seem to not have a quick iron clad answer to complicated things.  This is most unique

Doug Janis wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

How about photography being the collection of light for capture and quality derives form quantity (it does).

MFT captures 75% less light than FF.

Technically it doesn't. Ignoring special cases (like multi-aspect), MFT actually has 25.6% the active sensor area of FF due to the aspect ratio difference. Then the amount of light that hits that sensor depends on the T-stop of the lens and how long your exposure is. You can certainly have the same amount of light hitting the both sensors depending on which lenses you were comparing and your shutter speeds (which IBIS also plays a role in determining). That's the whole point of the "E" argument.

Then you also have to figure in sensor efficiency also to figure how much of that light is "captured".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

Doug,

One might wonder who on the M4/3 forum truly cares whether the professionals have spoken, or any other twiddle bit that makes FF sensor bodies so exciting.

I wonder why we all should be contemplating our navels whilst we get lectured on the disaster the M4/3 seems to be.

If professionals had spoken through the dslr body it would always have been Canon 1D (Whatever it happened to be at the time - or its NIkon equivalent) and yet quite big slab of actual dslr users could not give a proverbial damn and used aps-c sensored dslr bodies without the snow melting their boots. In fact they were sublimely happy to use the aps-c sensor for the extra reach it gave their FF capable lenses with the crop sensor. Nor did they seem to particularly care to necessarily use EF-S lenses for a tiny size/weight improvements and resolutely mostly continued to use full size lenses without any senses of shame in doing so.

IBIS? What is IBIS? Real pros use don’t need that - they use lens IS with their 1D whatever.

FF has become “a fashion” where its undoubted benefits are touted like totally bald heads save on the expense of a comb. But owners of hair simply put up with the bother of of combing them. They don’t care ....

The FF phenomenon is the short back and sides gone mad - cut it all off, polish it all up and make mine FF like the rest of the mob - and the manufacturers lap it up. Cannot blame them for making/cutting for the new fashion. (My apologies to those who choose that hair style - but in the swinging sixties it wasn’t cool to see fully see your ears - fashions change).

So why is it necessary to pander to the sensor-size cringe? Because it is an argument that FF sensor proponents must always win and get the continued satisfaction of proving it.

M4/3 cameras, aps-c sensor, FF sensor, are all camera systems which people use and get enjoyment out of using - I don’t really see why it is so important to continually have to “prove” what is the best one.

But I think that this might just be the “photography condition” - a sort of disease that afflicts someone just as soon as an image making device is thrust into their hands - it manifests itself in the form of an intense longing to buy something that is better than the actual gear held in the hands - repeat.

In the remote possibility that if we are happy with what we have, it seems that we have to defend our choices against all sort of “logical arguments” That somehow our lives are diminished because it all has been a mistake ....

Then of course we are told that the schoolmaster really likes M4/3 gear, has loads of it, and all the lectures are only to “set the record straight”?

FF is just the dominant format from the last 80 years reasserting itself as sensor manufacturing scales up.

It's the most bang for the buck.

Th FF sensor *always* wins at absolute light-gathering. We NEVER used to have this discussion with film. 120 shooters *always* gathered more usable photons and translated that into a superior image.

Somehow in digital, first in on smaller sensors try to use the inter web to justify their purchase against the facts. It made sense when smaller sensors were cheaper and delivered decent IQ, but that decent IQ was replicated by smartphone sensors so bye-bye P&S market, and larger sensors got cheaper.

It's a very recent phenomenon that people in photography would argue that their smaller format could capture "equivalent" to larger formats, against physics!

In film era 135 stalwarts would point out they had far more portable lenses and much cheaper processing, but none (NONE) would argue "equivalence". They knew it didn't exist on the capture medium.

That these arguments persist discredits the MFT forums members. As FF marches up in IQ and down in price it puts smaller sensors into the box as having to be discount formats based on sensor size. There might be a light premium for marginal compactness now that errorless is everywhere (sorry Pentax).

