G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

Started 4 months ago | Questions
Sundre
OP Sundre Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: Events at 500-600mm EFL
2

glassoholic wrote:

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!

Thank you! That is as much as I can hope for. Booked the Oly 40-150/2.8 (rental) for a gig next week, waiting to hear if they will also have the 75/1.8 so I can try out both.

 Sundre's gear list:Sundre's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,691
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult
  1. Anders W wrote:
  2. olrett wrote:

    Sundre wrote:

    I'm bad at theory and tried googling this first but couldn't make heads or tails of most threads/articles. To be honest, I can't make heads or tails of the more technical posts in this thread either

    Yes, indeed, too many technicalities make these posts kinda blurry... and you start to skip big chunks of them. Just as you would stop listening to conversations at a party that take off on a tangent.

    I experienced something similar when I was still diving. Divers would seldom talk about the sea and the life in it, but go on forever about brands and specs, ending up arguing as if their life depended on it. In the case of diving gear, however, one's life may indeed depend on it, so they at least had a valid excuse.

  3. Actually, the theory you need in order to compare formats isn't terribly complicated and it would be very helpful in discussions like these if more people were aware of it. For example, when you compare FF with MFT you need to know the following:
  4. To get the same angle of view, you need twice the focal length on FF (e.g., 25 mm on MFT is equivalent to 50 mm on FF).
  5. To get the same total amount of light collected, the same depth of field, and the same diffraction, you need to stop down two stops more on FF (e.g., f/2.8 on MFT is equivalent to f/5.6 on FF).
  6. That's all as far as the theory is concerned.
  7. But when the theory meets reality, a few more complications arise. For example, the same amount of light collected implies that the noise level will be the same if the sensors in question perform equally well for any given amount of light. But that's not always the case in practice. 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.

Well said Anders and although equivalence enables comparing between formats that does not make it right as the best gear for an individual.

As I have tried to show - my investment in exceptional EF mount lenses years ago for use with both aps-c and FF dslr bodies I regarded as more than good enough for my purpose.

These days I find that improvements in M4/3 gear have allowed me to be equally happy with what I can do now with this gear.  I also have FF gear including the excellent FF 5Ds which I can now use with my retained EF mount lenses.

That equivalence can help me understand format relationships is useful but neither I nor many others need to be constantly corrected as to the equivalence relationship.

My eyes can tell me that my M4/3 kit can make me images that are now more than good enough for my purpose.

I simply do not need the implications that any equivalent lens on any FF camera body will make equal quality images to that a current state of art M4/3 camera body can do with a top-rung equivalent lens purpose built for use on m4/3 bodies.

This is the essence of the argument: equivalence explains the nexus between sensor size formats but it does not necessarily mean equivalent quality images because there are other factors involved.  Not only the essence but maybe a clue to the understanding that we are talking about different things - the image that comes out of your camera box versus the technical understanding of the effect of any given lens between different sensor size formats.

If we took it to its absurd conclusion we might try and relate 4/3 sensor equivalence to mobile phone cameras and imply that the 4/3 sensor must make much better images than the super-slow equivalent lens in the mobile phone.  Try telling that to any mobile phone user.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

dkyl Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

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

Hi Sundre,

I happen to have a G9 and a Z6 II and so I thought my experience might be relevant to you.

As others have pointed out, just use the equivalent settings to give you an idea of the relative performance. So a G9 with 35-100 f/2.8 will act approximately like a 70-200 f/5.6 on a Z6 so it's roughly a 2 stop difference.

Unless you want to switch system, I do find having multiple systems not completely ideal. As an alternative if the focal length suits you, have you considered a Panasonic 25-50 f/1.7? Now you're at 50-100 f/3.5 equivalent and gets you to within a half stop of the f/2.8 zooms on FF.

I personally use a 10-25 f/1.7 on my G9 because I find the focal length range far more appealing and after accounting for equivalence, I'm within a half stop of FF f/2.8 zooms so in low light it's largely a non-issue.

