G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

Started 2 months ago | Questions
Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: No ...
1

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Or at the very beginning of the very subthread you posted in here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65498893

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

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

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +20 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: No ...
3

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in a single post for a single picture, i think you'll find 10cm would be enough dof for such a shot, ISO 400 and f/1.8 really isn't that dark

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

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: No ...
1

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say it was?

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

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +20 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult
7

Anders W wrote:

As I pointed out in a prior post, for example, the data at our disposal suggest that the OP's camera (the G9) has about one stop more dynamic range (and thus correspondingly less shadow noise) than the one he is considering (the Z6) when the two are used to shoot equivalent photos at higher ISOs.

Which data are you talking about? The problem is that DxOMark data isn't available for the G9, so we have to rely on Bill Claff, who doesn't give proper DR measurements. But, Bill's input referred read noise chart (https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Nikon%20Z%206_14,Panasonic%20Lumix%20DC-G9_12) shows that the per pixel read noise at high ISOs is better than the G9. So, for instance set to 1600 ISO the G9 is giving 1.866 e- per pixel, whilst the Z6 manages 1.206 at 6400 ISO, so the read noise advantage is to the Nikon. So the Nikon is producing 0.65 times the read noise. This alone suggests that what you say about shadow noise is back to front. it should be the Nikon that produces less shadow noise. (which does seem to be the case, comparing DPR studio shots.

Both very good but the Z6 just slightly better

)

Of course it has more pixels, so we need to correct for that, giving 0.71, or a stop better read noise. The problem is finding data for the top end of the scale. I haven't found a good way of getting this from Bill's data, but we can do it from raw images, such as the DPR studio scene, which are quite well controlled with respect to exposure. Downloading the raw files from the above and looking at them with Raw digger, selecting the white background from the vertical wedge midscreen the G9 gives an average of 966.8 and a standard deviation of 37.3 in the green channel whilst the Nikon gives 8001.7 and 313 for a similar patch. Thus the SNR for the Panasonic is 25.92 whilst for the Nikon it is 25.56. We can find the photoelectron count per pixel by squaring this. For the Panasonic it is 672 e- and for the Nikon it is 653 e-. Now again we need to correct for pixel size. At 20MP the Nikon figure is 783 e-, suggesting that the QE of the Nikon is 1.16 times or 0.2 stops better (i.e., not worth worrying about) than the Panasonic.

So, for equivalent exposures (same 'total light') and ISO settings the Z6 will produce slightly better DR than the G9, as one might expect given that it has a BSI sensor, larger pixels but lower read noise. However, the difference is tiny, and not worth worrying about either way.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light
3

Sundre wrote:

I spent some time googling this + reading forum threads. It all got a bit too technical for me. Would anyone be able to give a simple, non-technical answer to this question:

If I shoot the same low-light event (concert etc.) with these two combos, how many stops do I gain with the Z6? Image stabilisation does not matter much since the subjects are moving.

Combo #1: Panasonic G9 + PL 35-100/2.8

Combo #2: Nikon Z6 + Nikon 70-200/2.8

I would love a really simple answer, something like "1/50s with #1 will look more or less like 1/125s with #2". I don't need a technically perfect answer, just a rough ballpark figure.

Unless I have misunderstood something, the two components involved in making the Z6 the better combo for low light is the sensor and the lens. I don't really understand the technical aspects of that, and I would prefer not to have to understand them either.

The reason I'm asking is, I've been offered a used Z6 for 1,000 €, but I'm not sure I want to spend that much. I realise it's a good price for a Z6 mark I in good condition, but I'm not rich. Getting some decent glass for it would be so expensive...

If I can get "good enough" results with something like the PL 35-100/2.8 or the Olympus 75/1.8 with my G9, I'm not sure I want to spend that much at this time.

Thank you

The simple answer is this. The Z6 with an f/2.8 lens will give similar results to the G9 with an f/2.8 in two stops lower light, simply because it gets four times the amount of photos on the photo and the sensors have very similar performance. However, the cost of the two stops extra is shallower DOF, so you need to decide whether that is a problem. As to what is 'good enough', only you can say what is good enough for you.

On the cost front, by and large you'll find that where there are mFT lenses that give the same low light performance a Z lenses, they will be larger and more expensive, often very much so. That is simply not where mFT is at its best.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: Use NR software to get close to Z6 FF
4

Henry Richardson wrote:

The Z6 will give you about 2 stops so it can use, for example, ISO 6400 which would be pretty similar to ISO 1600 with the G9. That means that if both are taken at the same aperture that the Z6 will allow 2 stops higher shutter speed.

Same f-number, which will result in twice the aperture with the same angle of view.

It's exactly in this type of discussion that appreciating the difference between 'aperture' and 'f-number' is important.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult
1

bobn2 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

As I pointed out in a prior post, for example, the data at our disposal suggest that the OP's camera (the G9) has about one stop more dynamic range (and thus correspondingly less shadow noise) than the one he is considering (the Z6) when the two are used to shoot equivalent photos at higher ISOs.