MFT lost the equivalence war. It's a rout. Panasonic went FF and Olympus cannot stay in their 84 year business. Arguing "enjoyment" isn't the same as arguing market fundamentals.

MFT users can get excellent photos. But FF can get superior ones at almost the same price. So either MFT has to price down to match the inferior output or go away as a format, maybe lingering as a video sensor only.

Dozens of formats have come and gone and MFT is no sacred cow. Olympus bet their biz on one format (except for Tough).........and lost.

If people really want MFT to succeed they need to accept that their format delivers lower IQ and take their "good enough" argument to the manufacturers and demand lower prices reflecting that reality. Failure to do so based on the economics will mean you may in the future have only FF to choose from, or maybe some dumbed-down APS-C like the Z50. All true hobbyist gear will be FF or larger format, as it was in film era (APS and 110 being failures).

Most full frame cameras are too ugly for me to consider them.

gary0319 wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

How about photography being the collection of light for capture and quality derives form quantity (it does).

MFT captures 75% less light than FF.

Technically it doesn't. Ignoring special cases (like multi-aspect), MFT actually has 25.6% the active sensor area of FF due to the aspect ratio difference. Then the amount of light that hits that sensor depends on the T-stop of the lens and how long your exposure is. You can certainly have the same amount of light hitting the both sensors depending on which lenses you were comparing and your shutter speeds (which IBIS also plays a role in determining). That's the whole point of the "E" argument.

Then you also have to figure in sensor efficiency also to figure how much of that light is "captured".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

Doug,

One might wonder who on the M4/3 forum truly cares whether the professionals have spoken, or any other twiddle bit that makes FF sensor bodies so exciting.

I wonder why we all should be contemplating our navels whilst we get lectured on the disaster the M4/3 seems to be.

If professionals had spoken through the dslr body it would always have been Canon 1D (Whatever it happened to be at the time - or its NIkon equivalent) and yet quite big slab of actual dslr users could not give a proverbial damn and used aps-c sensored dslr bodies without the snow melting their boots. In fact they were sublimely happy to use the aps-c sensor for the extra reach it gave their FF capable lenses with the crop sensor. Nor did they seem to particularly care to necessarily use EF-S lenses for a tiny size/weight improvements and resolutely mostly continued to use full size lenses without any senses of shame in doing so.

IBIS? What is IBIS? Real pros use don’t need that - they use lens IS with their 1D whatever.

FF has become “a fashion” where its undoubted benefits are touted like totally bald heads save on the expense of a comb. But owners of hair simply put up with the bother of of combing them. They don’t care ....

The FF phenomenon is the short back and sides gone mad - cut it all off, polish it all up and make mine FF like the rest of the mob - and the manufacturers lap it up. Cannot blame them for making/cutting for the new fashion. (My apologies to those who choose that hair style - but in the swinging sixties it wasn’t cool to see fully see your ears - fashions change).

So why is it necessary to pander to the sensor-size cringe? Because it is an argument that FF sensor proponents must always win and get the continued satisfaction of proving it.

M4/3 cameras, aps-c sensor, FF sensor, are all camera systems which people use and get enjoyment out of using - I don’t really see why it is so important to continually have to “prove” what is the best one.

But I think that this might just be the “photography condition” - a sort of disease that afflicts someone just as soon as an image making device is thrust into their hands - it manifests itself in the form of an intense longing to buy something that is better than the actual gear held in the hands - repeat.

In the remote possibility that if we are happy with what we have, it seems that we have to defend our choices against all sort of “logical arguments” That somehow our lives are diminished because it all has been a mistake ....

Then of course we are told that the schoolmaster really likes M4/3 gear, has loads of it, and all the lectures are only to “set the record straight”?

FF is just the dominant format from the last 80 years reasserting itself as sensor manufacturing scales up.

It's the most bang for the buck.

