The myth of the large sensor "high ISO advantage"

[jendemen]

Practical APS-C and FF are equal!!! Propably because of the nature of things? Let me explain.

To get the "same" picture we need the same DOF and the same FOV. Example;

- APS-C : 35mm, f/2,8 , 1/125 ISO1600

- FF: 50, f/4 , /125 ISO 3200

When you're bound to a certain shutterspeed (eg 1/125) the result is a different ISO, 1600 (APS-C) and 3200 (FF).

So the FF may well be better on high iso because you're always 1 stop behind and APS-C. How much advantage has FF over APS-C?!? Roughly 1 stop? Not much different.

And then there is the size of the lenses. To be able to create the same DOF..., for example the APS-C lens needs to be a f/2.8 lens and the FF lens a f4 lens. The APS-C lenses may be smaller than the FF lenses. But the joke is that a equivalent lens set, f2.8 APS-C and f4 FF are about the same size.

So for me, I will say, there is not much different in practise. But then again, I don't own a FF so in real practise the FF pictures may be way much better...

 

[Rod McD]

Practical APS-C and FF are equal!!! Propably because of the nature of things? Let me explain.

To get the "same" picture we need the same DOF and the same FOV. Example;

- APS-C : 35mm, f/2,8 , 1/125 ISO1600

- FF: 50, f/4 , /125 ISO 3200

When you're bound to a certain shutterspeed (eg 1/125) the result is a different ISO, 1600 (APS-C) and 3200 (FF).

So the FF may well be better on high iso because you're always 1 stop behind and APS-C. How much advantage has FF over APS-C?!? Roughly 1 stop? Not much different.

And then there is the size of the lenses. To be able to create the same DOF..., for example the APS-C lens needs to be a f/2.8 lens and the FF lens a f4 lens. The APS-C lenses may be smaller than the FF lenses. But the joke is that a equivalent lens set, f2.8 APS-C and f4 FF are about the same size.

Agreed. I seems to be repeated almost daily in DPR forums that FF lenses must be bigger than APSC lenses but it is not always true. In my observation, prime lenses in the range where 90% of photography gets done - ie with fields of view from about 20mm (FF) to 100mm (FF), aren't actually much different in size. In fact the APSC lenses are sometimes bigger. Optical design accounts for a lot of variation - you can see this in comparing (say) tiny FF pancakes and alternative designs. Further, I suspect that whatever the optics, the mechanical requirements of mounts, AF motors, helixes, aperture mechanisms, etc, just absorb a lot of the difference. OTOH, some lenses, like fast zooms and long telephotos, are clearly larger.

So for me, I will say, there is not much different in practise. But then again, I don't own a FF so in real practise the FF pictures may be way much better...

Agreed again. I think it would be better if people stopped comparing and engaging in equivalence debates. There are no true equivalents. Better to accept a format as it is, benefits, limitations and all.

I'm an APSC user. I accept it's limitations. I have considered FF very seriously. For me personally, FF would be about extra resolution (not the shallow DOF and low light advantages that seem to be all people bang on about in DPR.) If I do want extra resolution, I wouldn't think twice about buying a 36mpx FF camera. In the meantime, for my print sizes, I'm enjoying my XT1.

Cheers, Rod

 

[SKersting66]

If you're suggesting that the fill factor is compromised to a degree that presents as noticeably inferior normalized SNR I find that to be a dubious claim. I think that microlenses overcome this problem well enough.

Not exactly. I am saying that more pixels requires more masking and source followers, and this results in a larger portion of the silicon layer being blocked from absorbing light. So yes, fill factor is compromised.

But SNR doesn't have much to do with fill factor, it's on a "pixel basis;" the areas not collecting any signal are also not generating any noise. SNR ratio is about the qtty of signal (light) collected and that isn't just pixel size dependent... it is also "signal available" dependent.

