MFT Users: Do you miss the shallower depth-of-field of bigger sensor cameras?

[alfredo_tomato]

--

Al

Explore Al’s 5,720 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Great Bustard]

No. I shoot with smaller format camera systems using longer lenses when I want shallower DoF.

Longer lenses can help to isolate the subect, but they don't give you shallower DOF. For the same subject magnification and aperture on the same format, a wide angle will give you the same approximate DOF as a super telephoto. It's just that the background becomes magnified with the longer lens, giving the illusion of shallower DOF. If you look at the sharp area in each photo, you will see that they are about the same.

Julie

Why yes, of course. Duh.

That's the whole point: to create the appearance of a softer background. Who gives a darn whether the DoF is any different?

Well, how smoothly the subject fades from being in focus to out-of-focus is sometimes part of the appeal. For example, take a photo, lasso the subject, and blur everything else in the scene. It can look kind of contrived, sometimes, the same way as if you used a long focal length with a relatively deep DOF and a background far away (e.g. 300mm f/8). Not saying it will look bad -- just saying that there is a reason people care about DOF and not merely background blur.

You need a certain amount of DoF to make the subject sharp, wouldn't want to go shallower than that.

Well, it's a balancing act, and where that balance lies depends on your aesthetics and the particular scene.

 

[Great Bustard]

All I care about is the following... I take my two cameras and point it at the same scene:

5D with 50/1.4 set at f/1.8 and ISO 800: I get a shutter speed of 1/60s

GM1 with 20/1.7 set at f/1.7 and ISO 800: I get a shutter speed of 1/60s

The only difference? 5D has paper thin DoF at these settings, GM1 doesnt.

Well, the 5D has a significantly less efficient sensor than the GM1. However, if you do as you describe with the 6D, you'll find that the 6D has less noise, which is one of the primary reasons people choose a larger format. If you compared to a Sony A7R, you'd find not only less noise but significantly more detail -- another reason many choose a larger format. So when you say "the only difference" is DOF, well, if you're comparing a FF camera from over 8 years ago to an mFT camera from now...

You'll call me crazy for this, but... I still prefer the IQ of my 8 year old 5D to my brand new GM1.

OK, you're crazy. ;-) Actually, I've heard many say that about the 5D vs 5D2, 5D3, and 6D. I suppose it depends on how you define "IQ". Here's my take on it:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#IQ

Of course, this is not considering any of the fancy and helpful new features that come with modern cameras. Hell, the 5D doesnt even have Auto ISO, haha.

Sure. I like to distinguish between IQ and operation.

Up until ISO 1600, I prefer the noise of my 5D over my GM1. Which is interesting right? Sure confused me. I was hoping the GM1 would blow the 5D away (would make me feel better about my money spent hah). But the GM1 (and m43 in general) still serve a purpose for me: portability. If I don't care about portability, then I'm reaching for my 5D.

The thing is, we talk so much about the quantity of noise, but not so much about the quality of noise. It's not entirely subjective, either. We can certainly discuss luminance noise vs color noise, the frequency (grain) of noise as a function of pixel count, etc.

Anyway, I'm dragging the thread further off topic, and this thread has already exploded quite a bit...

In my opinion, it's all been informative and friendly, so I think that's just fine.

 

[Godfrey]

That's the whole point: to create the appearance of a softer background. Who gives a darn whether the DoF is any different?

Well, how smoothly the subject fades from being in focus to out-of-focus is sometimes part of the appeal. For example, take a photo, lasso the subject, and blur everything else in the scene. It can look kind of contrived, sometimes, the same way as if you used a long focal length with a relatively deep DOF and a background far away (e.g. 300mm f/8). Not saying it will look bad -- just saying that there is a reason people care about DOF and not merely background blur.

Sure. Just change the focal length and subject distance until you get the result you want. What's the problem?

You need a certain amount of DoF to make the subject sharp, wouldn't want to go shallower than that.

Well, it's a balancing act, and where that balance lies depends on your aesthetics and the particular scene.

Certainly is. That's why I expand my options by having a FourThirds format camera, a 35mm format camera, and a 6x6 (film) camera, and a selection of different lenses to work with. For example:

Sony A7 + Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8

Olympus E-M1 + ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5

Olympus E-M1 + M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8

Hasselblad 500CM + Sonnar 150mm f/4

Each format and lens combination has its special magic. None do everything the same or best.

