Performance of a much more expensive lens

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

You do understand that aperture is a ratio and as such your claim is nonsense

You are clearly confusing the light that comes into a lens with the light that is projected on the sensor. Yes, these quantities are (almost) the same, but the light from a FF lens is projected on to a 4x bigger area.

So although both a FF f5.6 lens and a m43 f2.8 lens have nearly the same-sized front element, the "density" of light projected by the m43 lens is 4x more. Hence it is indeed an f2.8 lens. The next variable is what the sensor does with this light which per unit area contains 4x more "information" for the m43 lens.

It looks like you again invented the wheel. 4 times more light comes to 4 times smaller sensor. You get equal amount of of light with m43 f/2.8 as f/5.6 on FF

And therefore the FF sensor has 1/4th the light per unit area as a m43 sensor. So you have a 150mm f2.8 lens with the angle of view of a 300mm FF lens. However for the FF sensor to receive the same amount of information per unit area from this 300mm lens, it will also have to be an f2.8 lens, not f5.6.

An f2.8 FF lens will collect 4x the light as a m43 lens, but the DISTRIBUTION of this collected light over the sensor will be exactly like that of the f2.8 m43 lens because it has to project over a 4x sensor area.

The part that you and James keep getting confused over is thinking that the information that a FF sensor gets from a f5.6 lens is the same as what a m43 sensor receives from a f2.8 lens. What the lens collects is not what the sensor receives because sensor sizes are different.

That said, one reason why FF sensors have better high ISO performance is because there are no 80MP FF sensors. The difference is NOT 2 stops, as explained above.

The units are - the pixels, and they are 4 times bigger on FF. And this is the main reason of better high ISO performance. Another reason is BSI and dual gain.

You can't compare 80mp with 20mp here, it is completely different subject and possibilities.

And yes, noise difference is roughly 2x, when you compare properly exposed images.

You certainly do make a lot of noise! I can see if you are a poor photographer and underexpose badly that noise would be your big concern. For wildlife, however, not so much. One typically (I do) shoot in pretty good light to bright sun and I don't underexpose. Perhaps on a silhouette. You realize this discussion is about wildlife lenses, don't you?

I rarely have images in which noise is much of a concern as my subjects are generally well lit. Landscape can be different, but even then, shots with lots of shadow are generally junk, anyway. With the old 16 Mp sensor of the EM-1 I noise was somewhat of an issue when there were monotonous large areas of medium to dark monotone in an image (rarely). With the 20 MP sensor this is very rarely an issue.

You might as well be arguing about pie in the sky. Back to the sonny forum with you!

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

You do understand that aperture is a ratio and as such your claim is nonsense

You are clearly confusing the light that comes into a lens with the light that is projected on the sensor. Yes, these quantities are (almost) the same, but the light from a FF lens is projected on to a 4x bigger area.

So although both a FF f5.6 lens and a m43 f2.8 lens have nearly the same-sized front element, the "density" of light projected by the m43 lens is 4x more. Hence it is indeed an f2.8 lens. The next variable is what the sensor does with this light which per unit area contains 4x more "information" for the m43 lens.

It looks like you again invented the wheel. 4 times more light comes to 4 times smaller sensor. You get equal amount of of light with m43 f/2.8 as f/5.6 on FF

And therefore the FF sensor has 1/4th the light per unit area as a m43 sensor. So you have a 150mm f2.8 lens with the angle of view of a 300mm FF lens. However for the FF sensor to receive the same amount of information per unit area from this 300mm lens, it will also have to be an f2.8 lens, not f5.6.

An f2.8 FF lens will collect 4x the light as a m43 lens, but the DISTRIBUTION of this collected light over the sensor will be exactly like that of the f2.8 m43 lens because it has to project over a 4x sensor area.

The part that you and James keep getting confused over is thinking that the information that a FF sensor gets from a f5.6 lens is the same as what a m43 sensor receives from a f2.8 lens. What the lens collects is not what the sensor receives because sensor sizes are different.

That said, one reason why FF sensors have better high ISO performance is because there are no 80MP FF sensors. The difference is NOT 2 stops, as explained above.