But I also have a 58 and 105mm f/1.4 that I use on my Z6 II so I have those options to go really shallow DOF and/or shoot in very low light when necessary.

Hope that helps.

 dkyl's gear list:dkyl's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-4 Nikon D700 Olympus E-PL9 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Nikon Z6 II +6 more
Sundre
OP Sundre Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

dkyl wrote:

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

Hi Sundre,

I happen to have a G9 and a Z6 II and so I thought my experience might be relevant to you.

As others have pointed out, just use the equivalent settings to give you an idea of the relative performance. So a G9 with 35-100 f/2.8 will act approximately like a 70-200 f/5.6 on a Z6 so it's roughly a 2 stop difference.

Unless you want to switch system, I do find having multiple systems not completely ideal. As an alternative if the focal length suits you, have you considered a Panasonic 25-50 f/1.7? Now you're at 50-100 f/3.5 equivalent and gets you to within a half stop of the f/2.8 zooms on FF.

I personally use a 10-25 f/1.7 on my G9 because I find the focal length range far more appealing and after accounting for equivalence, I'm within a half stop of FF f/2.8 zooms so in low light it's largely a non-issue.

But I also have a 58 and 105mm f/1.4 that I use on my Z6 II so I have those options to go really shallow DOF and/or shoot in very low light when necessary.

Hope that helps.

Thank you, it does help. Unfortunately all of those lenses are way beyond my financial means at this time. I can't afford to pay over a thousand euros/dollars for a single lens. I can afford (2nd hand) to add either the PL 35-100/2.8 or the Oly 40-150/2.8, plus maybe the Oly 75/1.8 to my current lineup - or sell everything I have, and buy a 2nd hand Z6 mark I (mark II is too expensive for now) + something like the Tamron 70-200/2.8 + adapter.

If I had unlimited dosh, I would definitely get the Panasonic 10-25 and 25-50/1.7, that is such a perfect combo. Unfortunately I can't afford even one of them, never mind both.

 Sundre's gear list:Sundre's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro
Sundre
OP Sundre Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult

Anders W wrote:

olrett wrote:

Sundre wrote:

I'm bad at theory and tried googling this first but couldn't make heads or tails of most threads/articles. To be honest, I can't make heads or tails of the more technical posts in this thread either

Yes, indeed, too many technicalities make these posts kinda blurry... and you start to skip big chunks of them. Just as you would stop listening to conversations at a party that take off on a tangent.

I experienced something similar when I was still diving. Divers would seldom talk about the sea and the life in it, but go on forever about brands and specs, ending up arguing as if their life depended on it. In the case of diving gear, however, one's life may indeed depend on it, so they at least had a valid excuse.

Actually, the theory you need in order to compare formats isn't terribly complicated and it would be very helpful in discussions like these if more people were aware of it. For example, when you compare FF with MFT you need to know the following:

To get the same angle of view, you need twice the focal length on FF (e.g., 25 mm on MFT is equivalent to 50 mm on FF).

To get the same total amount of light collected, the same depth of field, and the same diffraction, you need to stop down two stops more on FF (e.g., f/2.8 on MFT is equivalent to f/5.6 on FF).

That's all as far as the theory is concerned.

But when the theory meets reality, a few more complications arise. For example, the same amount of light collected implies that the noise level will be the same if the sensors in question perform equally well for any given amount of light. But that's not always the case in practice. 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.

From my POV, the problem is that whenever things get technical, one person says X and another says Y and I don't have the tech knowledge to tell which one is correct - or sometimes even what they are arguing about. This thread is, unfortunately, an all too good example of that. Of course, everyone involved insists that they are absolutely correct...

I don't like reading about camera tech/theory; I don't find it interesting at all, and I don't have the time/energy required to make sense of it. For me, a camera is like a painter's brush - meant for painting, not analysing. I don't mind if others enjoy the more analytical side of it, but it just isn't for me.