Which data are you talking about?

My reasoning as well as the data were presented in a prior post of mine here , where I said the following:

"In addition, you should be aware that the difference between the G9 and the Z6 might be less than two stops wrt to shadow noise at higher ISOs when they're shot at the same exposure. The difference in this regard may be more like one stop than two. See graphs below. DxO hasn't tested the G9, only the GH5.2. But since the two do very similarly with respect to Bill Claff's "photographic dynamic range", it is reasonable to think that they do very similarly with respect to dynamic range as measured by DxOMark as well."

I might add that although I appreciate the work Bill Claff is doing, I am not a fan of his PDR metric any more than I have reason to think you are. I use his PDR data here only because it strongly suggests that the G9 and GH5.2 have very similar sensor characteristics inasmuch as their PDR graphs coincide rather perfectly.

The problem is that DxOMark data isn't available for the G9, so we have to rely on Bill Claff, who doesn't give proper DR measurements. But, Bill's input referred read noise chart (https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Nikon%20Z%206_14,Panasonic%20Lumix%20DC-G9_12) shows that the per pixel read noise at high ISOs is better than the G9. So, for instance set to 1600 ISO the G9 is giving 1.866 e- per pixel, whilst the Z6 manages 1.206 at 6400 ISO, so the read noise advantage is to the Nikon. So the Nikon is producing 0.65 times the read noise. This alone suggests that what you say about shadow noise is back to front. it should be the Nikon that produces less shadow noise. (which does seem to be the case, comparing DPR studio shots.

Both very good but the Z6 just slightly better

)

Of course it has more pixels, so we need to correct for that, giving 0.71, or a stop better read noise. The problem is finding data for the top end of the scale. I haven't found a good way of getting this from Bill's data, but we can do it from raw images, such as the DPR studio scene, which are quite well controlled with respect to exposure. Downloading the raw files from the above and looking at them with Raw digger, selecting the white background from the vertical wedge midscreen the G9 gives an average of 966.8 and a standard deviation of 37.3 in the green channel whilst the Nikon gives 8001.7 and 313 for a similar patch. Thus the SNR for the Panasonic is 25.92 whilst for the Nikon it is 25.56. We can find the photoelectron count per pixel by squaring this. For the Panasonic it is 672 e- and for the Nikon it is 653 e-. Now again we need to correct for pixel size. At 20MP the Nikon figure is 783 e-, suggesting that the QE of the Nikon is 1.16 times or 0.2 stops better (i.e., not worth worrying about) than the Panasonic.

So, for equivalent exposures (same 'total light') and ISO settings the Z6 will produce slightly better DR than the G9, as one might expect given that it has a BSI sensor, larger pixels but lower read noise. However, the difference is tiny, and not worth worrying about either way.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +20 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: No ...
2

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that isn't an erratically moving subject

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

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

Where did I say it was?

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

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

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

this is an erratically moving subject and it shows you can do lots of different kinds of photography with different gear, if i was doing it as a living i'd pick a FF camera with a high pixel count

oh it was very dark btw

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: No ...
1

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that isn't an erratically moving subject

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

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

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

Where did I say it was?

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

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the rest of us care?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +20 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: No ...
2

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that isn't an erratically moving subject

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

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

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

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

Where did I say it was?

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

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the rest of us care?

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

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: No ...
1

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that isn't an erratically moving subject

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say it was?

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

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the rest of us care?

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

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

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +20 more
Interceptor121 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,879
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult

The GH5M2 on dxomark is a good proxy for the G9

 Interceptor121's gear list:Interceptor121's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 II Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro +14 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: No ...
2

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that isn't an erratically moving subject

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say it was?

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

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

erm yes it would, because you can downsample if you need to raise ISO to compensate for DOF, sensor invariance can also come into play and that is something newer FF sensors are very good at, then any penalty is lessened even more and you get an even cleaner image

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

Why would the rest of us care?

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

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

no one cares about your meme mate

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult
2

Interceptor121 wrote:

The GH5M2 on dxomark is a good proxy for the G9

Yes, but when I've used that before I got the response 'how do you know...'.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: No ...
2

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that isn't an erratically moving subject

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say it was?

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

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the rest of us care?

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

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

no one cares about your meme mate

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

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

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +20 more
Interceptor121 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,879
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult

bobn2 wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The GH5M2 on dxomark is a good proxy for the G9

Yes, but when I've used that before I got the response 'how do you know...'.