--
Godfrey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto

 

[Great Bustard]

Yes -- if you are comparing to the 36 MP A7R. So, if you do a lot of shadow pushing for a given DOF and shutter speed, this is a point to consider.

Or if you shoot at higher ISO where (as already demonstrated) you don't need to push anything for the poor shadows to show anyway.

At low ISO and without shadow pushing, everything will be fine regardless.

Sure. That said, it's my opinion that the vast majority prefer lower noise to deeper DOF. For example, let's say someone is shooting a scene at 75mm f/4 in daylight. If it were night, they'd more than likely be at 75mm f/1.8.

In other words, while most FF sensors are at a disadvantage for Equivalent photos (same DOF and shutter speed) due to the higher read noise per area, I think they would generally shoot the same exposure and go for the lower noise, even if the deeper DOF were preferable if noise were not an issue.

Not all the time, of course. For sure, I, myself, have stopped down for greater DOF in low light and suffered the greater noise, and would have been better off with an mFT camera for that particular situation. Fortunately for me, I generally prefer the more shallow DOF regardless of the light, so it's not often a compromise I have to make.

However, I would imagine that for those that do that type of photography, the shutter speed is rarely an issue.

Specifically, a landscape photographer with an A7R who pushes shadows a lot would shoot a scene at, say, 24mm f/5.6 1/100 ISO 100 whereas someone with an EM1 would shoot the scene at 12mm f/4 1/200 ISO 100.

When shutter speed is not an issue and the DR of the scene demanding, someone like me would bracket exposure, merge/align in PP and get better DR than any current camera can produce in a single shot. Some modest examples below.

Lovely photos! Of course, for static scenes and a tripod, it's simply a matter of how many exposures you want to take to get the IQ you want.

and the greater read noise per area of FF sensors is a direct consequence of the greater pixel count.

I am afraid it's not that simple.

Of course it isn't that simple, but the greater pixel count has a lot to do with it.

See below.

First, let's have a look at the same graph when substituting the 16 MP Nikon Df and the 24 MP Sony A7 for the 36 MP Sony A7R.

First, although the A7 has significantly fewer pixels than the A7R, it doesn't do better relative to the E-M1 than the A7R does. Second, while the Df, with the same pixel count as the E-M1, does better than the A7/A7R at high ISOs, it a) doesn't bridge the gap fully at these ISOs (i.e. DR remains lower than that of the E-M1 at the same DoF), and b) does worse than the A7/A7R at lower ISOs.

But we do see that fewer pixels results in greater DR, which was my point.

In parts of the range for 16 versus 24/36 MP. In other parts, it is the other way around. In the comparison between 24 and 36 there is no difference.

Well, the A7 looks to be ISOless, whereas the Df doesn't become ISOless until ISO 800. If both were ISOless, the Df would have the DR advantage all the way through due to the lower pixel count.

Well, there is variation in the read noise per area between current sensors, as you know, which also varies as a function of the ISO. However, as a general rule, the greater the number of pixels, the greater the read noise per area for sensors of a given generation.

Got any good statistics to show the validity of this generalization across sensors more generally, and across the entire ISO range, not just parts of it?

As above, whether or not the sensor is ISOless or not plays a huge role at the low ISOs. However, if we compare sensors of the same generation at ISOs where they are ISOless, do you disagree?

Of course, if your photography will generally require you to shoot the larger format at the same DOF and shutter speed you would use with the smaller format, then you will almost invariably be better served with the smaller format, unless the larger format has some particular operational advantage that the smaller format does not offer.

Precisely.

In the end, that's the bottom line, really. I mean, why would someone purchase a FF DSLR simply to shoot photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do?

Exactly. Especially if the smaller format can do those photos better than FF.

Indeed. In fact, in some situations a cell phone will outperform a FF DSLR!

 

[LTZ470]

Same tripod, same day, same time...different cameras...EM1 100-300 vs A7r Sigma 70-300...and the FF DOF just killed the m43 DOF...lol...

A7r 70-300

EM1 100-300

A7r 70-300


A7r 70-300


EM1 100-300

...I know that you aren't really quite clear on simple concepts.

First of all, when people say that FF has a more shallow DOF than mFT, what they mean is that for a given perspective, framing, and display size, FF will have half the DOF for the same relative aperture (f-ratio) and the same DOF for the same virtual aperture (entrance pupil).

For example, if we took a photo of a bird at 300mm f/5.6 on FF (as in your first photo), we would not expect it to have the same DOF as a photo at 300mm f/5.6 on mFT, as either the perspective, framing, or both would be very different using 300mm on both systems.

Of course, your photos above are cropped, and that changes the DOF as well. For example, if you took a photo of a bird from the same position at 300mm f/5.6 on FF and 300mm f/5.6 on mFT, then cropped the FF photo to the same framing and displayed it at the same size as the mFT photo, they will both have the same DOF.

The tighter we frame, either by getting closer, using a longer focal length, or cropping, the more shallow the DOF will be.

On the other hand, maybe your "point" was merely to show that mFT can get the same DOF as FF by using a different perspective, framing, and/or cropping. Well, that's no more surprising than saying you can "turn a 300mm lens into a 600mm lens" by getting twice as close or framing wider and cropping. Shocker.

Maybe I should clarify for folks...SAME Tripod, SAME distance, SAME Bird, SAME day, SAME photog, SAME focal length...

Notice any differences FF or m43?....yes the m43 kicked the A7r and 70-300 in the ar$e...

Every format has distinct advantages over the other formats, from Superzoom to m43 to APS-C to FF...each have there "own" distinct advantage over the others...plain and simple...

Hence there is no equivalence...

Maybe you don't understand this simple concept...

--
--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

 

[Great Bustard]

That's the whole point: to create the appearance of a softer background. Who gives a darn whether the DoF is any different?

Well, how smoothly the subject fades from being in focus to out-of-focus is sometimes part of the appeal. For example, take a photo, lasso the subject, and blur everything else in the scene. It can look kind of contrived, sometimes, the same way as if you used a long focal length with a relatively deep DOF and a background far away (e.g. 300mm f/8). Not saying it will look bad -- just saying that there is a reason people care about DOF and not merely background blur.

Sure. Just change the focal length and subject distance until you get the result you want. What's the problem?

The problem is that you can't always get what you want (I believe the Stones wrote a song about that ;-) ). So, you change the focal length, subject distance, f-ratio, and shutter speed until you arrive at the best compromise with the system you are using. Kinda common sense, really.

You need a certain amount of DoF to make the subject sharp, wouldn't want to go shallower than that.

Well, it's a balancing act, and where that balance lies depends on your aesthetics and the particular scene.

Certainly is. That's why I expand my options by having a FourThirds format camera, a 35mm format camera, and a 6x6 (film) camera, and a selection of different lenses to work with. For example:

Sony A7 + Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8

Olympus E-M1 + ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5

Olympus E-M1 + M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8

Hasselblad 500CM + Sonnar 150mm f/4

Each format and lens combination has its special magic. None do everything the same or best.

I'm not a fan of "magic" except as a form of entertainment. Differences between systems can be understood and quantified. Often, however, the measurements are not available (e.g. sensor efficiency, bokeh, etc.) so you can't know what the difference might be until use and compare.

For example, let's say we know Lens A on Sensor A is sharper than Lens B on Sensor B, 'cause we've seen the MTF-50 tests. So we buy Lens A, assuming it is better, then find that it has inconsistent AF, resulting in photos that are slightly OOF, making it softer unless we manually focus it.

So, no "magic" -- just something important that wasn't measured, resulting in the opposite of what we thought was going to be the case due to insufficient information.

 

[Alan Lai]

It is the light that makes it stand out. But even at that, I do see the background that is less than pleasing. Generally shooting the birds at f/11 equivalent would be .., hm, .. not nice.

--
- sergey

You sir, is hilarious. Go on with your trolling.

 

[Jim Salvas]

I've only been using m43 for two months, but in can't think of a time I've wished for less DOF in order to get a shot. Of course, I have an Oly 75/1.8 and a Nikon 50/1.8 to use as my portrait lenses.

in a way, shallow DOF is a defect we've come to associate with fast lenses, but it is an unnatural way to look at the world. Even in low light, with pupils wide open, we just don't see this way.