Th FF sensor *always* wins at absolute light-gathering. We NEVER used to have this discussion with film. 120 shooters *always* gathered more usable photons and translated that into a superior image.

Somehow in digital, first in on smaller sensors try to use the inter web to justify their purchase against the facts. It made sense when smaller sensors were cheaper and delivered decent IQ, but that decent IQ was replicated by smartphone sensors so bye-bye P&S market, and larger sensors got cheaper.

It's a very recent phenomenon that people in photography would argue that their smaller format could capture "equivalent" to larger formats, against physics!

In film era 135 stalwarts would point out they had far more portable lenses and much cheaper processing, but none (NONE) would argue "equivalence". They knew it didn't exist on the capture medium.

That these arguments persist discredits the MFT forums members. As FF marches up in IQ and down in price it puts smaller sensors into the box as having to be discount formats based on sensor size. There might be a light premium for marginal compactness now that errorless is everywhere (sorry Pentax).

MFT lost the equivalence war. It's a rout. Panasonic went FF and Olympus cannot stay in their 84 year business. Arguing "enjoyment" isn't the same as arguing market fundamentals.

MFT users can get excellent photos. But FF can get superior ones at almost the same price. So either MFT has to price down to match the inferior output or go away as a format, maybe lingering as a video sensor only.

Dozens of formats have come and gone and MFT is no sacred cow. Olympus bet their biz on one format (except for Tough).........and lost.

If people really want MFT to succeed they need to accept that their format delivers lower IQ and take their "good enough" argument to the manufacturers and demand lower prices reflecting that reality. Failure to do so based on the economics will mean you may in the future have only FF to choose from, or maybe some dumbed-down APS-C like the Z50. All true hobbyist gear will be FF or larger format, as it was in film era (APS and 110 being failures).

Most full frame cameras are too ugly for me to consider them.

How dare your aesthetic sensibility come into play in the purchase of a creative tool! It should 100% be about the cost-benefit ratio of the best performing tech! Or something like that....

Don’t you know that to acknowledge any aesthetics appreciation means that will be the only factor your decision is based on? Just saying you like the look of a Pen F is a slippery slope my friend!

we all know where that leads! Half cases...leather straps...pride in use...and worst of all...the appreciation of aesthetics could lead to taking better pictures!

god next what? Guitar players buying nice looking instruments? People buying cars they like the look of?

the goal is to not get any enjoyment out of looks!

BluenoseNS wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

How about photography being the collection of light for capture and quality derives form quantity (it does).

MFT captures 75% less light than FF.

Technically it doesn't. Ignoring special cases (like multi-aspect), MFT actually has 25.6% the active sensor area of FF due to the aspect ratio difference. Then the amount of light that hits that sensor depends on the T-stop of the lens and how long your exposure is. You can certainly have the same amount of light hitting the both sensors depending on which lenses you were comparing and your shutter speeds (which IBIS also plays a role in determining). That's the whole point of the "E" argument.

Then you also have to figure in sensor efficiency also to figure how much of that light is "captured".

Don’t get into t-stops.
Most FF lenses have superior ratings over MFT.
And “sensor efficiency” another FF advantage.
The FF advantage is absolute. It’s 2-stops, superior DR, larger shooting envelope from shallow DOF to diffraction limit, and correspondingly larger creative envelope.
The professional market has spoken.

Doug,

One might wonder who on the M4/3 forum truly cares whether the professionals have spoken, or any other twiddle bit that makes FF sensor bodies so exciting.

I wonder why we all should be contemplating our navels whilst we get lectured on the disaster the M4/3 seems to be.

If professionals had spoken through the dslr body it would always have been Canon 1D (Whatever it happened to be at the time - or its NIkon equivalent) and yet quite big slab of actual dslr users could not give a proverbial damn and used aps-c sensored dslr bodies without the snow melting their boots. In fact they were sublimely happy to use the aps-c sensor for the extra reach it gave their FF capable lenses with the crop sensor. Nor did they seem to particularly care to necessarily use EF-S lenses for a tiny size/weight improvements and resolutely mostly continued to use full size lenses without any senses of shame in doing so.

