alundeb wrote:
Again, at low to mid ISO, when you use a higher ISO on the larger sensor, the results are CLOSER than when you use the same ISO.
And if illumination doesn't matter we can use an even higher ISO setting on the larger sensor. Why should "the difference doesn't matter" always be used to excuse more noise on the smaller sensor, and not more noise on the larger sensor?
Because at low/mid ISO's were dealing with 'damn near no noise' for the most part and there are other concerns such as shutter speed. Very few people will go from shooting f8 at 1/500 and ISO 100 on one m43 camera to f16 at 1/500 and ISO 400 on a FF camera. Chances are they're going to match the exposure at base ISO. And quite frankly, most photographers always use the lowest ISO possible due to habit. Personally I'm not one of them, but my habits were formed shooting film where ISO 400 was my go-to choice rather than digital where for most it's base ISO unless forced off.
The reality is that aside from DR concerns there's just very little difference in IQ from a FF body and a m42 body of equivalent resolution at low ISO's and only a mild one at mid ISO's. Total Illumination only really becomes relevant once we're getting into the ISO range where the smaller sensor starts struggling and today that's above the mid-ISO range.
My point was that you cannot compare two lenses, ignore all the advantages of one of them and then claim they are equal. That makes no sense whatsoever.
mawz wrote:
Because at low/mid ISO's were dealing with 'damn near no noise' for the most part and there are other concerns such as shutter speed. Very few people will go from shooting f8 at 1/500 and ISO 100 on one m43 camera to f16 at 1/500 and ISO 400 on a FF camera. Chances are they're going to match the exposure at base ISO. And quite frankly, most photographers always use the lowest ISO possible due to habit. Personally I'm not one of them, but my habits were formed shooting film where ISO 400 was my go-to choice rather than digital where for most it's base ISO unless forced off.
The reality is that aside from DR concerns there's just very little difference in IQ from a FF body and a m42 body of equivalent resolution at low ISO's and only a mild one at mid ISO's. Total Illumination only really becomes relevant once we're getting into the ISO range where the smaller sensor starts struggling and today that's above the mid-ISO range. ...Show more →
I hate to bring DxO Mark into this, but I just quickly compared the GX1, 5N and 5dii, and ISO 160 = 400 = 800 in SNR 18%, roughly, and ISO 160 = 1200 = 2000 in DR, roughly.
I don't see how it isn't all relative, whether at base ISO or higher with m4/3, even if these DxO Marks are taken as a rough guide. When switching between various formats, I still calculate various DOF and noise differences with lens equivalents, and tell myself, "This 35mm lens at f2 on my 5N at ISO 200 will be roughly equivalent to my 50mm lens at 2.8-ish at ISO 400 on my A900." Of course, I know that apertures aren't exactly a stop apart in equivalence, and things like sensor technology can vary things a bit, but I still think it works as a rough guide.
p.s. that might be the most times that I've typed the word "rough" in the same post. talk about trying to muddy the waters.
JonasY wrote:
More like a 150/4. I can't understand why people justify to compare to a f/2 lens for 35 mm film. A 180/2 will have much thinner DOF and about two stops of light advantage coupled on a modern FF camera. Two different animals.
Well, I just re-purchased the 135/2 to get me going in the mean time.
JonasY wrote:
More like a 150/4. I can't understand why people justify to compare to a f/2 lens for 35 mm film. A 180/2 will have much thinner DOF and about two stops of light advantage coupled on a modern FF camera. Two different animals.
If you can't understand it, I guess you haven't really tried. I am far less concerned with the DoF than with the light gathering ability, as simple as that. The 180/2 will only have a two-stop advantage over the 150/4, which only you mentioned, so you set up your own straw man and knocked him down yourself. Good job
carstenw wrote:
If you can't understand it, I guess you haven't really tried. I am far less concerned with the DoF than with the light gathering ability, as simple as that. The 180/2 will only have a two-stop advantage over the 150/4, which only you mentioned, so you set up your own straw man and knocked him down yourself. Good job
I'm not sure I follow you but the combination of an imaginary 150/2 and a full frame body would have about two stops of advantage. Use it for light or shallow DoF. I didn't say a 150/4 would have that advantage, but rather be the equivalent of a 75/2 on a 4/3 body. Hence, I cannot understand why some people writes that you should have a look at the Leica 180/2 to see how a similar lens would look like on a FF body. Am I being clear here?