Back to the rain/sprinkle/downpour analogy... With a lot of light (signal) the smaller pixel's reduced ability to collect light is of no importance because there is more than enough available. The large pixel advantage is "irrelevant" because it's not needed. And the fill factor is largely irrelevant because those "missing" areas are filled in by demosaicing (of a greater number of data points).

In this (low ISO) scenario the advantage then goes to the higher sampling frequency (smaller pixels). As the signal (light) decreases, and the (ISO) amplification/read noise increases, things start to move in the other direction. At some point they cross and the advantage then goes to the larger pixels with more signal/pixel.

I've kept this as a pixel size discussion because that's the basis of the differences. From that starting point, having more (a larger sensor) gives an additional advantage. And the corollary of that is cropping in post negates that advantage.

 

[neil holmes]

I have been waffling back and forth between moving to a Sony A7 or A6000, and looking at DxOMark's low light sensor rating I think I realized something kind of interesting.

Interesting, yes. But not really new. This topic has actually been beaten to death here on dpreview. To summarize:

1. At any given combination of DOF, FOV, subject distance and scene light, the sensor will receive the same total amount of light*, no matter what your sensor size is.
2. With the same total amount of light, most modern sensors will have roughly the same noise in the final photo, no matter what the sensor size is. But if there is a difference, it is often slightly in favor of the smaller sensors.
3. Consequently, if you are limited by a minimum required DOF which all your cameras are able to reach, there is not really a low light noise advantage to the larger sensor.

*: Of course assuming that the light path to the sensor have the same transmission loss. So if you use an ND filter or an SLT camera, the rule doesn't hold up.

So the question is: Are you in reality limited by a minimum required DOF in low light situations?

I know that I am usually not. In low light, I will almost always open up my aperture as much as I can. If I stop down a bit, it is only to get better general sharpness (because my lenses perform worse fully open), not to get more DOF.

In most of the situations where I need long DOF, I have plenty of light for base ISO. And then the tables are turned. Now the larger sensor can receive more total light before it saturates, and that means that it will end up with less noise in the final photo.

So in reality, the larger sensor will very often win the noise contest.

This is a very good point.... I came to the same conclusion a while back and forgot. Not too many folks shoot night time landscapes.

There are DoF limits though IMO, even in the dark. I have an FD 50 1.4 and it's really not of much use below F/2.0. It's sharpish at F/2 but only for that sliver of DoF. For wider glass it's not as much of an issue (but then wider glass doesn't get as fast for the most part). And then there are lost resolution issues due to vignetting.

First of all, correct me if I'm wrong, but sensitivity across formats is not really equivalent, and smaller sensors are inherently more sensitive than larger sensors for a given DoF & shutter speed length. I.e. if you have the same ISO, aperture diameter & shutter speed in front of two different size sensors, the larger sensor will have a dimmer exposure due to the given volume of light being spread over a larger area.

With that in mind, FF has 1.2 stops/2.36 times more sensor area than APS-C. So correct me if I'm wrong, but if an APS-C sensor is rated at ISO1000 for some low light S/N metric, a FF sensor with equivalent performance per unit of area will be rated at ISO2360 for the same metric, correct?

Correct. But the A7 does not have the same area performance as the a6000. And that is the main problem with your comparison: The A7 does not have typical FF performance.

Sony's first three cameras with OSPDAF - a99, NEX-6 and A7 - did all have worse low light performance than comparable non-OSPDAF cameras with Sony sensors, even when compensating for the SLT mirror in the a99. I have never seen a good reason for this, but it is quite clear when you compare DxO numbers. With the a6000, Sony seems to have made an OSPDAF sensor without this OSPDAF penalty.

So if you compare the a6000 to any other newer FF camera with Sony sensor and redo your math, you will see that you get roughly the same noise at the same DOF. The a6000 will not have a noise advantage. (But it will have a DR disadvantage in good light.)

The disadvantage is still there, but it is slight to the point it's negligible. For example the A7r still doesn't break ISO3000 for that 30dB test, while a FF sensor truly equivalent to the A6000 would be ISO3100.

There are only three FF cameras currently that better ISO 3100 on DXO for their specifications, the A7s, the DF and the D3s. The D4s is close enough as well.

Despite that, I would take ANY FF camera made in the last three or four years in low light over a A6000 and that includes the original A7.

 

[SKersting66]

ultimitsu wrote:
no, he is right and you are wrong.
" if you have the same ISO, aperture diameter & shutter speed in front of two different size sensors"
That would indeed result in same volume of light spread over an larger area. whether that means it is a "dimmer exposure" is a separate issue due to different understanding of what exposure means. but the resulting image will have less brightness.

Are you sure about that? Try it. Put the same lens w/ the same aperture setting on a smaller sensor body and then on a larger sensor body. Does the exposure change? (No). How about if you crop an image replicating a smaller sensor with the same pixel density...does the exposure change? (No) Or if you put your camera into crop mode? (No)

Light does loose intensity as it spreads out over a larger area due to distance. But in order for a lens to function correctly the sensor plane must be at the same distance and therefore there is no increase in spread. The only question is whether the image circle is large enough to cover the larger sensor's size.

1, does D600 have better high ISO than D800?

Yes, but only marginally. The D4/4s more notably.

2, does D300 have better high iso than D7000, who in turn has better high iso than D7100?

Nope, but a lot more changed besides just pixel size.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/skersting/

 

[cainn24]

If you're suggesting that the fill factor is compromised to a degree that presents as noticeably inferior normalized SNR I find that to be a dubious claim. I think that microlenses overcome this problem well enough.

Not exactly. I am saying that more pixels requires more masking and source followers, and this results in a larger portion of the silicon layer being blocked from absorbing light. So yes, fill factor is compromised.

Not really. Again microlenses overcome this to the point where it barely matters, if at all.

But SNR doesn't have much to do with fill factor, it's on a "pixel basis;" the areas not collecting any signal are also not generating any noise. SNR ratio is about the qtty of signal (light) collected and that isn't just pixel size dependent... it is also "signal available" dependent.

I don't agree that it's really pixel size dependent at all when we're comparing two sensors of identical size. As for available signal, if you're talking about incoming light we should always assume that that is a constant in discussions like this otherwise we'll be mixing up our variables.

Back to the rain/sprinkle/downpour analogy... With a lot of light (signal) the smaller pixel's reduced ability to collect light is of no importance because there is more than enough available. The large pixel advantage is "irrelevant" because it's not needed. And the fill factor is largely irrelevant because those "missing" areas are filled in by demosaicing (of a greater number of data points).

I can't agree with this either. If you're correct and fill factor is compromised it follows that less light is collected per unit of sensor area. And if less light is collected per unit of sensor area then the SNR will suffer for a given print/display size. If this wasn't the case then you could put 36 million 1 µm² pixels on a FF sensor without an SNR/DR penalty, which you obviously can't.

Of course I don't really think that the fill factor is compromised to any significant degree in the case of the 36MP FF Sony sensor anyway.

As the signal (light) decreases, and the (ISO) amplification/read noise increases, things start to move in the other direction.

Yes, read noise. That's what I am saying.

 

[neil holmes]

The A7r probably uses the older sensor from the Nikon D800 while the a6000 probably got a completely new sensor.

So the 3% difference you have found can probably be adequately explained by the age difference. (We got a one stop improvement in 6-8 years, but it has slowed down now because we are closer to the theoretical limit).

So the A6000 uses the latest technology. So how does the old E-M1 with a smaller sensor match it for DR at almost every ISO?

You're comparing apples to oranges (what relevance does DR have in a thread about SNR?), and in any case the A6000 has an advantage in maximum DR about equal to its advantage in sensor size, which for ISOless sensors like the Sonys in both of these cameras is all that matters.

Well, DR will determine the amount of shadow noise more the SNR18%. Also, I love the "max DR" argument. If you shoot at ISO100 the A6000 wins, BUT if you use too high a shutter speed and ISO changes to 120 or god forbid 200, then magically the E-M1 wins. The truth is, with real word use they are equal.