IBIS? What is IBIS? Real pros use don’t need that - they use lens IS with their 1D whatever.

FF has become “a fashion” where its undoubted benefits are touted like totally bald heads save on the expense of a comb. But owners of hair simply put up with the bother of of combing them. They don’t care ....

The FF phenomenon is the short back and sides gone mad - cut it all off, polish it all up and make mine FF like the rest of the mob - and the manufacturers lap it up. Cannot blame them for making/cutting for the new fashion. (My apologies to those who choose that hair style - but in the swinging sixties it wasn’t cool to see fully see your ears - fashions change).

So why is it necessary to pander to the sensor-size cringe? Because it is an argument that FF sensor proponents must always win and get the continued satisfaction of proving it.

M4/3 cameras, aps-c sensor, FF sensor, are all camera systems which people use and get enjoyment out of using - I don’t really see why it is so important to continually have to “prove” what is the best one.

But I think that this might just be the “photography condition” - a sort of disease that afflicts someone just as soon as an image making device is thrust into their hands - it manifests itself in the form of an intense longing to buy something that is better than the actual gear held in the hands - repeat.

In the remote possibility that if we are happy with what we have, it seems that we have to defend our choices against all sort of “logical arguments” That somehow our lives are diminished because it all has been a mistake ....

Then of course we are told that the schoolmaster really likes M4/3 gear, has loads of it, and all the lectures are only to “set the record straight”?

FF is just the dominant format from the last 80 years reasserting itself as sensor manufacturing scales up.

It's the most bang for the buck.

Th FF sensor *always* wins at absolute light-gathering. We NEVER used to have this discussion with film. 120 shooters *always* gathered more usable photons and translated that into a superior image.

Somehow in digital, first in on smaller sensors try to use the inter web to justify their purchase against the facts. It made sense when smaller sensors were cheaper and delivered decent IQ, but that decent IQ was replicated by smartphone sensors so bye-bye P&S market, and larger sensors got cheaper.

It's a very recent phenomenon that people in photography would argue that their smaller format could capture "equivalent" to larger formats, against physics!

In film era 135 stalwarts would point out they had far more portable lenses and much cheaper processing, but none (NONE) would argue "equivalence". They knew it didn't exist on the capture medium.

That these arguments persist discredits the MFT forums members. As FF marches up in IQ and down in price it puts smaller sensors into the box as having to be discount formats based on sensor size. There might be a light premium for marginal compactness now that errorless is everywhere (sorry Pentax).

MFT lost the equivalence war. It's a rout. Panasonic went FF and Olympus cannot stay in their 84 year business. Arguing "enjoyment" isn't the same as arguing market fundamentals.

MFT users can get excellent photos. But FF can get superior ones at almost the same price. So either MFT has to price down to match the inferior output or go away as a format, maybe lingering as a video sensor only.

Dozens of formats have come and gone and MFT is no sacred cow. Olympus bet their biz on one format (except for Tough).........and lost.

If people really want MFT to succeed they need to accept that their format delivers lower IQ and take their "good enough" argument to the manufacturers and demand lower prices reflecting that reality. Failure to do so based on the economics will mean you may in the future have only FF to choose from, or maybe some dumbed-down APS-C like the Z50. All true hobbyist gear will be FF or larger format, as it was in film era (APS and 110 being failures).

Most full frame cameras are too ugly for me to consider them.

How dare your aesthetic sensibility come into play in the purchase of a creative tool! It should 100% be about the cost-benefit ratio of the best performing tech! Or something like that....