I'll just rent the equipment I'm interested in and see how it works out in real world use. That I can make sense of.

 Sundre's gear list:Sundre's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro
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:

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,

Yes, I can imagine you in a recoding (sic) studio. You do take a lot of work to recode.

i looked at the photo and it's a good shot in my opinion...well done.

Oh, so you've finally looked at it now. Did you notice the cable and associated mic attached to her violin, I mean the one you missed when you said she'd have to stay put in order to play into the mic (the one on a stand to the left in the photo).

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.

Why would I need an identical shot on FF to prove that the DoF in my image would have been the same if it had been shot with an FF camera at 150 mm and f/3.5? Ever heard of equivalence? Or DoF calculators?

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?

Where did I say that photography doesn't have subjective sides. But DoF isn't one of them. Again, have you heard of DoF calculators?

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

Yet another display of ignorance. Consider an 80 MP FF sensor with pixel-level performance equal to that of an MFT sensor. Each quarter of the FF sensor would then deliver a DR equal to that of the MFT sensor at the same exposure. Yet, if you downsize the entire 80 MP FF image to 20 MP, the DR difference would amount to just one stop, not two, at the same exposure. Can you figure out why?

Bottom line: For equivalent images, FF would lose out badly in terms of DR.

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.

Thanks for conceding that you have no idea of what you are talking about. I am pretty sure what invariance you are desperately searching your memory for. But I can assure you that it wouldn't help you one iota in this debate if you found it.

, 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...

Wow! You've known some concert photographers and you can get press passes. You're really pressing on to impress irrelevantly.

i don't want them. I have old cameras as i prefer the output from them...

You said that MFT has lousy sensors. So on what grounds do you prefer lousier?

i have shot concerts with a Nikon 1 BTW... it's something i do when taking pictures of friends who are musicians.

Even more irrelevant efforts to impress. But not a word in response to the questions I actually asked. Telling!

 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 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +20 more
Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult
1

Sundre wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olrett wrote:

Sundre wrote:

I'm bad at theory and tried googling this first but couldn't make heads or tails of most threads/articles. To be honest, I can't make heads or tails of the more technical posts in this thread either

Yes, indeed, too many technicalities make these posts kinda blurry... and you start to skip big chunks of them. Just as you would stop listening to conversations at a party that take off on a tangent.

I experienced something similar when I was still diving. Divers would seldom talk about the sea and the life in it, but go on forever about brands and specs, ending up arguing as if their life depended on it. In the case of diving gear, however, one's life may indeed depend on it, so they at least had a valid excuse.

Actually, the theory you need in order to compare formats isn't terribly complicated and it would be very helpful in discussions like these if more people were aware of it. For example, when you compare FF with MFT you need to know the following:

To get the same angle of view, you need twice the focal length on FF (e.g., 25 mm on MFT is equivalent to 50 mm on FF).

To get the same total amount of light collected, the same depth of field, and the same diffraction, you need to stop down two stops more on FF (e.g., f/2.8 on MFT is equivalent to f/5.6 on FF).

That's all as far as the theory is concerned.

But when the theory meets reality, a few more complications arise. For example, the same amount of light collected implies that the noise level will be the same if the sensors in question perform equally well for any given amount of light. But that's not always the case in practice. 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.

From my POV, the problem is that whenever things get technical, one person says X and another says Y and I don't have the tech knowledge to tell which one is correct - or sometimes even what they are arguing about. This thread is, unfortunately, an all too good example of that. Of course, everyone involved insists that they are absolutely correct...

I can understand that this is a problem. Knowing "the theory" as outlined above will help you out regardless though. And when it comes to the way theory meets reality (which is where arguments tend to develop), it's not particularly difficult to check things out for yourself, e.g., by sources like DxOMark which reports on sensor tech.

I don't like reading about camera tech/theory; I don't find it interesting at all, and I don't have the time/energy required to make sense of it. For me, a camera is like a painter's brush - meant for painting, not analysing. I don't mind if others enjoy the more analytical side of it, but it just isn't for me.

