Performance of a much more expensive lens

Not sure if it beats out the Canon 300 2.8L or Olympus 75 1.8.  The knock on the Oly 40-150 2.8 lens is the busy bokeh and the flimsy lens hood, but its not in the league of the Canon 300 2.8L.

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

compared to many FF sensors because there is less of a constraint to meet a lower price point (since smaller sensors cost less anyway). Which is why you have only 0.5 stop to 1.3 stop disadvantage, rather than 2 stops.

Pls open DPR comparometer and show me this 0.5 stop difference.

If you were reading carefully, I already shared ISO sensitivity charts for the GH5 vs A7Riii yesterday. Look them up! ☺️

Are you referring to the DXOMark charts?

I just had a look at their measurements for the GH5 vs A7R III

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7R-III___1149_1187

This seems to be the graph that's relevant when comparing different camera systems:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, 3dB SNR equals 1 stop, so the vertical scale is marked in 2 stop increments. Looking at the gap between the GH5 and A7R III lines, it equates to pretty much exactly a 2 stop difference at the same measured ISO.

James Stirling wrote:

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

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

On the contrary, this is precisely what matters.

It is diameter of the lens opening that determines what details you'll resolve in the foreground, that determines an upper limit on angular diffraction. Combined with the angle of view, it determines how much light you'll gather and the level of shot noise in the image.

You cannot take an image with just a lens , it needs to be mounted on a camera . So ignoring the sensor is not possible .

Be clear. Do you mean these questions cannot be answered without specifying the format?

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.

faunagraphy wrote:

Why else would you say this: "There are no m43 100-300/2.5-3.1 zoom lenses". You seem very confused. 🤔

Again question to you, what are the benefits of the brightest aperture on MFT f/1.2 over f/1.8 on FF cheap lens.

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"

If the resulting image (DOF/noise/resolution) of the 20mp m43 + 150mm f/2.8 is equal to FF 20mp + 300mm lens stopped down to f/5.6 ... than it probably is a 300mm f/5.6 equivalent lens.

SteveY80 wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

compared to many FF sensors because there is less of a constraint to meet a lower price point (since smaller sensors cost less anyway). Which is why you have only 0.5 stop to 1.3 stop disadvantage, rather than 2 stops.

Pls open DPR comparometer and show me this 0.5 stop difference.

If you were reading carefully, I already shared ISO sensitivity charts for the GH5 vs A7Riii yesterday. Look them up! ☺️

Are you referring to the DXOMark charts?

I just had a look at their measurements for the GH5 vs A7R III

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7R-III___1149_1187

This seems to be the graph that's relevant when comparing different camera systems:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, 3dB SNR equals 1 stop, so the vertical scale is marked in 2 stop increments. Looking at the gap between the GH5 and A7R III lines, it equates to pretty much exactly a 2 stop difference at the same measured ISO.

As I said above, I was referring to ISO sensitivity. The difference for these cameras is around 0.5 stop, which is why I said that the m43 vs FF disadvantage varies between 0.5 - 1.3 stops depending on cameras used.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7R-III___1149_1187#tabs-2

faunagraphy wrote:

SteveY80 wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

compared to many FF sensors because there is less of a constraint to meet a lower price point (since smaller sensors cost less anyway). Which is why you have only 0.5 stop to 1.3 stop disadvantage, rather than 2 stops.

Pls open DPR comparometer and show me this 0.5 stop difference.

If you were reading carefully, I already shared ISO sensitivity charts for the GH5 vs A7Riii yesterday. Look them up! ☺️

Are you referring to the DXOMark charts?

I just had a look at their measurements for the GH5 vs A7R III

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7R-III___1149_1187

This seems to be the graph that's relevant when comparing different camera systems:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, 3dB SNR equals 1 stop, so the vertical scale is marked in 2 stop increments. Looking at the gap between the GH5 and A7R III lines, it equates to pretty much exactly a 2 stop difference at the same measured ISO.

As I said above, I was referring to ISO sensitivity. The difference for these cameras is around 0.5 stop, which is why I said that the m43 vs FF disadvantage varies between 0.5 - 1.3 stops depending on cameras used.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7R-III___1149_1187#tabs-2

Isn't that just a graph showing how close the manufacturer's ISO settings match DXOMark's ISO measurements?

I have no idea how that's relevant to the discussion, let alone what it's meant to show about the "m43 vs FF disadvantage".

SteveY80 wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SteveY80 wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

compared to many FF sensors because there is less of a constraint to meet a lower price point (since smaller sensors cost less anyway). Which is why you have only 0.5 stop to 1.3 stop disadvantage, rather than 2 stops.

Pls open DPR comparometer and show me this 0.5 stop difference.

If you were reading carefully, I already shared ISO sensitivity charts for the GH5 vs A7Riii yesterday. Look them up! ☺️

Are you referring to the DXOMark charts?

I just had a look at their measurements for the GH5 vs A7R III

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7R-III___1149_1187

This seems to be the graph that's relevant when comparing different camera systems:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, 3dB SNR equals 1 stop, so the vertical scale is marked in 2 stop increments. Looking at the gap between the GH5 and A7R III lines, it equates to pretty much exactly a 2 stop difference at the same measured ISO.

As I said above, I was referring to ISO sensitivity. The difference for these cameras is around 0.5 stop, which is why I said that the m43 vs FF disadvantage varies between 0.5 - 1.3 stops depending on cameras used.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Sony-A7R-III___1149_1187#tabs-2

Isn't that just a graph showing how close the manufacturer's ISO settings match DXOMark's ISO measurements?

What I see from that images above, the ISO , that will provide equaly exposed image on both systems with the same aperture and shutter speed has roughly 1 stop difference. To get images with the same Noise level  - is enother 2 stops. Together - 3 stops.

I have no idea how that's relevant to the discussion, let alone what it's meant to show about the "m43 vs FF disadvantage".

He still can't get the simple idea, why you don't need the lens with the same aperture number on FF compare to m43, to get the same result - DOF/noise/resolution

SonyX wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

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.

Now, why would you use NR if you don't need it in the first place?

Don't ask me, look at the images of the eagles and ask the owner.

Then you are telling me a good deal of the Eagle is not illuminated. Likely there are better shots. Shoot them fine, but they are not going to be top tier shots.

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.

No, in this thread about a nature/wildlife lens, I'm talking about nature/wildlife shooting.

You are at the wrong thread.

Do you see any "nature/wildlife" here?:

Yet you are the one who thought Eagles were a hot topic! Did you know Eagles are "wildlife"? Not to try to beat it into your head, but regardless of what you think, the 40-150 is most often used for wildlife or sports. That the OP didn't mention "wildlife" but did mention a 300 F2.8 should tell you something. But it apparently doesn't. Would you frequently use the 300 f2.8 for shooting in the streets that you seem much more familiar with? Wow! 

" This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing. The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)”

Good shots do not have a lot of shadow unless silhouettes. In silhouettes it is usually better not to raise the shadows but merely expose to maximize the aesthetics of the highlights that are being silhouetted.Bad shots might; but I would just throw them away anyhow.

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!

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

Why else would you say this: "There are no m43 100-300/2.5-3.1 zoom lenses". You seem very confused. 🤔

Again question to you, what are the benefits of the brightest aperture on MFT f/1.2 over f/1.8 on FF cheap lens.

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"

I think you are a duck, then, because you certainly quack like one......