I do occasionally enjoy playing with this defect, but it's not a problem for me either way.

 

[Great Bustard]

Same tripod, same day, same time...different cameras...EM1 100-300 vs A7r Sigma 70-300...and the FF DOF just killed the m43 DOF...lol...

A7r 70-300

EM1 100-300

EM1 100-300

...I know that you aren't really quite clear on simple concepts.

First of all, when people say that FF has a more shallow DOF than mFT, what they mean is that for a given perspective, framing, and display size, FF will have half the DOF for the same relative aperture (f-ratio) and the same DOF for the same virtual aperture (entrance pupil).

For example, if we took a photo of a bird at 300mm f/5.6 on FF (as in your first photo), we would not expect it to have the same DOF as a photo at 300mm f/5.6 on mFT, as either the perspective, framing, or both would be very different using 300mm on both systems.

Of course, your photos above are cropped, and that changes the DOF as well. For example, if you took a photo of a bird from the same position at 300mm f/5.6 on FF and 300mm f/5.6 on mFT, then cropped the FF photo to the same framing and displayed it at the same size as the mFT photo, they will both have the same DOF.

The tighter we frame, either by getting closer, using a longer focal length, or cropping, the more shallow the DOF will be.

On the other hand, maybe your "point" was merely to show that mFT can get the same DOF as FF by using a different perspective, framing, and/or cropping. Well, that's no more surprising than saying you can "turn a 300mm lens into a 600mm lens" by getting twice as close or framing wider and cropping. Shocker.

Maybe I should clarify for folks...SAME Tripod, SAME distance, SAME Bird, SAME day, SAME photog, SAME focal length...

As I said, the photos are cropped. Are they cropped in the same proportion? For example, if you shot the same bird from the "SAME Tripod, SAME distance, SAME Bird, SAME day, SAME photog, SAME focal length..." but you cropped the FF photo twice as much, well, I already discussed that above.

So, if you would be so kind, please post two fullsize files from any of the photos you posted (feel free to watermark the hell out of them if you are afraid of theft).

After that, we can discuss from there.

 

[Great Bustard]

in a way, shallow DOF is a defect we've come to associate with fast lenses, but it is an unnatural way to look at the world. Even in low light, with pupils wide open, we just don't see this way.

Well, the thing is, we don't see in two dimensions, either, and we see in video, not stills. In addition, we typically see with a significantly wider angle of view than what the photo shows. So, are these all "defects" as well? Furthermore, we see in color, not black and white, so is BW photographer another "defect"?

However, the fact of the matter is that we do see with rather shallow DOF, it's just that we're constantly looking around and refocusing on different portions of the scene, and the brain puts it all together in a composite. For example, staring at what I'm writing right now, can you see and read what's on your keyboard?

I do occasionally enjoy playing with this defect, but it's not a problem for me either way.

For example, this photo was taken at f/1.2 on FF:

Does it appear to be "defective" because all but one of the people are outside the DOF?

 

[Anders W]

Yes -- if you are comparing to the 36 MP A7R. So, if you do a lot of shadow pushing for a given DOF and shutter speed, this is a point to consider.

Or if you shoot at higher ISO where (as already demonstrated) you don't need to push anything for the poor shadows to show anyway.

At low ISO and without shadow pushing, everything will be fine regardless.

Sure. That said, it's my opinion that the vast majority prefer lower noise to deeper DOF.

Honestly, I don't care much what others prefer. I just go by my own preferences.

In the past, where I had a film with a fixed low ISO (somewhere between 50 and 400 as a rule) in the camera(s), I used to prefer a correctly exposed shot to an underexposed one. That sometimes meant shooting my fast FF primes wide open in spite of the DoF being too shallow. But that was only because there was really no other way to get the shot at all.

Today, when exposure is not determined by the film and we are no longer so desperate for more light (since the sensors have become very good), I typically prefer the results I get with my fast MFT lenses wide open to those I would get with FF at the same f-stop. This effectively means that I often prefer more DoF to less noise.

In other words, the opportunity structure has changed whereas my preferences have stayed relatively constant. Today it is much easier to get reasonably noise-free images even in low light than it used to be. Consequently, it is easier to give DoF its proper due.