Don’t you know that to acknowledge any aesthetics appreciation means that will be the only factor your decision is based on? Just saying you like the look of a Pen F is a slippery slope my friend!

we all know where that leads! Half cases...leather straps...pride in use...and worst of all...the appreciation of aesthetics could lead to taking better pictures!

god next what? Guitar players buying nice looking instruments? People buying cars they like the look of?

the goal is to not get any enjoyment out of looks!

Guilty as charged I like good looking guitars, too.

1994 Taylor 612c quilted maple.. nice small size, great sound..

march hare wrote:

For recording sound takes precedence over looks ......? when performing one can get away with the looks and a ok sound, nine times out of then one gets forgiven for having a "off" day

Ok despite the horribly communicated idea I legitimately understand what you are saying. It’s disturbingly unaware but I understand it.

march hare— follow me here—- one does not have to choose between sound and looks in a guitar sort of ‘well this is the way it is— can’t have both so gotta choose!’ It’s not some weird zero sum game.

it is quite normal and healthy to like aesthetics. Any idea that aesthetics are to be looked down upon or seen as demeaning would make even the puritans hesitate.

BluenoseNS wrote:

march hare wrote:

For recording sound takes precedence over looks ......? when performing one can get away with the looks and a ok sound, nine times out of then one gets forgiven for having a "off" day

Ok despite the horribly communicated idea I legitimately understand what you are saying. It’s disturbingly unaware but I understand it.

march hare— follow me here—- one does not have to choose between sound and looks in a guitar sort of ‘well this is the way it is— can’t have both so gotta choose!’ It’s not some weird zero sum game.

it is quite normal and healthy to like aesthetics. Any idea that aesthetics are to be looked down upon or seen as demeaning would make even the puritans hesitate.

For cars, aesthetics play a huge role, but for cameras it seems most manufacturers don't really care to differentiate in this regard. At least in this forum, people stress out way more on specs.

JakeJY wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

march hare wrote:

For recording sound takes precedence over looks ......? when performing one can get away with the looks and a ok sound, nine times out of then one gets forgiven for having a "off" day

Ok despite the horribly communicated idea I legitimately understand what you are saying. It’s disturbingly unaware but I understand it.

march hare— follow me here—- one does not have to choose between sound and looks in a guitar sort of ‘well this is the way it is— can’t have both so gotta choose!’ It’s not some weird zero sum game.

it is quite normal and healthy to like aesthetics. Any idea that aesthetics are to be looked down upon or seen as demeaning would make even the puritans hesitate.

For cars, aesthetics play a huge role, but for cameras it seems most manufacturers don't really care to differentiate in this regard. At least in this forum, people stress out way more on specs.

Cars, guitars, cameras, women.... I like them small and pretty.

Max Iso wrote:

BluenoseNS wrote:

Doug Janis wrote:

Compare t-stops for FF vs MFT and MFT will lose almost all the time.

By design it's MUCH easier to get a higher t-stop value for a larger optic.

It's also cheaper.

Read Falk Lumo.

Are you a full frame missionary? What is your drive here?

Will you not rest until the m4/3 masses capitulate and acknowledge that they were foolish to have m4/3 kit?

Are you like a hyper-vigilant error seeking robot on a quest to correct every single wrong statement you see in the forum?

I'll save him the trouble, no need for correction. I have owned over 20 bodies (from 5 systems), including 3 FF, over the last 9 years. If all other things are equal yea, larger sensor is better, but all other things are almost never equal.

It comes down to what features a person values most, and we don't all need the same things in equal amounts. Anybody who insists sensor size is the ONLY factor that matters can't think outside their own bubble and shouldn't be listened to.

why do you guys respond to  Mr Janis. Clearly he is trolling you.

Doug Janis wrote:

How about photography being the collection of light for capture and quality derives form quantity (it does).

MFT captures 75% less light than FF.

Only the ignorant debate this.

FF captures around 40% less light than a Fuji medium format.

FF captures around 60% less light than a Phase one medium format

FF captures around 98% less light than LargeSense  LS911

Only the ignorant can debate that.

So what do you choose?