I can understand that feeling too although personally I enjoy both sides of it. The problem is that if you don't develop at least an elementary grasp of the technical/analytical side, you'll be in the hands of the "experts" and as you have learnt in this thread, they'll tell you very different things depending on exactly who the expert happens to be. Developing a technical understanding can also help you artistically by giving you new ideas of how you can accomplish things.

I'll just rent the equipment I'm interested in and see how it works out in real world use. That I can make sense of.

Yes, I am sure that's a good solution for many, not just you.

 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 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +20 more
Sundre
OP Sundre Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult

I don't like reading about camera tech/theory; I don't find it interesting at all, and I don't have the time/energy required to make sense of it. For me, a camera is like a painter's brush - meant for painting, not analysing. I don't mind if others enjoy the more analytical side of it, but it just isn't for me.

I can understand that feeling too although personally I enjoy both sides of it. The problem is that if you don't develop at least an elementary grasp of the technical/analytical side, you'll be in the hands of the "experts" and as you have learnt in this thread, they'll tell you very different things depending on exactly who the expert happens to be. Developing a technical understanding can also help you artistically by giving you new ideas of how you can accomplish things.

That is the obvious downside, yes. I can just about manage an hour or so a week of reading technical articles/threads, and will probably catch up slowly over the next few years. I only started taking pictures in July last year.

 Sundre's gear list:Sundre's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,648
Re: No ...

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:

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,

Yes, I can imagine you in a recoding (sic) studio. You do take a lot of work to recode.

ad hominin........let me get a meme

i looked at the photo and it's a good shot in my opinion...well done.

Oh, so you've finally looked at it now. Did you notice the cable and associated mic attached to her violin, I mean the one you missed when you said she'd have to stay put in order to play into the mic (the one on a stand to the left in the photo).

yeah i saw the tiny mic behind the bridge, i'd check the internet about using 2 mics for live performances and mixing string instruments....sigh

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.

Why would I need an identical shot on FF to prove that the DoF in my image would have been the same if it had been shot with an FF camera at 150 mm and f/3.5? Ever heard of equivalence? Or DoF calculators?

yeah heard of it, but you're saying that is the only shot that works, i disagree

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?

Where did I say that photography doesn't have subjective sides. But DoF isn't one of them. Again, have you heard of DoF calculators?

did i say you said that, please stop this BS mate

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

Yet another display of ignorance. Consider an 80 MP FF sensor with pixel-level performance equal to that of an MFT sensor. Each quarter of the FF sensor would then deliver a DR equal to that of the MFT sensor at the same exposure. Yet, if you downsize the entire 80 MP FF image to 20 MP, the DR difference would amount to just one stop, not two, at the same exposure. Can you figure out why?

hahaha seriously you're talking sh!t, i wouldn't be taking a shot with one quarter of the sensor, you're using the whole image, processing it then downsizing it when exporting, go check the DPR test scene and get it to resize the shots.....

Bottom line: For equivalent images, FF would lose out badly in terms of DR.

utter rubbish

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.

Thanks for conceding that you have no idea of what you are talking about. I am pretty sure what invariance you are desperately searching your memory for. But I can assure you that it wouldn't help you one iota in this debate if you found it.

you just talk utter rubbish, it shows your ignorance

, 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...

Wow! You've known some concert photographers and you can get press passes. You're really pressing on to impress irrelevantly.

you asked why i am interested in concert photography..... oh dear

i don't want them. I have old cameras as i prefer the output from them...

You said that MFT has lousy sensors. So on what grounds do you prefer lousier?

i was using your criteria for what a lousy sensor is

i have shot concerts with a Nikon 1 BTW... it's something i do when taking pictures of friends who are musicians.

Even more irrelevant efforts to impress. But not a word in response to the questions I actually asked. Telling!

the question about concert photography?