Now I have seen everything.

A day ago, in your comments in the A7s review you "helpfully" pointed out that the a7s LOW ISO DR is not as good as other cameras (never mind that it is still better at 13.2 stops than the EM-1 12.7 Max DR).....in reply to my pointing out this very thing (which matter more for the a7s as it IS a low light camera while the EM-1 is not so much).

Now it is the other way around????

The only thing in common is that you just wanted to troll against Sony..

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/89..._source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

By neil holmes (1 day ago)

You are kidding right?

The dynamic range is not low.
Even at base ISO it is still 34th of the hundreds of cameras in DXOmarks data base (Nikon D4 and DF are 39th and 40th).

Given that it IS a low light camera, the dynamic range at high ISOS is much better than others.
The current highest rated camera for dynamic range is the Nikon D810 at 14.8 stops.....1.6 stops over the A7s so yes, for a landscape camera there is no comparison (36mp and 14.8 stops VS 12mp and 13.2 stops).
What happens at ISO 12800 though? It is the Sony A7s that is now almost 1.6 stops better for dynamic range.....the Sony has a higher dynamic range at ISO 51200 than the D810 at ISO 12800....EDIT,...and that is for print....for screen the difference is even bigger with the A7s at ISO 102400 being better than the D810 at ISO 12800 for dynamic range!
Horses for courses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after postingLIKE12Flag as inappropriateBy Lab D (1 day ago)

At lower ISOs, the A7s is not that good. Low DR compared to less expensive FF And APS-C cameras. Resolution is low too making issues more pronounced. DPR did a great job exposing this.

 

[SKersting66]

Not really. Again microlenses overcome this to the point where it barely matters, if at all.

Are you talking fill factor or full well capacity? Fill factor is the amount of total area available to collecting light. The more area you mask off/cover with source followers the lower the fill factor.

Smaller pixels also have a smaller FWC, but this is largely negated due to them having less area. And the reduced area is largely offset by the larger qtty; it's entirely offset if light levels are adequate.

I don't agree that it's really pixel size dependent at all when we're comparing two sensors of identical size. As for available signal, if you're talking about incoming light we should always assume that that is a constant in discussions like this otherwise we'll be mixing up our variables.

Then, given a constant available light level the smaller pixel will have a lower SNR for the same size sensor. The noise is the square root of the photons collected per pixel .
But if the light level is high enough it may be well above the required threshold to generate a quality file. And if it's above the required threshold (low ISO) then the higher sampling rate will win.

I can't agree with this either. If you're correct and fill factor is compromised it follows that less light is collected per unit of sensor area. And if less light is collected per unit of sensor area then the SNR will suffer for a given print/display size.

A digital image is very different from film... the only similarity is that they are both dependent on a reaction to light energy. With digital the only thing that matters is that "enough" energy is collected so that it can be converted into a bunch of digital information that accurately tells a computer what to display. A lot of that has more to do with the conversion of the analog signal (light energy) into digital data than it does with actual light sensitivity (as long as there is "enough"). The main reason digital is dependent on collecting light qtty is due to a lack of spectral sensitivity (the RGB CFA) and to get the analog signal above the noise floor of the system.

Yes, read noise. That's what I am saying.

At least we agree on something...

 

[RedFox88]

Wrong forum. Your post needs to be in the photographic / camera science forum on here. Post in the proper forum. Open talk is for photo discussions that don't have their own forum!

 

[Lab D]

The A7r probably uses the older sensor from the Nikon D800 while the a6000 probably got a completely new sensor.

So the 3% difference you have found can probably be adequately explained by the age difference. (We got a one stop improvement in 6-8 years, but it has slowed down now because we are closer to the theoretical limit).

So the A6000 uses the latest technology. So how does the old E-M1 with a smaller sensor match it for DR at almost every ISO?