The units are - the pixels, and they are 4 times bigger on FF. And this is the main reason of better high ISO performance. Another reason is BSI and dual gain.

You can't compare 80mp with 20mp here, it is completely different subject and possibilities.

And yes, noise difference is roughly 2x, when you compare properly exposed images.

You certainly do make a lot of noise! I can see if you are a poor photographer and underexpose badly that noise would be your big concern. For wildlife, however, not so much.

First, the noise will eat some of the fine details, like fur and feather, than NR will kill some more.

One typically (I do) shoot in pretty good light to bright sun and I don't underexpose. Perhaps on a silhouette. You realize this discussion is about wildlife lenses, don't you?

It was discussion about 40-150/2.8 vs120-300/2.8, IDK how much wildlife this lens is.

I rarely have images in which noise is much of a concern as my subjects are generally well lit.

In some areas, at some time, the sun is 24h, but right now in NL I need iso800 in the mid of the day for non static subjects.

Landscape can be different, but even then, shots with lots of shadow are generally junk, anyway.

All shots agaist the sun are junk for m43 user?

With the old 16 Mp sensor of the EM-1 I noise was somewhat of an issue when there were monotonous large areas of medium to dark monotone in an image (rarely). With the 20 MP sensor this is very rarely an issue.

High iso noise is not much different on 16vs 20mp MFT

You might as well be arguing about pie in the sky. Back to the sonny forum with you!

Messier Object wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Regarding DoF with birds

I often read the argument here that . . . “but at the same DoF FF loses the advantage” . . .
But FF doesn’t fall behind. In those situations where one does need that extra depth in the focus FF can easily accommodate. But I for one will readily sacrifice DoF to keep the ISO down and/or the shutter speed up when I need to

And let’s not kid ourselves, if Olympus or Panasonic had made a 300mm f/2.8 m.43 lens users wouldn’t be out in lower light shooting it at f/4 just to maintain a certain DoF.

Peter

Won't say that I've never been tempted ...

https://www.houstoncameraexchange.com/used-olympus-43-300mm-f28-ed-prime-lens-excellent-condition-uol4330028e.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAlrSPBhBaEiwAuLSDUI85k-XgvbStQIwkttHy2B7DPXaG9QcqenQJQGZ6l5H0yG_lm0qUQxoCRwYQAvD_BwE

I’ve had that lens for nearly 10 years. It’s heavy (I’ve broken one 4/3-m43 adapter) and the focus is slow compared with m.43 lenses and my C-AF keeper rate with birds in flight is usually no better than 20% , BUT its overall image rendering is better than anything I’ve seen from any m.43 lens.

I won’t say that I’ve never been tempted by the 300mm F4 Pro or the 150-400mm F4.5 1.25x, but it won’t happen unless my 300/2.8 dies

Peter

For long lenses I have the 300/4 Pro + TC's, the 40-150/2.8, and the FT 150/2. I like them all for different reasons.

The 150/2 is a beast, slow focusing, but the rendering is just terrific. I love this lens at f/2.2, but generally keep if for tripod use.

The 40-150/2.8 is sharp, focuses fast and accurately, and delivers a good image. I'm not a fan of how it renders out of focus areas, however. A busy background can get a little nasty. I'll often pull out the 45, 75, or 150 prime if background rendering is going to be an issue.

The 300/4 Pro is a spectacular lens. I've not used the canon 300/2.8 or the Oly 300/2.8, so don't have that point of comparison. But I couldn't be happier with the IS and it's performance in the field. I can get decent rate of keepers shooting from the back of a rocking boat in bouncing waves ... absolutely unreal.  But again, OOF background rendering is better than 40-150, but not in the same league as the 150/2.

I'm getting charged up for Spring/Summer shooting. My main interest is birds in the field, shooting wildlife from the back of a boat, wildlife while walking.  Dusk and dawn is pretty active at our lake place, so bigger aperture would be nice but not at huge weight or price penalties.

Given my current kit would the 150-400/4.5 be a good decision? In certainly overlaps with the 300 Pro, but the flexibility of a zoom would be interesting.   I'm open to any option, including buying into a different system if it made sense, but seems like extending my current system would be the way to go.

James Stirling wrote:

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

It is not just effective diagonal AOV it is DOF control/ subject isolation and most critically total light gathered. In other words a FF 80-300mm F/5.6 on a FF camera will do the same job as a 40-150mm F/2.8 om m43. 70{-80}-300mm lenses are widely available and often very inexpensive. The reason being that such a slow lens is pedestrian low end in FF

Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens 1928 B&H Photo Video (bhphotovideo.com)

While amongst a few of the hard of thinking posters here , denial of equivalence and it's unavoidable consequences is a constant. Alas reality does not support their nonsense , equivalence applies equally to all sensor sizes from the smallest to the largest. Sadly you are not the first or no doubt last to make the same old BS fact dodging claims, it is an embarrassing tradition in the forum

Now to be clear the 40-150mm pros is a great lens for m43 but it is not the same as FF F/2.8 lens. Just as a lens on a smaller sensor format covering the same effective focal range is not the same as the 40-150mm .

is to simply ignore the sensor and concentrate on the lens.

It is rather tricky to take a photo without the lens being attached to a camera . So I would suggest that how the combination performs is all that matters \anything else is irrelevant ,

So ... here's a question.

There's a mountain scene with some foreground rocks and leaves. It's about a 30 degree angle of view. I want critical focus on the mountains so I focus to infinity. I also want to resolve 2mm detail on the foreground rocks and leaves. It's a golden hour situation, EV 12. I'd like to produce a 4000 x 3000 pixel image. There's a gentle wind blowing that limits shutter speed to 1/60 or faster.

What aperture should I use?

Will diffraction be an issue?

What determines DOF is distance to the subject, angle of view, and physical lens opening. It's a geometric effect determined by these factors.

What determines light gathering is lens opening, luminance, angle of view, and 1/shutter.

If you need to buy a wide lens opening for good light gathering. A smaller format let's you do that with a shorter lens up to the point it can be made no shorter.

So why not buy the smallest format that meets your needs? No value judgement required, just some understanding what you are getting when you spend your hard-earned money.

Yes, I happily sacrifice two stops of light. Noone ever complained of slower shutter speed, higher ISO noise or double the depth of field.

I don't shoot sports/action in dim light, everything else gets covered by M43s acceptable ISO performance. Need extra boost? Take it to ISO 12800 and use DxO DeepPrime - 99% covered. Need the extra 1%? Get a Sony a7 sIII - does wonders at night, truely appreciated, but a very special requirement.

SonyX wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

You do understand that aperture is a ratio and as such your claim is nonsense

You are clearly confusing the light that comes into a lens with the light that is projected on the sensor. Yes, these quantities are (almost) the same, but the light from a FF lens is projected on to a 4x bigger area.

So although both a FF f5.6 lens and a m43 f2.8 lens have nearly the same-sized front element, the "density" of light projected by the m43 lens is 4x more. Hence it is indeed an f2.8 lens. The next variable is what the sensor does with this light which per unit area contains 4x more "information" for the m43 lens.

It looks like you again invented the wheel. 4 times more light comes to 4 times smaller sensor. You get equal amount of of light with m43 f/2.8 as f/5.6 on FF

And therefore the FF sensor has 1/4th the light per unit area as a m43 sensor. So you have a 150mm f2.8 lens with the angle of view of a 300mm FF lens. However for the FF sensor to receive the same amount of information per unit area from this 300mm lens, it will also have to be an f2.8 lens, not f5.6.

An f2.8 FF lens will collect 4x the light as a m43 lens, but the DISTRIBUTION of this collected light over the sensor will be exactly like that of the f2.8 m43 lens because it has to project over a 4x sensor area.

The part that you and James keep getting confused over is thinking that the information that a FF sensor gets from a f5.6 lens is the same as what a m43 sensor receives from a f2.8 lens. What the lens collects is not what the sensor receives because sensor sizes are different.

That said, one reason why FF sensors have better high ISO performance is because there are no 80MP FF sensors. The difference is NOT 2 stops, as explained above.

The units are - the pixels, and they are 4 times bigger on FF. And this is the main reason of better high ISO performance. Another reason is BSI and dual gain.

You can't compare 80mp with 20mp here, it is completely different subject and possibilities.

And yes, noise difference is roughly 2x, when you compare properly exposed images.

You certainly do make a lot of noise! I can see if you are a poor photographer and underexpose badly that noise would be your big concern. For wildlife, however, not so much.

First, the noise will eat some of the fine details, like fur and feather, than NR will kill some more.

No, not when lit. lots of detail makes noise very hard to see. It just blends in with the detail.

One typically (I do) shoot in pretty good light to bright sun and I don't underexpose. Perhaps on a silhouette. You realize this discussion is about wildlife lenses, don't you?

It was discussion about 40-150/2.8 vs120-300/2.8, IDK how much wildlife this lens is.

Of course it is, and many folks here post fine images with it, often with a tele-extender.

I rarely have images in which noise is much of a concern as my subjects are generally well lit.

In some areas, at some time, the sun is 24h, but right now in NL I need iso800 in the mid of the day for non static subjects.

But if you don't mess up, you still will likely not see the noise.

Landscape can be different, but even then, shots with lots of shadow are generally junk, anyway.

All shots agaist the sun are junk for m43 user?

Read again where I said Landscape. Even then these are a minority of images, certainly fully backlit ones.

With the old 16 Mp sensor of the EM-1 I noise was somewhat of an issue when there were monotonous large areas of medium to dark monotone in an image (rarely). With the 20 MP sensor this is very rarely an issue.

High iso noise is not much different on 16vs 20mp MFT

You might say that if you did not own cameras with each sensor and are merely speculating. Back to the sonny forum with you!

You might as well be arguing about pie in the sky. Back to the sonny forum with you!

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

You do understand that aperture is a ratio and as such your claim is nonsense

You are clearly confusing the light that comes into a lens with the light that is projected on the sensor. Yes, these quantities are (almost) the same, but the light from a FF lens is projected on to a 4x bigger area.

So although both a FF f5.6 lens and a m43 f2.8 lens have nearly the same-sized front element, the "density" of light projected by the m43 lens is 4x more. Hence it is indeed an f2.8 lens. The next variable is what the sensor does with this light which per unit area contains 4x more "information" for the m43 lens.

It looks like you again invented the wheel. 4 times more light comes to 4 times smaller sensor. You get equal amount of of light with m43 f/2.8 as f/5.6 on FF

And therefore the FF sensor has 1/4th the light per unit area as a m43 sensor. So you have a 150mm f2.8 lens with the angle of view of a 300mm FF lens. However for the FF sensor to receive the same amount of information per unit area from this 300mm lens, it will also have to be an f2.8 lens, not f5.6.

An f2.8 FF lens will collect 4x the light as a m43 lens, but the DISTRIBUTION of this collected light over the sensor will be exactly like that of the f2.8 m43 lens because it has to project over a 4x sensor area.

The part that you and James keep getting confused over is thinking that the information that a FF sensor gets from a f5.6 lens is the same as what a m43 sensor receives from a f2.8 lens. What the lens collects is not what the sensor receives because sensor sizes are different.

That said, one reason why FF sensors have better high ISO performance is because there are no 80MP FF sensors. The difference is NOT 2 stops, as explained above.

The units are - the pixels, and they are 4 times bigger on FF. And this is the main reason of better high ISO performance. Another reason is BSI and dual gain.

You can't compare 80mp with 20mp here, it is completely different subject and possibilities.

And yes, noise difference is roughly 2x, when you compare properly exposed images.

You certainly do make a lot of noise! I can see if you are a poor photographer and underexpose badly that noise would be your big concern. For wildlife, however, not so much.

First, the noise will eat some of the fine details, like fur and feather, than NR will kill some more.

No, not when lit. lots of detail makes noise very hard to see. It just blends in with the detail.

Yes, it blends with the details, and then everthing will be killed with NR. Look at the photos of the eagles above, there is no fine details on them.

One typically (I do) shoot in pretty good light to bright sun and I don't underexpose. Perhaps on a silhouette. You realize this discussion is about wildlife lenses, don't you?

It was discussion about 40-150/2.8 vs120-300/2.8, IDK how much wildlife this lens is.

Of course it is, and many folks here post fine images with it, often with a tele-extender.

I rarely have images in which noise is much of a concern as my subjects are generally well lit.

In some areas, at some time, the sun is 24h, but right now in NL I need iso800 in the mid of the day for non static subjects.

But if you don't mess up, you still will likely not see the noise.

Landscape can be different, but even then, shots with lots of shadow are generally junk, anyway.

All shots agaist the sun are junk for m43 user?

Read again where I said Landscape. Even then these are a minority of images, certainly fully backlit ones.

Try to shoot on a narrow streets in Europe, when the sun is strong and a big part of the view is in shadow.

With the old 16 Mp sensor of the EM-1 I noise was somewhat of an issue when there were monotonous large areas of medium to dark monotone in an image (rarely). With the 20 MP sensor this is very rarely an issue.

High iso noise is not much different on 16vs 20mp MFT

You might say that if you did not own cameras with each sensor

I had G7, G85 , GH5 and I still have G9.

and are merely speculating. Back to the sonny forum with you!

You might as well be arguing about pie in the sky. Back to the sonny forum with you!

Hey my man, im gonna be honest. If this many people are explaining your wrong, you are probably wrong. I build lenses for a living, I can assure you I know my way around a lens

Bassaidai wrote:

Yes, I happily sacrifice two stops of light. Noone ever complained of slower shutter speed, higher ISO noise or double the depth of field.

There is no double the DOF the 70-300mm F/5.6 on FF does the same job as the 40-150 . Same diagonal AOV , same DOF control, same total noise and if you need the same shutter speed and have to bump the ISO same noise give or take

I don't shoot sports/action in dim light, everything else gets covered by M43s acceptable ISO performance. Need extra boost? Take it to ISO 12800 and use DxO DeepPrime - 99% covered. Need the extra 1%? Get a Sony a7 sIII - does wonders at night, truely appreciated, but a very special requirement.

You are easily pleased if you are happy with 12800 ISO on m43 . Despite the wishful thinking here no NR comes without detail loss to one degree or another  though given just how bad 12800 ISO looks , It does not really matter . Unless it was the middle of the night and I saw the queen getting abducted by aliens I wouldn't use 12800 on FF let alone m43

Here is a crop from low light shot from the DPreview G9 review perhaps you could demonstrate  how amazing DXO works . I am also led to believe that DXO works on all formats so even if it did work as claimed it would not close any gap.

m43 is more than capable of giving great results and the 40-150mm is a good lens for sure. My contention is with the comparison's with F/2.8 FF lenses . Funnily enough people seem to have no trouble understanding that an F/2.8 lens on a sensor smaller than m43 is not doing the same job as an F/2.8 lens on m43 . I have been using m43 since 2009 it is  a great system on its on right.

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

It is not just effective diagonal AOV it is DOF control/ subject isolation and most critically total light gathered. In other words a FF 80-300mm F/5.6 on a FF camera will do the same job as a 40-150mm F/2.8 om m43. 70{-80}-300mm lenses are widely available and often very inexpensive. The reason being that such a slow lens is pedestrian low end in FF

Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens 1928 B&H Photo Video (bhphotovideo.com)

While amongst a few of the hard of thinking posters here , denial of equivalence and it's unavoidable consequences is a constant. Alas reality does not support their nonsense , equivalence applies equally to all sensor sizes from the smallest to the largest. Sadly you are not the first or no doubt last to make the same old BS fact dodging claims, it is an embarrassing tradition in the forum

Now to be clear the 40-150mm pros is a great lens for m43 but it is not the same as FF F/2.8 lens. Just as a lens on a smaller sensor format covering the same effective focal range is not the same as the 40-150mm .

is to simply ignore the sensor and concentrate on the lens.

It is rather tricky to take a photo without the lens being attached to a camera . So I would suggest that how the combination performs is all that matters \anything else is irrelevant ,

So ... here's a question.