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
olrett Regular Member • Posts: 477
Re: No ...
1

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:

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,

Yes, I can imagine you in a recoding (sic) studio. You do take a lot of work to recode.

ad hominin........let me get a meme

i looked at the photo and it's a good shot in my opinion...well done.

Oh, so you've finally looked at it now. Did you notice the cable and associated mic attached to her violin, I mean the one you missed when you said she'd have to stay put in order to play into the mic (the one on a stand to the left in the photo).

yeah i saw the tiny mic behind the bridge, i'd check the internet about using 2 mics for live performances and mixing string instruments....sigh

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.

Why would I need an identical shot on FF to prove that the DoF in my image would have been the same if it had been shot with an FF camera at 150 mm and f/3.5? Ever heard of equivalence? Or DoF calculators?

yeah heard of it, but you're saying that is the only shot that works, i disagree

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?

Where did I say that photography doesn't have subjective sides. But DoF isn't one of them. Again, have you heard of DoF calculators?

did i say you said that, please stop this BS mate

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

Yet another display of ignorance. Consider an 80 MP FF sensor with pixel-level performance equal to that of an MFT sensor. Each quarter of the FF sensor would then deliver a DR equal to that of the MFT sensor at the same exposure. Yet, if you downsize the entire 80 MP FF image to 20 MP, the DR difference would amount to just one stop, not two, at the same exposure. Can you figure out why?

hahaha seriously you're talking sh!t, i wouldn't be taking a shot with one quarter of the sensor, you're using the whole image, processing it then downsizing it when exporting, go check the DPR test scene and get it to resize the shots.....

Bottom line: For equivalent images, FF would lose out badly in terms of DR.

utter rubbish

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.

Thanks for conceding that you have no idea of what you are talking about. I am pretty sure what invariance you are desperately searching your memory for. But I can assure you that it wouldn't help you one iota in this debate if you found it.

you just talk utter rubbish, it shows your ignorance

, 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...

Wow! You've known some concert photographers and you can get press passes. You're really pressing on to impress irrelevantly.

you asked why i am interested in concert photography..... oh dear

i don't want them. I have old cameras as i prefer the output from them...

You said that MFT has lousy sensors. So on what grounds do you prefer lousier?

i was using your criteria for what a lousy sensor is

i have shot concerts with a Nikon 1 BTW... it's something i do when taking pictures of friends who are musicians.

Even more irrelevant efforts to impress. But not a word in response to the questions I actually asked. Telling!

the question about concert photography?

Good grief. What's wrong with you guys? Hijacking a thread to wage personal wars?

The OP has already said they're not interested in your mile-long exchanges that do not answer their question.

 olrett's gear list:olrett's gear list
Olympus TG-6 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +17 more
AdamT
AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 61,749
My overall take on 24Mp FF vs M43
3

Thank you, it does help. Unfortunately all of those lenses are way beyond my financial means at this time. I can't afford to pay over a thousand euros/dollars for a single lens. I can afford (2nd hand) to add either the PL 35-100/2.8 or the Oly 40-150/2.8, plus maybe the Oly 75/1.8 to my current lineup - or sell everything I have, and buy a 2nd hand Z6 mark I (mark II is too expensive for now) + something like the Tamron 70-200/2.8 + adapter.

If I had unlimited dosh, I would definitely get the Panasonic 10-25 and 25-50/1.7, that is such a perfect combo. Unfortunately I can't afford even one of them, never mind both.