I'm pretty sure people here understands this and it's more a matter of semantics but it still annoying to read that it is equivalent to a 150/2 when it has none of the characteristics you'd expect from such a lens. Or put it like this - why translate FoV into 35 mm terms but not DoF?
It has really nothing to do about what you prefer, or how you shoot. As long as you don't care about the ISO number recorded in the EXIF, there are no advantages on a f2 lens on a 4/3 body over a f/4 lens on a ff body*. Personally I'm more interested in the resulting image than if the ISO said 1, 16, 160 or 16 000 if you cannot tell them apart.
That being said I really like the OM-D. My mom is looking for her own camera and I'm thinking about one of these for her. It would be nice though if the lens could produce some shallow DoF for portraits, and I'm not sure if a f/5.6 kit zoom would do that on 4/3. Is it complete craziness to buy her a prime, like the 25/1.4?
* I'm overlooking the possibility that the 4/3 sensor has an technology advantage when it comes to noise.
Well, in the end a theoretical 150/2 FF lens would work like a 300/2 on MFT for the purposes of light gathering, but a 300/4 for the purposes of depth of field. I don't know why you only look at depth of field. For that focal length, I find light gathering more interesting.
I don't know your mom, but would she use the EVF? Otherwise a GX1 might be just as good, and more compact.
JonasY wrote:
* I'm overlooking the possibility that the 4/3 sensor has an technology advantage when it comes to noise.
Could you explain that? Everything I have seen, including the ISO samples from the OM-D, show the noise to be very noticeably worse than current APS and FF sensors at a given ISO.
carstenw wrote:
Well, in the end a theoretical 150/2 FF lens would work like a 300/2 on MFT for the purposes of light gathering, but a 300/4 for the purposes of depth of field. I don't know why you only look at depth of field. For that focal length, I find light gathering more interesting.
The thing is, ISO 200 on the GX1 is equivalent to around ISO 800 on something like the 5Dii in terms of SNR, and even more in terms of DR. So using f2 on the GX1 is still giving similar performance results as using f4 on the 5Dii. When calculating exposures, it certainly makes sense to calculate in terms of f2 and call f2 what it is, but, when comparing lenses across various formats, I think it's helpful to mention equivalents.
Unfortunately, I believe this is more or less the only Zuiko 4/3 lens that won't AF on m4/3 cameras. It would be nice if they've managed to fix that for the OM-D though.
Of course we would need a poll to properly settle the matter, but I would think that the majority of users seeking wider apertures are seeking greater control over depth of field. It is the key determining factor in most choosing full frame (and therefore not choosing some other more DOF-limited format)... And yes "total illumination" probably coming in a close second on that poll.
One would always say, "a brighter and faster lens", but does it matters which comes first. My problem is to decide whether I want the black of silver. Hope they come out with a Ti model in future.
ChrisDM wrote:
Of course we would need a poll to properly settle the matter, but I would think that the majority of users seeking wider apertures are seeking greater control over depth of field. It is the key determining factor in most choosing full frame (and therefore not choosing some other more DOF-limited format)... And yes "total illumination" probably coming in a close second on that poll.
Νah these are forum people... a very unique and fussy breed
And the FF market is tiny.
In the real photography world people want more dof, all other things being equal. In fact (I've read that) it was one of the main selling points when smaller format film cameras first started coming out "you dont have to be so careful with focus any more"
Stick around with wedding photographers for a while and you'll see how many times they get in trouble for using shallow dof... couples rent the coutry club because they want to show it off, not blur it out. Many other examples where more dof makes life easier, sports, birds, landscape, macro, stills, street. Go to the biggest art galleries and museums in your city and check out their photo exhibitions (in the rare occasions that they hold them), shallow dof very rarely is a dominating factor in a photo. Check out the photography greats they teach at photo/art courses, people like Adams, Bresson, Eggleston etc, same thing: 99% of their photos are stopped down. I doubt its because they couldnt get hold of a 50/f2.
I honestly think shallow dof is mostly just a relatively recent internet/forum thingo.
Personally I like it, but only in the recommended dosage: every now and then.
Spyro P. wrote:
I honestly think shallow dof is mostly just a relatively recent internet/forum thingo.
Not a recent phenomenon at all actually. If you take a stroll through photo history, you will see that the use of shallow DOF goes in and out of fashion just like everything else.
Ι've sort of done that to an extend... I must've missed it.
What are you referring to Tariq? pictorialism?
(which was not exactly shallow dof but intentionally everything slightly out of focus or blurry)