For example, let's say someone is shooting a scene at 75mm f/4 in daylight. If it were night, they'd more than likely be at 75mm f/1.8.

In other words, while most FF sensors are at a disadvantage for Equivalent photos (same DOF and shutter speed) due to the higher read noise per area, I think they would generally shoot the same exposure and go for the lower noise, even if the deeper DOF were preferable if noise were not an issue.

Not all the time, of course. For sure, I, myself, have stopped down for greater DOF in low light and suffered the greater noise, and would have been better off with an mFT camera for that particular situation. Fortunately for me, I generally prefer the more shallow DOF regardless of the light, so it's not often a compromise I have to make.

However, I would imagine that for those that do that type of photography, the shutter speed is rarely an issue.

Specifically, a landscape photographer with an A7R who pushes shadows a lot would shoot a scene at, say, 24mm f/5.6 1/100 ISO 100 whereas someone with an EM1 would shoot the scene at 12mm f/4 1/200 ISO 100.

When shutter speed is not an issue and the DR of the scene demanding, someone like me would bracket exposure, merge/align in PP and get better DR than any current camera can produce in a single shot. Some modest examples below.

Lovely photos!

Thanks.

Of course, for static scenes and a tripod, it's simply a matter of how many exposures you want to take to get the IQ you want.

Right. So for this type of shot, the signal-noise performance of the sensor is simply not an issue.

and the greater read noise per area of FF sensors is a direct consequence of the greater pixel count.

I am afraid it's not that simple.

Of course it isn't that simple, but the greater pixel count has a lot to do with it.

See below.

First, let's have a look at the same graph when substituting the 16 MP Nikon Df and the 24 MP Sony A7 for the 36 MP Sony A7R.

First, although the A7 has significantly fewer pixels than the A7R, it doesn't do better relative to the E-M1 than the A7R does. Second, while the Df, with the same pixel count as the E-M1, does better than the A7/A7R at high ISOs, it a) doesn't bridge the gap fully at these ISOs (i.e. DR remains lower than that of the E-M1 at the same DoF), and b) does worse than the A7/A7R at lower ISOs.

But we do see that fewer pixels results in greater DR, which was my point.

In parts of the range for 16 versus 24/36 MP. In other parts, it is the other way around. In the comparison between 24 and 36 there is no difference.

Well, the A7 looks to be ISOless, whereas the Df doesn't become ISOless until ISO 800. If both were ISOless, the Df would have the DR advantage all the way through due to the lower pixel count.

The problem with this reasoning is that you assume that the transition from non-ISOlessness to ISOlessness would necessarily imply that the DR at low ISOs would improve and that at high ISO stay the same. I think the opposite scenario (or something in-between) just as likely. In other words, I think the Df sensor (pioneering in the D4 which is targeted to a certain pro audience) might well be optimized for high ISO at the expense of low ISO. Other sensors, like that of the A7/A7R may be tuned more with an eye to both ranges.

Well, there is variation in the read noise per area between current sensors, as you know, which also varies as a function of the ISO. However, as a general rule, the greater the number of pixels, the greater the read noise per area for sensors of a given generation.

Got any good statistics to show the validity of this generalization across sensors more generally, and across the entire ISO range, not just parts of it?

As above, whether or not the sensor is ISOless or not plays a huge role at the low ISOs. However, if we compare sensors of the same generation at ISOs where they are ISOless, do you disagree?

See above.

Of course, if your photography will generally require you to shoot the larger format at the same DOF and shutter speed you would use with the smaller format, then you will almost invariably be better served with the smaller format, unless the larger format has some particular operational advantage that the smaller format does not offer.

Precisely.

In the end, that's the bottom line, really. I mean, why would someone purchase a FF DSLR simply to shoot photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do?

Exactly. Especially if the smaller format can do those photos better than FF.

Indeed. In fact, in some situations a cell phone will outperform a FF DSLR!

Hmm. Save for the cell phone being smaller, I can't really think of any situation where I'd be better off with it than with my E-M5. What would that be?

 

[Godfrey]

The problem is that you can't always get what you want (I believe the Stones wrote a song about that ;-) ). So, you change the focal length, subject distance, f-ratio, and shutter speed until you arrive at the best compromise with the system you are using. Kinda common sense, really.

I always get what I want when it comes to camera equipment. It does mean that I have to have a lot of different equipment to choose from.

I'm not a fan of "magic" except as a form of entertainment. Differences between systems can be understood and quantified. Often, however, the measurements are not available (e.g. sensor efficiency, bokeh, etc.) so you can't know what the difference might be until use and compare.

For example, let's say we know Lens A on Sensor A is sharper than Lens B on Sensor B, 'cause we've seen the MTF-50 tests. So we buy Lens A, assuming it is better, then find that it has inconsistent AF, resulting in photos that are slightly OOF, making it softer unless we manually focus it.

So, no "magic" -- just something important that wasn't measured, resulting in the opposite of what we thought was going to be the case due to insufficient information.

So you don't like magic and want to quantify and measure everything. Seems an awfully barren world to me when you reduce everything to a bunch of numbers. And I hold a degree in a mathematics... ;-)

I study and measure up to the appropriate point of understanding. Then I look beyond numbers and measurement to know the aesthetics of what I'm working with. I call that magic ... it works for me.

But this pleasant discussion has gone way off base from the question posed by the OP. "Do you miss the shallower DoF of bigger sensor cameras?" is what was asked. My answer is no, I choose to use FT for its unique FoV-DoF coupling, and choose focal lengths and lens openings accordingly.

 

[Great Bustard]

Yes -- if you are comparing to the 36 MP A7R. So, if you do a lot of shadow pushing for a given DOF and shutter speed, this is a point to consider.

Or if you shoot at higher ISO where (as already demonstrated) you don't need to push anything for the poor shadows to show anyway.

At low ISO and without shadow pushing, everything will be fine regardless.

Sure. That said, it's my opinion that the vast majority prefer lower noise to deeper DOF.

Honestly, I don't care much what others prefer. I just go by my own preferences.

A kindred spirit! ;-)

In the past, where I had a film with a fixed low ISO (somewhere between 50 and 400 as a rule), I used to prefer a correctly exposed shot to an underexposed one. That sometimes meant shooting my fast FF primes wide open in spite of the DoF being too shallow. But that was only because there was really no other way to get the shot at all.

Today, when exposure is not determined by the film and we are no longer so desperate for more light (since the sensors have become very good), I typically prefer the results I get with my fast MFT lenses wide open to those I would get with FF at the same f-stop. This effectively means that I often prefer more DoF to less noise.

Not merely more DOF, but depending on the particular lenses being used, you get more resolution wide open to wide open. For example, the 25 / 1.4 at f/1.4 on an EM1 will resolve better, even for the portions of the scene within the DOF, than the Canon 50 / 1.4 at f/1.4 on a Canon 6D.

Of course, it depends on the f-ratio and the lens, but I'm just sayin'.

In other words, the opportunity structure has changed whereas my preferences have stayed relatively constant. Today it is much easier to get reasonably noise-free images even in low light than it used to be. Consequently, it is easier to give DoF its due.

Makes sense.

Of course, for static scenes and a tripod, it's simply a matter of how many exposures you want to take to get the IQ you want.

Right. So for this type of shot, the signal-noise performance of the sensor is simply not an issue.

Not an IQ issue, but it is a convenience issue.

and the greater read noise per area of FF sensors is a direct consequence of the greater pixel count.

I am afraid it's not that simple.

Of course it isn't that simple, but the greater pixel count has a lot to do with it.

See below.

First, let's have a look at the same graph when substituting the 16 MP Nikon Df and the 24 MP Sony A7 for the 36 MP Sony A7R.

First, although the A7 has significantly fewer pixels than the A7R, it doesn't do better relative to the E-M1 than the A7R does. Second, while the Df, with the same pixel count as the E-M1, does better than the A7/A7R at high ISOs, it a) doesn't bridge the gap fully at these ISOs (i.e. DR remains lower than that of the E-M1 at the same DoF), and b) does worse than the A7/A7R at lower ISOs.

But we do see that fewer pixels results in greater DR, which was my point.

In parts of the range for 16 versus 24/36 MP. In other parts, it is the other way around. In the comparison between 24 and 36 there is no difference.

Well, the A7 looks to be ISOless, whereas the Df doesn't become ISOless until ISO 800. If both were ISOless, the Df would have the DR advantage all the way through due to the lower pixel count.

The problem with this reasoning is that you assume that the transition from non-ISOlessness to ISOlessness would necessarily imply that the DR at low ISOs would improve and that at high ISO stay the same. I think the opposite scenario (or something in-between) just as likely. In other words, I think the Df sensor (pioneering in the D4 which is targeted to a certain pro audience) might well be optimized for high ISO at the expense of low ISO. Other sensors, like that of the A7/A7R may be tuned more with an eye to both ranges.

I started a thread that addresses this point, the conclusion of which is that it would work out as I stated. If you feel otherwise, let's discuss this point further in the PST forum.

Well, there is variation in the read noise per area between current sensors, as you know, which also varies as a function of the ISO. However, as a general rule, the greater the number of pixels, the greater the read noise per area for sensors of a given generation.

Got any good statistics to show the validity of this generalization across sensors more generally, and across the entire ISO range, not just parts of it?

As above, whether or not the sensor is ISOless or not plays a huge role at the low ISOs. However, if we compare sensors of the same generation at ISOs where they are ISOless, do you disagree?

See above.

Read the thread. ;-)

Of course, if your photography will generally require you to shoot the larger format at the same DOF and shutter speed you would use with the smaller format, then you will almost invariably be better served with the smaller format, unless the larger format has some particular operational advantage that the smaller format does not offer.

Precisely.

In the end, that's the bottom line, really. I mean, why would someone purchase a FF DSLR simply to shoot photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do?

Exactly. Especially if the smaller format can do those photos better than FF.

Indeed. In fact, in some situations a cell phone will outperform a FF DSLR!

Hmm. Save for the cell phone being smaller, I can't really think of any situation where I'd be better off with it than with my E-M5. What would that be?

Let's say you needed the DOF that the cell phone gave wide open. If the cell phone had a significantly more efficient sensor (say 70% QE and a read noise of one electron per pixel), it would outperform the EM5 and FF. And while the numbers for the sensor efficiency are realistic, I think, the premise of needing the DOF the cell phone gives wide open would, methinks, fall under the heading of most preferring less noise to more DOF discussed above.

 

[Great Bustard]

The problem is that you can't always get what you want (I believe the Stones wrote a song about that ;-) ). So, you change the focal length, subject distance, f-ratio, and shutter speed until you arrive at the best compromise with the system you are using. Kinda common sense, really.

I always get what I want when it comes to camera equipment. It does mean that I have to have a lot of different equipment to choose from.

Well excuse me! ;-)

I'm not a fan of "magic" except as a form of entertainment. Differences between systems can be understood and quantified. Often, however, the measurements are not available (e.g. sensor efficiency, bokeh, etc.) so you can't know what the difference might be until use and compare.

For example, let's say we know Lens A on Sensor A is sharper than Lens B on Sensor B, 'cause we've seen the MTF-50 tests. So we buy Lens A, assuming it is better, then find that it has inconsistent AF, resulting in photos that are slightly OOF, making it softer unless we manually focus it.

So, no "magic" -- just something important that wasn't measured, resulting in the opposite of what we thought was going to be the case due to insufficient information.

So you don't like magic and want to quantify and measure everything. Seems an awfully barren world to me when you reduce everything to a bunch of numbers. And I hold a degree in a mathematics... ;-)

In terms of objective elements of IQ, I think it's pretty straight forward. However, I would hope that you would agree with me when I say that IQ is, at best, merely a component of what makes a photo "successful". Indeed, more than a few of my favorite photos have absolutely horrid IQ, for example:

And more than a few of my photos have top-notch IQ but are uninteresting by pretty much anyone's standards.

I study and measure up to the appropriate point of understanding. Then I look beyond numbers and measurement to know the aesthetics of what I'm working with. I call that magic ... it works for me.

I like to know which numbers are relevant, and how the numbers correspond to the visual properties of the final photo. However, as much as I discuss the elements of IQ on DPR, for me, personally, I always keep IQ in context with the impact of the photo. And, I have to say, it is a rare day indeed when IQ either makes or breaks a photo for me. The vast majority of the time, no matter how good the IQ is, the photo still sucks, or no matter how bad the IQ is, I still like it.

But this pleasant discussion has gone way off base from the question posed by the OP. "Do you miss the shallower DoF of bigger sensor cameras?" is what was asked. My answer is no, I choose to use FT for its unique FoV-DoF coupling, and choose focal lengths and lens openings accordingly.

Sure. However, I think the ensuing discussion is worth having, and relevant to the OP.

 

[mh2000]

No, not in the 4 years I've been shooting m43. I have the Oly 45 and the Oly 40-150. I could blur backgrounds with these, but I don't. While I sometimes see shallow DoF shots that work, most really annoy me. I don't use shallow DoF in my own work... unless it can't be avoided and then I work with it.

 

[mh2000]

Does shallow DoF look "realistic"? Don't think so. I've never noticed a blurred background in the real world.

You do, you just do not realize it.

...

No, you don't see it because even tough your eyes have limited DoF you brain does automatic focus stacking so what registers is deep DoF. your brain does a really good job of auto white balancing as well. You don't get to turn off the focus stacking or auto white balance, so it's kind of a stretch to say it exists, you just can't experience it... leads to a kind of an existential question. What is real when it comes to experience?

 

[Godfrey]

In terms of objective elements of IQ, I think it's pretty straight forward. However, I would hope that you would agree with me when I say that IQ is, at best, merely a component of what makes a photo "successful". Indeed, more than a few of my favorite photos have absolutely horrid IQ, for example:

I have yet to see a useful metric by which to quantify "IQ". I don't care about IQ at all, really, in any quantifiable sense. I care whether a photograph captures expression, gesture, emotion, and looks pleasing-satisfying to my eye, and then to others.

Content is the important part. Image quality is just the teknos required to deliver the content, important up to a relatively trivial level after which it is mostly just a lot of myth and supposition meaning little of significance.

.. I like to know which numbers are relevant, and how the numbers correspond to the visual properties of the final photo. ...

I learned all that stuff forty years ago. I've been doing photography for a little more than fifty years.

But this pleasant discussion has gone way off base from the question posed by the OP. "Do you miss the shallower DoF of bigger sensor cameras?" is what was asked. My answer is no, I choose to use FT for its unique FoV-DoF coupling, and choose focal lengths and lens openings accordingly.

Sure. However, I think the ensuing discussion is worth having, and relevant to the OP.

Perhaps. Somehow, though, I doubt it—I have not seen the OP comment for a long time, so I doubt it is terribly relevant to him/her.

Ah well, time for rest.

https://flic.kr/p/jWfB8x

--
Godfrey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto

 

[venice]

That's one reason I have FF gear as well as MFT's.

-Bill

 

[Sergey_Green]

..

They are both 16mpx, so there should not be any difference.

Apart from that thing called a lens and that thing called an aperture and all the implications that follow from the two. Did you consider those? If so how?

You pointed to this portion of an image as some sorts of proof, yet what you see as noisier (I don't) also appears to some degree better detailed. I did not think about the lens (silly me), larger pixels perhaps. And we are looking at two stops difference in the most extremes.

The other cameras are not exactly relevant, since those are of different pixel counts, hence the images are of different sizes.

They are of course just as relevant as you make them. If you think the pixel count of the A7 and A7R explains the entire difference, feel free to downsample and see what you end up with. That was of course already done in the diagrams I displayed. Those are for a pixel count of 8 MP for all cameras alike. MFT is still 1.5 EV ahead.

They are irrelevant because they need to be downloaded, down-scaled first, to be seen as any meaningful comparison. And as Joe pointed out dr considers only read noise, which is not the most common noise in most images. Out of morbid curiosity I did down-scale several such images in the past, and clearly the results showed closer to two stops difference on the average, and at the very least with the same recorded detail in them (if we really go for noise).

What I find bothersome in your posts is that you catch only one point somewhere in the image pipeline (as dr), and you will be repeating the same thing over and over on every thread you post like it means something. Completely disregarding the rest of the picture, like commonly prevailant shot noise, midtones, highlights, gradation, etc.. Ever got tired of those white holes in the skies that were meant to be clouds, or glowing contours around the edges that were supposed to be horizons? Been there, done it, thank you.

Another point (to your last sentence), as I said earlier, you do not down-size image before doing anything else with it. You do something with it first, and then you down-size it for viewing.