This is my general overall take on 24Mp FF vs M43 for what its worth - YMMV of course depending on situation

The problem with 24Mp FF cameras is that you need either slow tele lenses and lots of light or very expensive bazooka sized ones to get any kind of real reach (more than 200mm) - the slow ones in F (or EF) mount over 300mm tend to be expensive or poor quality and generally massive.. Being 47Mp, a Z7 would give you the reach via cropping to 20Mp when you need it (gives effectively a 1,5X tele at G9 sized images - you can crop in finder which gives 20Mp RAWs ) or shorter reach with amazing print sizes or ultra low noise (it`s almost as clean as the Z6 at pixel level so resized down to 24Mp gets really clean images) .. Prob is that Z7s aren`t even £1000 lt alone $1000

M43 gets affordable sharp glass down to sensible size and the G9 is a fantastic body which has Olympus level IBIS, some of the finest ergonomics and it does true ISO100 despite how Pan have labelled it as extended for clean skies,. the DFD AF is state of the art in single point mirrorless AF and its no slouch at tracking too . has two UHS2 card slots and is tough and reliable and its home to IMO the best 10X + superzoom lens for any system , the Lumix 14-140-II which is compact (actually looks small on the G9) ...... Id not swap to a Z6 as a personal camera , Z7 ? different story but a lot more cash

For you - I`d hire a fast lens and see how it performs - the oly 40-150 F2.8 is king and far less than £1000 used and puts 300mm of effective reach onto 20Mp with some of the best optics in a zoom of that range and isn`t going to break your back .

-- hide signature --

** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Nikon D850 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Nikon D3 Nikon Z7
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,648
Re: No ...
1

olrett wrote:

Good grief. What's wrong with you guys? Hijacking a thread to wage personal wars?

The OP has already said they're not interested in your mile-long exchanges that do not answer their question.

he came after me, i merely defend myself, he obviously holds a grudge against me

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: The simple answer
9

Tom Caldwell wrote:

These type of threads are hugely destructive for M4/3.

That's a personal opinion that some of us think is wrong. mFT is an excellent system with its own unique set of merits. Clarity in understanding what those merits are, and by implication what they are not, only helps people make clear minded decisions. If their decisions are not clear minded, mFT will go by the wayside, because unless you understand just what the advantages of the format are the general opinion will be negative, now that other systems have adopted some of what were presumed to be advantages of the format but were actually just features of the brands supporting the format.

If mFT is just about a small group of self-deluding acolytes, then it will certainly fail. It is that opinion, that truth must always be taken as criticism and not spoken if inconvenient, that will push mFT even further in that direction.

-- hide signature --

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

dkyl Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light
1

Sundre wrote:

dkyl wrote:

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

Hi Sundre,

I happen to have a G9 and a Z6 II and so I thought my experience might be relevant to you.

As others have pointed out, just use the equivalent settings to give you an idea of the relative performance. So a G9 with 35-100 f/2.8 will act approximately like a 70-200 f/5.6 on a Z6 so it's roughly a 2 stop difference.

Unless you want to switch system, I do find having multiple systems not completely ideal. As an alternative if the focal length suits you, have you considered a Panasonic 25-50 f/1.7? Now you're at 50-100 f/3.5 equivalent and gets you to within a half stop of the f/2.8 zooms on FF.

I personally use a 10-25 f/1.7 on my G9 because I find the focal length range far more appealing and after accounting for equivalence, I'm within a half stop of FF f/2.8 zooms so in low light it's largely a non-issue.

But I also have a 58 and 105mm f/1.4 that I use on my Z6 II so I have those options to go really shallow DOF and/or shoot in very low light when necessary.

Hope that helps.

Thank you, it does help. Unfortunately all of those lenses are way beyond my financial means at this time. I can't afford to pay over a thousand euros/dollars for a single lens. I can afford (2nd hand) to add either the PL 35-100/2.8 or the Oly 40-150/2.8, plus maybe the Oly 75/1.8 to my current lineup - or sell everything I have, and buy a 2nd hand Z6 mark I (mark II is too expensive for now) + something like the Tamron 70-200/2.8 + adapter.

If I had unlimited dosh, I would definitely get the Panasonic 10-25 and 25-50/1.7, that is such a perfect combo. Unfortunately I can't afford even one of them, never mind both.

Totally understand. Given your current situation my personal inclination would be to stick with m43 and add either the 75 f/1.8 or 35-100 f/2.8, as you’ve rightly concluded.