There's a mountain scene with some foreground rocks and leaves. It's about a 30 degree angle of view. I want critical focus on the mountains so I focus to infinity. I also want to resolve 2mm detail on the foreground rocks and leaves. It's a golden hour situation, EV 12. I'd like to produce a 4000 x 3000 pixel image. There's a gentle wind blowing that limits shutter speed to 1/60 or faster.

What aperture should I use?

Will diffraction be an issue?

If your lens is not attached to a camera it really does not matter

What determines DOF is distance to the subject, angle of view, and physical lens opening. It's a geometric effect determined by these factors.

What determines light gathering is lens opening, luminance, angle of view, and 1/shutter.

If you need to buy a wide lens opening for good light gathering. A smaller format let's you do that with a shorter lens up to the point it can be made no shorter.

So why not buy the smallest format that meets your needs? No value judgement required, just some understanding what you are getting when you spend your hard-earned money.

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

Hey my man, im gonna be honest. If this many people are explaining your wrong, you are probably wrong. I build lenses for a living, I can assure you I know my way around a lens

In this forum there are a whole lot of physics deniers . When you say you build lenses do you mean from scratch Any one with even the simplest understanding of equivalence would know that I am correct in everything I have posted . I am shocked that you with your awesome font of knowledge of lenses don't get it .

All you ever wanted to know about equivalence { and more }

Equivalence (josephjamesphotography.com)

Did I get that right?

You are trying to convince me what I should be pleased about and what not?

I have the slight feeling you overestimate the weight of your personal opinion in a public forum. I don't need your guidance or role modell or reference of acceptable noise level. But thanks for trying.

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

Hey my man, im gonna be honest. If this many people are explaining your wrong, you are probably wrong. I build lenses for a living, I can assure you I know my way around a lens

My dear "Teenage pro photographer", I'm not wrong, no matter what "many people" are explaining. I can assure you, BS about 40-150/2.8 and 120-300/2.8 is pure nonsense. There are Nikon engineers, who build lenses for living, I'm sure they know better what they are doing and what is performance of their lenses.

Just like FT Olympus 150/2 or 90-250/2.8, put 120-300/2.8 via adapter on your m43 body, and you will see, they are completely different lenses. 120-300/2.8 can be used with z9, so it is effectively 45mp 120mm f/2.8 to 20mp 440mm "f/4" lens. Your new toy is not even close to it's performance.

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

You do understand that aperture is a ratio and as such your claim is nonsense

You are clearly confusing the light that comes into a lens with the light that is projected on the sensor. Yes, these quantities are (almost) the same, but the light from a FF lens is projected on to a 4x bigger area.

So although both a FF f5.6 lens and a m43 f2.8 lens have nearly the same-sized front element, the "density" of light projected by the m43 lens is 4x more. Hence it is indeed an f2.8 lens. The next variable is what the sensor does with this light which per unit area contains 4x more "information" for the m43 lens.

It looks like you again invented the wheel. 4 times more light comes to 4 times smaller sensor. You get equal amount of of light with m43 f/2.8 as f/5.6 on FF

And therefore the FF sensor has 1/4th the light per unit area as a m43 sensor. So you have a 150mm f2.8 lens with the angle of view of a 300mm FF lens. However for the FF sensor to receive the same amount of information per unit area from this 300mm lens, it will also have to be an f2.8 lens, not f5.6.

An f2.8 FF lens will collect 4x the light as a m43 lens, but the DISTRIBUTION of this collected light over the sensor will be exactly like that of the f2.8 m43 lens because it has to project over a 4x sensor area.

The part that you and James keep getting confused over is thinking that the information that a FF sensor gets from a f5.6 lens is the same as what a m43 sensor receives from a f2.8 lens. What the lens collects is not what the sensor receives because sensor sizes are different.

That said, one reason why FF sensors have better high ISO performance is because there are no 80MP FF sensors. The difference is NOT 2 stops, as explained above.

The units are - the pixels, and they are 4 times bigger on FF. And this is the main reason of better high ISO performance. Another reason is BSI and dual gain.

You can't compare 80mp with 20mp here, it is completely different subject and possibilities.

And yes, noise difference is roughly 2x, when you compare properly exposed images.

Yes, because every FF camera has a 20 MP sensor. Let us all pretend that you didn't share a (terrible) sample photo from a Sony A7Riv and give me a cost breakdown for it.

Are we speaking about lens apertures or sensor sizes? Make up your mind.

Or you could simply admit that you were wrong (and rude) instead of shifting goalposts in every reply.

SonyX wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

Hey my man, im gonna be honest. If this many people are explaining your wrong, you are probably wrong. I build lenses for a living, I can assure you I know my way around a lens

My dear "Teenage pro photographer", I'm not wrong, no matter what "many people" are explaining. I can assure you, BS about 40-150/2.8 and 120-300/2.8 is pure nonsense. There are Nikon engineers, who build lenses for living, I'm sure they know better what they are doing and what is performance of their lenses.

Just like FT Olympus 150/2 or 90-250/2.8, put 120-300/2.8 via adapter on your m43 body, and you will see, they are completely different lenses. 120-300/2.8 can be used with z9, so it is effectively 45mp 120mm f/2.8 to 20mp 440mm "f/4" lens. Your new toy is not even close to it's performance.

Utter nonsense. The m43 sensor will simply ignore the excess image projection so the 120-300 will work like a 240-600mm f2.8 lens. The smaller angle of view will create an apparent DOF of a f5.6 FF lens.

The lens remains a f2.8 lens because for portion of the projected image collected by the sensor, the photons per area remain those equivalent to those from a f2.8 lens.

****

If the rainfall is 30cm on a rainy day, the water you collect will be 30 cm deep, whether you use a cup or a swimming pool.

****

If you use 1 cup of pancake mix to make one pancake, and use another 1 cup to make a 4x bigger pancake, the first pancake will be 4x thicker than the second. This is the difference between a f2.8 m43 lens and a f5.6 FF lens, even if they have the same sized front element (1 cup).

And if the first pancake is fed to a child and the 2nd to an adult with a 4x bigger mouth, both will eat the same quantity of pancake mix per bite. The mouth is the sensor size.

****

I'm explaining it to you in terms you will probably understand because you clearly do not understand photographic terminology, although I'm sure you can press buttons.

Although it's more likely that you do, but your arrogance and sunk cost fallacy doesn't let you admit it.

Until you understand the limitations of your gear, you will never be as good a photographer as someone who does.

James Stirling wrote:

Bassaidai wrote:

Yes, I happily sacrifice two stops of light. Noone ever complained of slower shutter speed, higher ISO noise or double the depth of field.

There is no double the DOF the 70-300mm F/5.6 on FF does the same job as the 40-150 . Same diagonal AOV , same DOF control, same total noise and if you need the same shutter speed and have to bump the ISO same noise give or take

I don't shoot sports/action in dim light, everything else gets covered by M43s acceptable ISO performance. Need extra boost? Take it to ISO 12800 and use DxO DeepPrime - 99% covered. Need the extra 1%? Get a Sony a7 sIII - does wonders at night, truely appreciated, but a very special requirement.

You are easily pleased if you are happy with 12800 ISO on m43 . Despite the wishful thinking here no NR comes without detail loss to one degree or another though given just how bad 12800 ISO looks , It does not really matter . Unless it was the middle of the night and I saw the queen getting abducted by aliens I wouldn't use 12800 on FF let alone m43

Here is a crop from low light shot from the DPreview G9 review perhaps you could demonstrate how amazing DXO works . I am also led to believe that DXO works on all formats so even if it did work as claimed it would not close any gap.

m43 is more than capable of giving great results and the 40-150mm is a good lens for sure. My contention is with the comparison's with F/2.8 FF lenses . Funnily enough people seem to have no trouble understanding that an F/2.8 lens on a sensor smaller than m43 is not doing the same job as an F/2.8 lens on m43 . I have been using m43 since 2009 it is a great system on its on right.

More muddying the waters here. The chart from MirrorlessComparisons didn't fool anyone so James is on to his next trick.

DPReview charts show the same subject area, so at equal apertures and shutter speeds, of course the FF image will be less noisy than the m43 image. Not one person on this forum has debated that.

In real life, you'll have to be half as close to the subject with FF to get the same framing. This is rarely possible - not just in wildlife photography but also for street, macro, landscapes etc. Hence the (correct) assertion that the 40-150 is terrific as a f2.8 (NOT f5.6) lens with a 80-300 ANGLE OF VIEW.

You'd have to shoot something other than charts or people sitting at a table to understand the practical relevance of this.

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

You do understand that aperture is a ratio and as such your claim is nonsense

You are clearly confusing the light that comes into a lens with the light that is projected on the sensor. Yes, these quantities are (almost) the same, but the light from a FF lens is projected on to a 4x bigger area.

So although both a FF f5.6 lens and a m43 f2.8 lens have nearly the same-sized front element, the "density" of light projected by the m43 lens is 4x more. Hence it is indeed an f2.8 lens. The next variable is what the sensor does with this light which per unit area contains 4x more "information" for the m43 lens.

It looks like you again invented the wheel. 4 times more light comes to 4 times smaller sensor. You get equal amount of of light with m43 f/2.8 as f/5.6 on FF

And therefore the FF sensor has 1/4th the light per unit area as a m43 sensor. So you have a 150mm f2.8 lens with the angle of view of a 300mm FF lens. However for the FF sensor to receive the same amount of information per unit area from this 300mm lens, it will also have to be an f2.8 lens, not f5.6.

An f2.8 FF lens will collect 4x the light as a m43 lens, but the DISTRIBUTION of this collected light over the sensor will be exactly like that of the f2.8 m43 lens because it has to project over a 4x sensor area.

The part that you and James keep getting confused over is thinking that the information that a FF sensor gets from a f5.6 lens is the same as what a m43 sensor receives from a f2.8 lens. What the lens collects is not what the sensor receives because sensor sizes are different.

That said, one reason why FF sensors have better high ISO performance is because there are no 80MP FF sensors. The difference is NOT 2 stops, as explained above.

The units are - the pixels, and they are 4 times bigger on FF. And this is the main reason of better high ISO performance. Another reason is BSI and dual gain.

You can't compare 80mp with 20mp here, it is completely different subject and possibilities.

And yes, noise difference is roughly 2x, when you compare properly exposed images.

Yes, because every FF camera has a 20 MP sensor.

There are FF cameras with 20mp sensors. 24mp has 20% more pixels to 20mp, 45mp has more than double. In both cases you have extra ability to crop image, so EFL is different.

Let us all pretend that you didn't share a (terrible) sample photo from a Sony A7Riv and give me a cost breakdown for it.

Let's pretend that you didn't put in to comparison cost of single fixed lens to the zoom, and 20mp camera to 60mp, and your sample is not 4k size.

Are we speaking about lens apertures or sensor sizes? Make up your mind.

Take a look at aperture of FF 24mm f/1.8 lens and then the aperture of your Iphone's f/1.6 lens. What is the sense to discuss aperture number without sensor size?

Or you could simply admit that you were wrong (and rude) instead of shifting goalposts in every reply.

Jeff wrote:

Given my current kit would the 150-400/4.5 be a good decision? In certainly overlaps with the 300 Pro, but the flexibility of a zoom would be interesting. I'm open to any option, including buying into a different system if it made sense, but seems like extending my current system would be the way to go.

To me, the 150-400 is enticing because paired with the 12-100, you have a wildlife setup that can shoot pretty much anything. That's a two lens setup - 3 lenses if you want to throw in a 8mm fisheye, UWA or 60mm macro lens.

Currently, if I want to cover all scenarios, I carry my 300mm Pro, teleconverters, Leica 50-200, 12-32 (both Panys preferred for weight reasons), 8mm Pro, 60mm macro and accessories.

The weight remains manageable but it's a lot of tinkering and changing lenses in the field. Plus 3 bodies instead of 2.

I do not see a significant IQ advantage from the 150-400 but it would certainly be far more convenient to use that and the 12-100.

Waiting to see if the next camera improves AF tracking before investing in this lens.