You're comparing apples to oranges (what relevance does DR have in a thread about SNR?), and in any case the A6000 has an advantage in maximum DR about equal to its advantage in sensor size, which for ISOless sensors like the Sonys in both of these cameras is all that matters.

Well, DR will determine the amount of shadow noise more the SNR18%. Also, I love the "max DR" argument. If you shoot at ISO100 the A6000 wins, BUT if you use too high a shutter speed and ISO changes to 120 or god forbid 200, then magically the E-M1 wins. The truth is, with real word use they are equal.

Now I have seen everything.

A day ago, in your comments in the A7s review you "helpfully" pointed out that the a7s LOW ISO DR is not as good as other (FULLFRAME) cameras

Yes, it is true DPReview found the A7s was not as good as other full frame cameras. I did agree with them.

Here is the actual text.

If Sony should've been bragging about the dynamic range of any of its cameras, it should've been the a7R, not the a7S. Sony marketing claimed 15.3 EV dynamic range for the a7S, which appears to be approximately exaggerated by 2 EV according to DXO tests. The a7R appears to be 1 EV ahead of the a7S in those tests. To put this in perspective, though, both cameras are well ahead of offerings from Canon, but if you're looking for dynamic range for landscapes, or exposure latitude for flexibility in post-processing (or because you've simply mis-exposed a shot), the a7R is the winner here. Even in non-normalized, full-resolution comparisons, where the a7R continues to offer both more resolution and more pixel-level dynamic range than the a7S.

troll against Sony..

Neil, you are going to have your posts removed for breaking forum rules again.

If you really think DPR was doing that, you should take it up with them.

 

[neil holmes]

The A7r probably uses the older sensor from the Nikon D800 while the a6000 probably got a completely new sensor.

So the 3% difference you have found can probably be adequately explained by the age difference. (We got a one stop improvement in 6-8 years, but it has slowed down now because we are closer to the theoretical limit).

So the A6000 uses the latest technology. So how does the old E-M1 with a smaller sensor match it for DR at almost every ISO?

You're comparing apples to oranges (what relevance does DR have in a thread about SNR?), and in any case the A6000 has an advantage in maximum DR about equal to its advantage in sensor size, which for ISOless sensors like the Sonys in both of these cameras is all that matters.

Well, DR will determine the amount of shadow noise more the SNR18%. Also, I love the "max DR" argument. If you shoot at ISO100 the A6000 wins, BUT if you use too high a shutter speed and ISO changes to 120 or god forbid 200, then magically the E-M1 wins. The truth is, with real word use they are equal.

Now I have seen everything.

A day ago, in your comments in the A7s review you "helpfully" pointed out that the a7s LOW ISO DR is not as good as other (FULLFRAME) cameras

Yes, it is true DPReview found the A7s was not as good as other full frame cameras. I did agree with them.

The only thing in common is that you just wanted to troll against Sony..

Neil, you are going to have your posts removed for breaking forum rules again.

Ok well what IS your position......the one in the A7s review or the one here.....if it is both then the ONLY thing in common is you post AGAINST Sony.....that is true ...yes??



They are YOUR words after all!

If you really think DPR was doing that, you should take it up with them.

I have not broken any rules and only posts I have had removed lately were removed because the ones I replied to were removed....come to think of it they were yours too.

I did have one post removed a few weeks ago because I mentioned a mods actions (in the same thread you had posts removed several times.....I twice tried replying to your posts but by the time I was finished posting yours had been deleted.

Brand Bashing is against the rules by the way!

 

[Lab D]

The A7r probably uses the older sensor from the Nikon D800 while the a6000 probably got a completely new sensor.

So the 3% difference you have found can probably be adequately explained by the age difference. (We got a one stop improvement in 6-8 years, but it has slowed down now because we are closer to the theoretical limit).

So the A6000 uses the latest technology. So how does the old E-M1 with a smaller sensor match it for DR at almost every ISO?

You're comparing apples to oranges (what relevance does DR have in a thread about SNR?), and in any case the A6000 has an advantage in maximum DR about equal to its advantage in sensor size, which for ISOless sensors like the Sonys in both of these cameras is all that matters.

Well, DR will determine the amount of shadow noise more the SNR18%. Also, I love the "max DR" argument. If you shoot at ISO100 the A6000 wins, BUT if you use too high a shutter speed and ISO changes to 120 or god forbid 200, then magically the E-M1 wins. The truth is, with real word use they are equal.

Now I have seen everything.

A day ago, in your comments in the A7s review you "helpfully" pointed out that the a7s LOW ISO DR is not as good as other (FULLFRAME) cameras

Yes, it is true DPReview found the A7s was not as good as other full frame cameras. I did agree with them.

The only thing in common is that you just wanted to troll against Sony..

Neil, you are going to have your posts removed for breaking forum rules again.

Ok well what IS your position......the one in the A7s review or the one here.....if it is both then the ONLY thing in common is you post AGAINST Sony.....that is true ...yes??

They are YOUR words after all!

I only agreed with the DPR review. See the section on DR. You removed the quoted text from my post.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

If you really think DPR was doing that, you should take it up with them.

I have not broken any rules and only posts I have had removed lately were removed because the ones I replied to were removed

Neil, it is not worth arguing about. You had several long, very negative posts about Panasonic possibly because you saw them mentioned in my gear list.

I am not going to respond any more, but I kindly ask that you quit breaking rules and following me around to every forum.

 

[Lab D]

Lab D wrote:
So the A6000 uses the latest technology. So how does the old E-M1 with a smaller sensor match it for DR at almost every ISO?

It doesn't, you picked the only measurement that's close. It falls notably behind in SNR and Tonality (a couple bits difference is pretty significant).

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/skersting/

Why did you fail to mention color sensitivity? The truth is SNR18 and Tonal Range often are very similar as are DR and color sensitivity.

The previous poster thought the A6000 had an advantage with a new sensor over a FF camera. I think the advantage is more to the topic (and used an older camera as an example). Smaller sensors perform better when their size is taken in to consideration. This is why the A6000 was close to the FF camera and why when you look at all the measurements (take an average to be fair) the E-M1 performs better than expected compared to the A6000.

 

[quezra]

Finally, while it is possible to reduce the DoF with software, it is near impossible to increase it (except via multi-exposures). I can take any image and make it look like it was shot with a 1 stop wider aperture pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell (above that it gets more difficult and things such as fine hair become problematic). I can't go the other way though.

Could you post some before/after examples of how easy it is to change the DoF in post please?

 

[quezra]

This is why the A6000 was close to the FF camera and why when you look at all the measurements (take an average to be fair) the E-M1 performs better than expected compared to the A6000.

For the avoidance of doubt, when you say "better than expected compare to" you mean "worse than, but not as bad as expected compared to", right?

 

[Lab D]

Finally, while it is possible to reduce the DoF with software, it is near impossible to increase it (except via multi-exposures). I can take any image and make it look like it was shot with a 1 stop wider aperture pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell (above that it gets more difficult and things such as fine hair become problematic). I can't go the other way though.

Could you post some before/after examples of how easy it is to change the DoF in post please?

There are many on the Internet already.

Scroll down to see some.

Loading…

www.alienskin.com

 

[neil holmes]

I only agreed with the DPR review. See the section on DR. You removed the quoted text from my post.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7-s/13

No I didn't.

This was both yours and my entire posts there......That you found it necessary to reply like that (or at all) in this way say a LOT more than anyone needs say!

By neil holmes (1 day ago)

You are kidding right?

The dynamic range is not low.
Even at base ISO it is still 34th of the hundreds of cameras in DXOmarks data base (Nikon D4 and DF are 39th and 40th).

Given that it IS a low light camera, the dynamic range at high ISOS is much better than others.
The current highest rated camera for dynamic range is the Nikon D810 at 14.8 stops.....1.6 stops over the A7s so yes, for a landscape camera there is no comparison (36mp and 14.8 stops VS 12mp and 13.2 stops).
What happens at ISO 12800 though? It is the Sony A7s that is now almost 1.6 stops better for dynamic range.....the Sony has a higher dynamic range at ISO 51200 than the D810 at ISO 12800....EDIT,...and that is for print....for screen the difference is even bigger with the A7s at ISO 102400 being better than the D810 at ISO 12800 for dynamic range!
Horses for courses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after postingLIKE12Flag as inappropriate

By Lab D (1 day ago)

At lower ISOs, the A7s is not that good. Low DR compared to less expensive FF And APS-C cameras. Resolution is low too making issues more pronounced. DPR did a great job exposing this.

If you really think DPR was doing that, you should take it up with them.

I have not broken any rules and only posts I have had removed lately were removed because the ones I replied to were removed

Neil, it is not worth arguing about. You had several long, very negative posts about Panasonic possibly because you saw them mentioned in my gear list.

No those were removed because the post I replied to were removed (and again that was yours I believe)....that was the thread I mentioned earlier, I DID have a post removed because I mentioned the Mods action ...about a post of yours that was deleted.

OH and I USE (and like) a Panasonic camera.

I am not going to respond any more

Great!

, but I kindly ask that you quit breaking rules and following me around to every forum.

Since I USE Sony and YOU DONT, then that should be real easy as I take it you wont be replying to any Sony posts, threads or reviews with your Anti-_Sony rubbish???

I post a lot about Sony (and FF E mount in particular because) that because is what I use.....what reason do YOU have for making so so MANY posts about a brand you have no intention of using??

What IS the definition of brand bashing??

Oh and who is following who around?? Just look at that post in the A7s review.....

I WILL respond to trolling/brand bashing if you keep it up.

Post on other things and I could care less.....

 

[quezra]

Finally, while it is possible to reduce the DoF with software, it is near impossible to increase it (except via multi-exposures). I can take any image and make it look like it was shot with a 1 stop wider aperture pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell (above that it gets more difficult and things such as fine hair become problematic). I can't go the other way though.

Could you post some before/after examples of how easy it is to change the DoF in post please?

There are many on the Internet already.

Scroll down to see some.

http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure-examples/

I don't really care what marketing brochures have to say about how they do it. I want live examples from a real user - you yourself claim you can do it "pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell" so could we see some from you... I assume it's not more than a 5 minute job and you probably have dozens in your folders already?

 

[Lab D]

This is why the A6000 was close to the FF camera and why when you look at all the measurements (take an average to be fair) the E-M1 performs better than expected compared to the A6000.

For the avoidance of doubt, when you say "better than expected compare to" you mean "worse than, but not as bad as expected compared to", right?

No, for example, at ISO 120 and 200 the E-M1 would have more DR, or when using the same DOF it would not be "worse" at even more ISOs. It simply depends. This is the topic. When considering DoF, smaller sensors often perform a bit better than larger ones. Not always, but pretty often.

Let's stick to the same brand here so no one can get us off topic and turn it in to bashing as then tend to do.

So take the A6000 and see how it performs favorably against the new A7ii. Both have the latest sensors. If you account for DoF, the A6000 beats the A7ii at almost every ISO. If you prefer more DOF, the A6000 is the better option.

 

[Lab D]

Finally, while it is possible to reduce the DoF with software, it is near impossible to increase it (except via multi-exposures). I can take any image and make it look like it was shot with a 1 stop wider aperture pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell (above that it gets more difficult and things such as fine hair become problematic). I can't go the other way though.

Could you post some before/after examples of how easy it is to change the DoF in post please?

There are many on the Internet already.

Scroll down to see some.

http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure-examples/

I don't really care what marketing brochures have to say about how they do it. I want live examples from a real user - you yourself claim you can do it "pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell" so could we see some from you... I assume it's not more than a 5 minute job and you probably have dozens in your folders already?

I try not post images any more after Henry started taking people's pictures and using them for things against forum rules.

Do a search and you will get the idea.