As an aside, I used to own the Oly 75 f/1.8. Excellent lens but I found the FL a bit awkward at the time as it was too long indoors most of the time and often too short outdoors. But if that FL works for your concert photography, the optics are brilliant.

And secondly I think the 35-100 f/2.8 is a gem in m43 as it’s so petite. Never got around to owning one but if size is important I’d be all over it. I did own the 40-150 f/2.8 at one stage but being a bit of a bokeh fan, I didn’t get along with that lens.

But if your long term outlook appear to include a lot of Low light photography then perhaps m43 (whilst capable) may not be the most appropriate system for you.

Good luck with you choice.

 dkyl's gear list:dkyl's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-4 Nikon D700 Olympus E-PL9 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Nikon Z6 II +6 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: My overall take on 24Mp FF vs M43
3

AdamT wrote:

The problem with 24Mp FF cameras is that you need either slow tele lenses and lots of light or very expensive bazooka sized ones to get any kind of real reach (more than 200mm) - the slow ones in F (or EF) mount over 300mm tend to be expensive or poor quality and generally massive.

The 'need lots of light' fallacy rears its head again. A 'slow tele lens' on FF 'needs' the same amount as light as one on mFT two stops 'faster'.

-- 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: The theory isn't all that difficult
3

Sundre wrote:

From my POV, the problem is that whenever things get technical, one person says X and another says Y and I don't have the tech knowledge to tell which one is correct - or sometimes even what they are arguing about. This thread is, unfortunately, an all too good example of that. Of course, everyone involved insists that they are absolutely correct...

Which is a good example why the fake technical argument tactic works OK. Here's a tip. If you have a discussion and one side's argument is effectively 'because I say so', or is full of vague references such as 'the data at our disposal suggest' without saying what data or how it suggest, then probably don't take it seriously.

-- 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
2

bobn2 wrote:

Sundre wrote:

From my POV, the problem is that whenever things get technical, one person says X and another says Y and I don't have the tech knowledge to tell which one is correct - or sometimes even what they are arguing about. This thread is, unfortunately, an all too good example of that. Of course, everyone involved insists that they are absolutely correct...

Which is a good example why the fake technical argument tactic works OK. Here's a tip. If you have a discussion and one side's argument is effectively 'because I say so', or is full of vague references such as 'the data at our disposal suggest' without saying what data or how it suggest, then probably don't take it seriously.

Here’s another tip to the OP: Don’t trust people that didn’t bother to read relevant parts of the prior exchange and then try to take advantage of their ignorance by posting illegitimate critique of the behavior of other posters, as did bobn2 in the passage above. See link below for the evidence.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65501737

-- hide signature --

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

 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 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +20 more
Anders W
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 22,144
Re: No ...
1

olrett 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:

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,

Yes, I can imagine you in a recoding (sic) studio. You do take a lot of work to recode.

ad hominin........let me get a meme

i looked at the photo and it's a good shot in my opinion...well done.

Oh, so you've finally looked at it now. Did you notice the cable and associated mic attached to her violin, I mean the one you missed when you said she'd have to stay put in order to play into the mic (the one on a stand to the left in the photo).

yeah i saw the tiny mic behind the bridge, i'd check the internet about using 2 mics for live performances and mixing string instruments....sigh

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.

Why would I need an identical shot on FF to prove that the DoF in my image would have been the same if it had been shot with an FF camera at 150 mm and f/3.5? Ever heard of equivalence? Or DoF calculators?

yeah heard of it, but you're saying that is the only shot that works, i disagree

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?

Where did I say that photography doesn't have subjective sides. But DoF isn't one of them. Again, have you heard of DoF calculators?

did i say you said that, please stop this BS mate

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

Yet another display of ignorance. Consider an 80 MP FF sensor with pixel-level performance equal to that of an MFT sensor. Each quarter of the FF sensor would then deliver a DR equal to that of the MFT sensor at the same exposure. Yet, if you downsize the entire 80 MP FF image to 20 MP, the DR difference would amount to just one stop, not two, at the same exposure. Can you figure out why?

hahaha seriously you're talking sh!t, i wouldn't be taking a shot with one quarter of the sensor, you're using the whole image, processing it then downsizing it when exporting, go check the DPR test scene and get it to resize the shots.....