I have both cameras I can tell you it is really pretty much the same. The new GH5M2 has a very small increment of highlight protection default from 0.66 of the G9 to 0.75

Even if you don't trust Bill PDR the curves are practically on top of each other with very small differences this may not make the measurement something you agree but just confirms you can interchange the cameras within reasonable range

Anyway there is no proxy for a 70-200 2.8 full frame lens for an MFT zoom. This is a use case that cannot be matched

 Interceptor121's gear list:Interceptor121's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 II Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro +14 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult
3

Interceptor121 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The GH5M2 on dxomark is a good proxy for the G9

Yes, but when I've used that before I got the response 'how do you know...'.

I have both cameras I can tell you it is really pretty much the same. The new GH5M2 has a very small increment of highlight protection default from 0.66 of the G9 to 0.75

Even if you don't trust Bill PDR the curves are practically on top of each other with very small differences this may not make the measurement something you agree but just confirms you can interchange the cameras within reasonable range

Anyway there is no proxy for a 70-200 2.8 full frame lens for an MFT zoom. This is a use case that cannot be matched

Well it turns out that he's telling me that they are the same sensor. I don't disagree, I think that they certainly are, and are set up the same. The same sensor can perform differently in different cameras, depending on gain choices, capture cycles and also the supporting circuitry, particularly power supplies.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Interceptor121 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,879
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult

bobn2 wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

The GH5M2 on dxomark is a good proxy for the G9

Yes, but when I've used that before I got the response 'how do you know...'.

I have both cameras I can tell you it is really pretty much the same. The new GH5M2 has a very small increment of highlight protection default from 0.66 of the G9 to 0.75

Even if you don't trust Bill PDR the curves are practically on top of each other with very small differences this may not make the measurement something you agree but just confirms you can interchange the cameras within reasonable range

Anyway there is no proxy for a 70-200 2.8 full frame lens for an MFT zoom. This is a use case that cannot be matched

Well it turns out that he's telling me that they are the same sensor. I don't disagree, I think that they certainly are, and are set up the same. The same sensor can perform differently in different cameras, depending on gain choices, capture cycles and also the supporting circuitry, particularly power supplies.

For sure but in practice I cannot see major differences on RAW files. I can tell you instead there are significant differences in how the jpeg and video are processed and also how noise reduction works.

Anyway I leave you guys to it for this use case!

 Interceptor121's gear list:Interceptor121's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 II Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro +14 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: No ...
5

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that isn't an erratically moving subject

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope you're just making a storm in a teacup mate, i should mention i have a history in the music industry and have spent time in the recoding studios at Golders Green in London where the BBC Concert Orchestra recorded and performed, i looked at the photo and it's a good shot in my opinion...well done. As for my theorising you're just doing the same with FF, unless you do an identical shot it's just an opinion and a single sided argument weighted in the favour of some particular gear that you own....in other words completely biased.

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

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

Where did I say it was?

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

Why deny the obvious fact that it is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the rest of us care?

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

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

no one cares about your meme mate

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

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

i have known some wonderful concert photographers chap, Tony Woolliscroft for example, i take the odd concert shot when i meet some friends at gigs, i can get press passes...i don't want them. I have old cameras as i prefer the output from them... i have shot concerts with a Nikon 1 BTW... it's something i do when taking pictures of friends who are musicians.

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
glassoholic
glassoholic Veteran Member • Posts: 6,282
Re: Events at 500-600mm EFL
2

Sundre wrote:

Sure. I don't think you can get very good concert shots with any system if you are so far away that you need 600 mm EFL.

So I am entirely new to this, and have only started shooting events in the last month or two after the pandemic restrictions were lifted here in Prague, Czech Republic, which is where I live. There's one venue in particular I've been to twice, it's outdoors and you're generally at least 50+ ft away from the scene; some of the best angles (slight elevation) are as far as 100-200 ft away.

This particular venue saw my photos online and asked to use them in their social media marketing in exchange for free entry. I was surprised that they liked them that much, but happy to oblige.

I will be exploring other venues as well, and most of them will be indoors with much shorter distances. I realise my current gear isn't up to the task, so I am figuring out what I need instead.

This thread has convinced me that renting and trying out various kinds of gear is the only way I will figure it out. I'll start by renting MFT lenses (75/1.8, PL 35-100/2.8, Oly 40-150/2.8 etc.) and later FF gear as well.

That said, all of these were taken with the G9 + 100-300 II/4-5.6 at this particular outdoor venue, at very high ISO settings and cleaned up in DxO Photolab 4. I realise that motion blur and DxO noise cleaning greatly reduce the amount of detail in these, but 99% of the time, people will be viewing these on 5-6" phone screens and nothing else.

Your pictures show great "drama", stand out on their own without a need to pixel peep and capture my attention for much more than a glance... well done!

A faster lens may well get you enough of an improvement with a m43 sensor that pleases you, especially if large prints are not the intended output.


Addicted To Glass
M43 equivalence: "Twice the fun with half the weight"
"You are a long time dead" -
Credit to whoever said that first and my wife for saying it to me... Make the best you can of every day!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads