Wordsmith9091

I had the A-mount version with an LA-EA3. I found that version to be sluggish and a little frustrating even for portraits. I sold it and got the native E mount version, which has been much more ...

Ah, that makes sense. I'm very much looking forward to the 17-28. I sold my 24-70GM because I don't use zooms often and couldn't justify owning one that expensive. But I love having the 28-75 at a ...

What makes you feel video AF will be an issue? The 28-75 does well after the firmware update they released once the problem was identified. In fact, it might be fair to say the AF is the closest ...

I buy a lot of used gear but I'm always weary buying a new release used - worried I'm buying someone else's lemon. Glad it worked out for you.

... though backordered. Of course, I just got it days ago on a Greentoe offer for $839.

Did the 3.0 firmware do away with the recording time limit on a7iii and a7riii?

When we discuss the advantage of a sensor, it's given a particular set of equivalent inputs. It's more useful to talk about f-stops than absolute apertures in this context because if we're ...

You may want to take a look at this DPreview article for another explanation of this. They do quite rightly note that because no two sensors are comparable, the noise performance predictions are ...

OK. Good. Equal FOV, equal DOF, equal blur, equal noise performance and even equal MP. With you so far. You're not noting an important part of what just happened. While your FF was at ISO 400 and ...

Something that's important to keep straight here - for any given exposure, noise is relative to how much light hits any given square mm of the sensor, not any given pixel. It's just that when we ...

A MFT pixel does not necessarily have more noise at any given ISO than a FF pixel. If we're continuing with our assumption of identical pixel sizes (in which case the FF sensor has four time the ...

In other words: Go back to our example of a 10MP MFT sensor and a 40MP FF sensor based on the same tech. Their pixel pitch is identical. Viewed at 100 percent, their pixel noise looks identical ...

This is a popular misconception about ISO noise. The reason a FF image has lower noise at identical display sizes (again, assuming similar tech in the two sensors) isn't the pixel size, which would ...

We spoke somewhat earlier about the example of an MFT sensor with 1/4th the resolution of the FF sensor in our examples. So in those cases, the crop of the FF sensor to MFT proportions winds up ...

OK. You'll be missing out on a piece of understanding why any of this works the way it does, but there's nothing to stop you from taking good pictures without understanding every nuance.

To demonstrate this further -- this isn't demonstrating an MFT advantage. At equivalent FOV and aperture, and identical shutter speed and ISO, yes, your MFT image would be overexposed by two stops. ...

Anyhow, to cut through all of that -- we're both in agreement on the very important principle, which is that total light matters more than with what sensor size you achieve it. Given the same ...

We are considering equivalent exposure -- but there's no need to bring shutter speed into a discussion on creating equivalence. Once you change shutter speed, you break equivalence because you ...

Shorter shorter shorter: Total light matters, whether it's greater intensity light over a small area or less intensity over a larger area. But it's easier to increase total light over a larger ...

Shorter shorter answer: Larger sensors don't exist for funsies. You can accomplish the same thing by saturating a small sensor with more intense light as you can by covering a larger sensor with ...