Bottom line: For equivalent images, FF would lose out badly in terms of DR.

utter rubbish

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.

Thanks for conceding that you have no idea of what you are talking about. I am pretty sure what invariance you are desperately searching your memory for. But I can assure you that it wouldn't help you one iota in this debate if you found it.

you just talk utter rubbish, it shows your ignorance

, 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...

Wow! You've known some concert photographers and you can get press passes. You're really pressing on to impress irrelevantly.

you asked why i am interested in concert photography..... oh dear

i don't want them. I have old cameras as i prefer the output from them...

You said that MFT has lousy sensors. So on what grounds do you prefer lousier?

i was using your criteria for what a lousy sensor is

i have shot concerts with a Nikon 1 BTW... it's something i do when taking pictures of friends who are musicians.

Even more irrelevant efforts to impress. But not a word in response to the questions I actually asked. Telling!

the question about concert photography?

Good grief. What's wrong with you guys? Hijacking a thread to wage personal wars?

Sorry, but don't blame for going off topic. I wasn't and am not.

The OP has already said they're not interested in your mile-long exchanges that do not answer their question.

What the OP actually said was that he had difficulties following technical exchanges. The one on depth of field, which is relevant to the OP's question and that Wu Jiaqiu choose to enter, is one that I have reason to think he can follow. It's not my fault that it is less legible than it should be.

Furthermore, if no one countered faulty contentions, neither the OP nor anyone else would know that and why they were faulty. This is a public discussion, not a private exchange, and what's written is not meant for the benefit of the OP only.

 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 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +20 more
Sundre
OP Sundre Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: The theory isn't all that difficult
2

bobn2 wrote:

Sundre wrote:

From my POV, the problem is that whenever things get technical, one person says X and another says Y and I don't have the tech knowledge to tell which one is correct - or sometimes even what they are arguing about. This thread is, unfortunately, an all too good example of that. Of course, everyone involved insists that they are absolutely correct...

Which is a good example why the fake technical argument tactic works OK. Here's a tip. If you have a discussion and one side's argument is effectively 'because I say so', or is full of vague references such as 'the data at our disposal suggest' without saying what data or how it suggest, then probably don't take it seriously.

I don't really take any of it seriously, since I can't make heads or tails of it either way. That's why I asked for non-technical answers in my original post, and it is also why in the end I decided I'll just rent all the gear I'm interested in to see what feels best to me.

I guess asking for a non-technical answer to a (contested) technical question on Dpreview is like asking mobile phone enthusiasts for the pros and cons of Android vs. iOS.

 Sundre's gear list:Sundre's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,648
Re: No ...
2

Anders W wrote:

Good grief. What's wrong with you guys? Hijacking a thread to wage personal wars?

Sorry, but don't blame for going off topic. I wasn't and am not.

The OP has already said they're not interested in your mile-long exchanges that do not answer their question.

What the OP actually said was that he had difficulties following technical exchanges. The one on depth of field, which is relevant to the OP's question and that Wu Jiaqiu choose to enter, is one that I have reason to think he can follow. It's not my fault that it is less legible than it should be.

Furthermore, if no one countered faulty contentions, neither the OP nor anyone else would know that and why they were faulty. This is a public discussion, not a private exchange, and what's written is not meant for the benefit of the OP only.

i mentioned why no one is talking about subject distance and so on, you offered a single picture and for you that argument was complete

as for faulty contentions it seems that ISO invariance and concert shooting are well known, first result after a google search, that article blows any argument you have out of the water, job done cya mate

http://www.dionpa.com/iso-invariance.html

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads