You still haven't understood that 400/5.6 m43 or 600/8 APSC or 800/11 FF, it's a wash.
I think it's pretty common and I think it's OK. Again the point was if you stop the lens down to change DOF you also change exposure. You don't think so?
So when you stop the lens down on a Canon RP it doesn't change the exposure -- wow! I'd like to see some documentation for that.
What's wrong is referencing DXO Mark ISO sensor testing to back up your error. Our cameras don't base their ISO values on sensor performance. There is an international standard for ISO that most of our cameras comply with and our cameras determine ISO values using one of two methods, ISO REI or ISO SOS. The ISO SOS method is in fact objectively determined and so applies equally to all cameras that use it. My E-PL9 and Leica SL are both ISO SOS cameras and that's a reason I used the SL in my example. I also have a FF Nikon I could have used in the example but Nikons are ISO REI based. So I did in fact consider the potential of ISO differences between cameras and specifically selected the SL for my example because it determines ISO values using the same objective standard as my E-PL9 and so they do compare.
But I never made the claim that you're mistakenly attributing to me.
And who told you that ISO values are the same in different systems?
it is not at all necessary that the shutter speed will be the same at equal ISO values
Yes, that is one aspect that doesn't change with sensor size, the aperture number is what determines AF effectiveness. I was recently looking at TCs, as I'm adapting EF lenses and I see on the native Canon cameras, some cameras can't AF properly with the TC due to this. That explains why there is a limited number of slower lenses in other formats.
If I were you, I wouldn't even start a game of "who has what that others don't"—there's no way MFT will win.
None of those can zoom... I'm lazy to look it up too, but I bet they probably have the same problem as the zooms in thickness and can't compare to something like the 14mm f/2.5 or 20mm f/1.7 in thickness.
The above can't swap lenses! I used to use a point and shoot and a separate DSLR, but MFT allowed me to consolidate that into one body. I was actually considering a 1-inch camera to replace my older point and shoot, but in my research, MFT was just better (far more flexible due to being an ILC) and actually ended up costing me less money (I bought my GX85 with 12-32mm for only $300 new). It was "good enough" in IQ that it replaced my DSLR usage too.
f/3.5-5.6 in MFT is "good enough" for me. My point is FF doesn't have f/7-11 options, which would likely be what is needed to have a lens the same size as a 12-32mm.
All of those are twice the thickness and more than twice the weight of the 12-32mm, again proving my point! Basically a GX85 body with the 12-32mm is the limit in thickness for a jacket camera for me (I did extensive comparisons even with APS-C cameras, getting lens and body profile measurements). Any thicker in the lens and it would not fit.
huge FF kit lenses
I have Nikkor and newer used it. It just doesn't make sense for me, when instead of two lenses, I'd rather take a larger, but one 24-120/4 (180 mm in APS-C crop)
as minimum - 1.5x with APS-C crop on most 42/45/60mp cameras
No, it can't. But its lens is smaller than the 12-32, thanks to the smaller sensor size.
I bought a used FZ 1000 with 25-400/2.8-4 for 200 euros, which has served me for 4 years on all my trips.
I have a smartphone for this, and for the camera I have a compact bag
There are those who like to build a system from adapters and clones, it's up to you
"640K ought to be enough for anybody,"Bill Gates
no, but they have other options for other people
One day, while walking around Dordrecht, NL, I met an elderly photographer. He asked me what I was taking pictures with and showed me what he was using. He had a vest with pockets and a small bag, and in total, he had eight Sony cameras, point-and-shoots, and crop cameras with various lenses, as he said, for any creative idea.All of those are twice the thickness and more than twice the weight of the 12-32mm, again proving my point! Basically a GX85 body with the 12-32mm is the limit in thickness for a jacket camera for me (I did extensive comparisons even with APS-C cameras, getting lens and body profile measurements). Any thicker in the lens and it would not fit.
huge FF kit lenses
I have Nikkor and newer used it. It just doesn't make sense for me, when instead of two lenses, I'd rather take a larger, but one 24-120/4 (180 mm in APS-C crop)
The only other candidate I found at the time was the A6000 with the 16-50mm OSS, but that lens is undersized for the sensor at 16mm (5EV! vignette in corners with corrections off) and has horrible edge and corner sharpness as a result (actually relies on software to stretch the image to hide the black corners), a deal breaker for me given wide is where I shoot the most and many times for group photos where the edges matter.
On the left there might be a camera with 61 MP and with an additional 1.6 crop to 20 MP it would be 28-96 mm, there is no comparison here.Edit, a picture tells a thousand words, here's the smallest lens in your examples with the smallest camera that it works with (A7C) vs my GX85 with 12-32mm (and to be clear the GX85 is not the smallest camera I could have got, I consider a GM1/GM5 too but got the GX85 because of a great deal):
www.instagram.com
DP Review just had a relevant article that makes the point for me:
No rebuttal on this? I presume I was correct on this point?
Nope it's not the sensor, it's the fact it can't swap lenses. The 1" version in ILC format, the Nikon 1 10-30mm isn't any thinner than a 12-32mm or any of the 14-42 PZs (also why I settled on MFT)! MFT really is the goldilocks for this.
A bridge camera was never in my radar, only compacts. And at the time 1-inch compacts (even used) were considerably more expensive.
It's nice to be able to shove a camera into a pocket when I don't want to carry a bag. Also the same reason why compacts still sell even in the smartphone era.
I did a lot of research to make sure I don't lose anything in IQ to a native ultrawide using the adapter. The Ricoh DW-6 is a very high quality 3 element adapter, nothing at all like the generic 2 element ones you can find anywhere. As for "clone" more accurately it's a rebrand of the same item (Adorama's Flashpoint is the same as Godox).
Everyone has a good enough point (and many below FF), otherwise no 1-inch or crop sensor camera would exist. I'm only talking about my personal preferences, not making any comment for anyone else or that this is the only standard that applies to everyone.
Doesn't matter if it can't fit in my pocket in the first place (even ignoring the eye watering amount of money I would have to spend in comparison)!no, but they have other options for other people
One day, while walking around Dordrecht, NL, I met an elderly photographer. He asked me what I was taking pictures with and showed me what he was using. He had a vest with pockets and a small bag, and in total, he had eight Sony cameras, point-and-shoots, and crop cameras with various lenses, as he said, for any creative idea.All of those are twice the thickness and more than twice the weight of the 12-32mm, again proving my point! Basically a GX85 body with the 12-32mm is the limit in thickness for a jacket camera for me (I did extensive comparisons even with APS-C cameras, getting lens and body profile measurements). Any thicker in the lens and it would not fit.
huge FF kit lenses
I have Nikkor and newer used it. It just doesn't make sense for me, when instead of two lenses, I'd rather take a larger, but one 24-120/4 (180 mm in APS-C crop)
The only other candidate I found at the time was the A6000 with the 16-50mm OSS, but that lens is undersized for the sensor at 16mm (5EV! vignette in corners with corrections off) and has horrible edge and corner sharpness as a result (actually relies on software to stretch the image to hide the black corners), a deal breaker for me given wide is where I shoot the most and many times for group photos where the edges matter.
It's your choice what you want to put in your pocket. I'd rather see a point-and-shoot with a 24-360mm lens there than a short 24-64mm equivalent.
On the left there might be a camera with 61 MP and with an additional 1.6 crop to 20 MP it would be 28-96 mm, there is no comparison here.Edit, a picture tells a thousand words, here's the smallest lens in your examples with the smallest camera that it works with (A7C) vs my GX85 with 12-32mm (and to be clear the GX85 is not the smallest camera I could have got, I consider a GM1/GM5 too but got the GX85 because of a great deal):
No, it's not relevant to our discussion. Camera cropping is a cropping of the image; it doesn't change its structure at the pixel level. iPhone cropping requires disabling pixel binning, which will lead to a drop in dynamic range and increased noise reduction.
It's called interpolation, there's no magic involved and it can't add details, only make them up.
It's called APS-C crop on all FF
Why did you decide what it should be? Manufacturers consider commercial feasibility, rather than staging competitions to replicate or make less for no reason.
There is no way you can justify the difference in FF between a 24mm f/1.8 and a 24/1.8 equivalent lens simply because it is not interchangeable.
This is just your personal problem, there is little in common when comparing formats.The 1" version in ILC format, the Nikon 1 10-30mm isn't any thinner than a 12-32mm or any of the 14-42 PZs (also why I settled on MFT)! MFT really is the goldilocks for this.
When you don't have an ILC, you can retract the lens into the body, use a leaf shutter, and don't need a lens mount at a set flange distance, all of which saves a lot of thickness. Here's a comparison with 10-30mm and the superzoom 10-100mm versus a ZS100 as stand-in for ZS200 to illustrate the point.
If a lens maker designed a lens that can retract into the body (even if limited to a specialized body) I think that can be the ultimate point and shoot killer (heck Nikon 1 might still be around). Unfortunately never happened.
A bridge camera was never in my radar, only compacts.
I don't know why compact cameras are selling, probably for the same reason why Kodak is releasing film again
1" gives a more than adequate picture. being both 20mp It is much closer to MFT than the latter is to FF.
It's hot here from March to November, I don't even carry my smartphone in the pocket; it's in a small crossbody bag with my keys and wallet.Doesn't matter if it can't fit in my pocket in the first place (even ignoring the eye watering amount of money I would have to spend in comparison)!no, but they have other options for other people
One day, while walking around Dordrecht, NL, I met an elderly photographer. He asked me what I was taking pictures with and showed me what he was using. He had a vest with pockets and a small bag, and in total, he had eight Sony cameras, point-and-shoots, and crop cameras with various lenses, as he said, for any creative idea.All of those are twice the thickness and more than twice the weight of the 12-32mm, again proving my point! Basically a GX85 body with the 12-32mm is the limit in thickness for a jacket camera for me (I did extensive comparisons even with APS-C cameras, getting lens and body profile measurements). Any thicker in the lens and it would not fit.
huge FF kit lenses
I have Nikkor and newer used it. It just doesn't make sense for me, when instead of two lenses, I'd rather take a larger, but one 24-120/4 (180 mm in APS-C crop)
The only other candidate I found at the time was the A6000 with the 16-50mm OSS, but that lens is undersized for the sensor at 16mm (5EV! vignette in corners with corrections off) and has horrible edge and corner sharpness as a result (actually relies on software to stretch the image to hide the black corners), a deal breaker for me given wide is where I shoot the most and many times for group photos where the edges matter.
It's your choice what you want to put in your pocket. I'd rather see a point-and-shoot with a 24-360mm lens there than a short 24-64mm equivalent.
On the left there might be a camera with 61 MP and with an additional 1.6 crop to 20 MP it would be 28-96 mm, there is no comparison here.Edit, a picture tells a thousand words, here's the smallest lens in your examples with the smallest camera that it works with (A7C) vs my GX85 with 12-32mm (and to be clear the GX85 is not the smallest camera I could have got, I consider a GM1/GM5 too but got the GX85 because of a great deal):
--
I just wanted to comment that you have some beautiful photos on your Instagram account, AlexThere's no need to pretend you don't understand what exactly the criticism is about. No one will stop you from closing the aperture on a full-frame lens to the desired value.A common critism of M4/3 is that it does not have shallow depth of field. For what I do I actually find the increased depth of field to often be an advantage. In this first image the eye and front of the bird are sharp but the wings already are not tack sharp and the tail definitely is not. If I had less depth of field I would have to stop down and increase my ISO so I like the increased depth of field. Note: I had background separation so I had to do little editing on this photo.
Now I fully agree there are times when increased depth of field makes more work. This next image is very busy and needs work to create a good image.
unedited image
I cropped tight to eliminate much of the distractions. All I really needed was his little hands holding the berry. Than I selectively brighted the background to blowout the detail. This is easily done with modern software. With this I have an image I like.
So I like the extra depth of field I get with M4/3 and when I have a background I find distracting I just deal with it.
I want to be clear that this is my preference. If I was a portrait photographer I would shoot full frame with a fast lens. Again different needs.
As for birds, macro, landscapes, and interiors, a large depth of field is perfectly natural and possible on all of the systems
--
Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy
Thank you for your kind words, I'm glad you liked it.
That sounds correct in theory, but everything I've heard is that the effect of lower FL is greater than the effect of more magnification. Do you know why that might be?
But at least with larger sensors you have the option to close or open the aperture or according to your needs. You don't get that flexibility with m43, no?A common critism of M4/3 is that it does not have shallow depth of field. For what I do I actually find the increased depth of field to often be an advantage. In this first image the eye and front of the bird are sharp but the wings already are not tack sharp and the tail definitely is not. If I had less depth of field I would have to stop down and increase my ISO so I like the increased depth of field. Note: I had background separation so I had to do little editing on this photo.
Now I fully agree there are times when increased depth of field makes more work. This next image is very busy and needs work to create a good image.
I cropped tight to eliminate much of the distractions. All I really needed was his little hands holding the berry. Than I selectively brighted the background to blowout the detail. This is easily done with modern software. With this I have an image I like.
So I like the extra depth of field I get with M4/3 and when I have a background I find distracting I just deal with it.
I want to be clear that this is my preference. If I was a portrait photographer I would shoot full frame with a fast lens. Again different needs.
www.instagram.com
Yes, but that flexibility may do you no good depending on what you're doing. There's a two stop difference to match the DOF and those two stops don't only have that singular DOF effect. You also have a two stop difference in exposure. Set the m4/3 camera to f/4 and you're happy with the DOF so set the FF camera to f/8 for the same DOF and your FF camera is exposing two stops less through the lens. That two stop exposure difference has to be dealt with. And depending on your usage conditions, dealing with the two stops less exposure from the FF camera lens may wipe out any advantage in IQ that you'd otherwise expect from the FF camera. That circumstance occurs for me regularly.
The magic of equivalence says that larger sensors have no DR advantage unless you take non-equivalent shots. There is a current thread on the FE forum about how bad Sony IBIS was until the very latest generation, so the low light advantage of FF is a bit of a myth except in specific use cases.
Just like the person you're replying to, you're forgetting that the same depth of field is an extreme value, but as you correctly pointed out, there are cases where this rule can be broken. In fact, I don't know anyone who keeps the depth of field comparison between two systems in mind while shooting. Usually, it's intuitive, and the priority of an open aperture over depth of field will be higher if a higher shutter speed is needed.
There's no myth here; IBIS is a replacement for a tripod, not for a wider dynamic range. The situation with IBIS and the ability to stick to a minimum ISO or HHHR is more of an exception than the other way around.
And this is another myth, since the advantage is probably only available to top-end cameras with advanced AF algorithms. My Panasonic G85 barely focused as soon as the sun went down.
For some reason, they prefer not to mention this here. Nobody is advocating for 45/1.8 vs. 45/1.2 just because of the depth of field.
sigma 500/5.6 for Sony, 400/4.5 and 500/5.6PF - Nikon
--That suits my use case - Danny made a different choice.
Don't get me started on diffraction...
A
