Spyro P. wrote:
Ah yes, Sally Mann, how good is she
broken lenses + large format portraits = couldnt take a sharp or large dof photo even if she wanted to
she's probably an exception and to be honest I dont think her photos would be any less successful at f22.
keith Carter looks blurry allover and more like a tilt effect than shallow dof?
Neither are exceptions. In the late 80's/ early 90's, a widespread movement/ return to work which emphasized more shallow dof was extremely prevalent in the photo art world. This continued through the 90's into the early 2000's with a major return to the use of old processes...Cyanotypes, Daguerrotypes, Calotypes, Platinum, you name it. You will see lots of use of shallow dof in a lot of this work. The Daguerrotype portraits of Chuck Close are a good example as is some of the work by the Starn Twins. That all happened fairly recent and "pre-digital". Before this in the 70's we had, of course, the New Topographic photographers and a lot of this work attempted to be very "clinical" and objective, making use of great dof (stylistically, you might think of this as sort of "F64ish" though it was certainly NOT modernism at all but photo conceptualism/ postmodernism). A sort of return to this type of photography also came about in the late 90's till today with artist such as Andreas Gursky, Thomas Struth, Edward Burtynsky and so on.
Anyway, this is all way off topic now but the point is that the use of photographic techniques and styles (such as shallow dof) waxes and wanes just like every other fashion.
alundeb wrote:
.... 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?
Excuses? Who actually cares is there's a slight measurable difference in noise? It just does not matter that much when it comes to photography, just like it doesn't matter if you use Fuji, Kodak or Ilford film in you camera and nobody cares because it does not matter, even if you can measure noise difference in a science lab. It's not about taking sides with or against some hardware, it's about reality.
I've shot with all kinds of equipment and when I compare lenses between systems it is the focal length that matters the most. The 43mm f/4.5 lens on my Mamiya 7 does the roughly same for me as Zeiss 21mm lens on my 1DsII. I could use different types of film or scanning or I could use different digital bodies, 5DII, D700, A900. All that does not change how the lens works. Just like the 75/2 M.Zuiko works like 150/2 or 150/4 (depending on how you look at it) on 35mm cameras, I just don't see how measurebational noise differences fits into the picture.
You need to choose a tool suitable for what you're planning to do. If your task to shoot something like indoor sports for publication it is silly to be here bitching a $1000 camera for not being a $6000 one. If have specialized needs you'll probably need a specialized camera, buy a D4 or D800E if you need them. For me the m4/3 system provides most of what I need (including not spending too much).
hauxon wrote:
. Just like the 75/2 M.Zuiko works like 150/2 or 150/4 (depending on how you look at it) on 35mm cameras, I just don't see how measurebational noise differences fits into the picture.
I will try to present my point a little more clear.
75/2 <-> 150/2 : The result is less DoF and less noise on the larger sensor.
75/2 <-> 150/4 : The result is about equal DoF and equal noise.
75/2 <-> 150/8 : The result is less DoF and less noise on the smaller sensor.
With your logic, I could say that a 150/8 is an equivalent to 75/2 because I want more DoF anyway, and I don't care about the noise.
alundeb: It's 16-17° FOV, shutter speed is same if both lenses are f/2 and DOF is same if FF lens is f/4. That's it! Noise is a property of the sensor/film and does not make glass any better or worse.
I have been selling images on large canvas up sizes up to 1m and not once has a showroom guest noticed that some images were made with 1DsII and other with el cheapo E-P1. It's easier to notice lousy glass than barely measurable difference in noise between the two. The 1DsII is a nicer camera to operate in many ways but the one who buys my prints couldn't care less about what kind of sensor was used for the shot.
But don't get me wrong, lens like the 180/2 Leica R is not available for m4/3. And if you truly need such exotic glass you're looking at the wrong system, you need to look into something where the most expensive camera costs much more than $1000.
Hrannar, don't get me wrong. u43 Cameras are very capable tools and there are good reasons for choosing them.
I love your country, I had a very good time last september attending a workshop in the Snæfellsnes area. It would be nice to meet you next time I visit Iceland.
The thing I don't understand, is why we FF guys are not allowed to adjust the ISO to get the shutter speeds and results that are relevant. The noise equation is simple:
Signal to noise ratio on a logarithmic scale is largely proportional to
Exposure * Sensor area * Sensor efficiency per area
You can argue that the D3s has a little more noise at ISO 3200 than the GF3 at ISO 200, but not that much, really?
alunndb: Your argument is accurate, but irrelevant for most shooters as they usually don't care about noise until it becomes clearly visible in the full image (not at 100% magnification).
People are going to keep calling a 75/2 on m43 a 150/2 equivalent because that equivalent describes the most important attributes for the average shooter, even a serious one. Those are the FoV and its light-gathering capabilities at a given ISO. Some few will care about DoF equivalences and an even smaller group will care about total illumination/noise equivalencies and those will continue to call it a 150/4 equivalent. Both groups are correct given their respective assumptions, but the former group is by far the majority.
Also, choosing the GF3 for your comparison isn't the best route, since it's the old sensor...the GH2, G3, GX1 and E-M5 all use a much better, newer sensor. And, you're comparing a $300 camera with a $4,000 camera....if the $4,000 camera didn't kick the pants off the cheaper one, there would be a problem. The D3s is an amazing sensor...
The point of m4/3 is not to have equal image quality to a professional full frame kit...it's to have small portable camera systems that yield very good image quality. They compete with APS-C, not full frame. And if you compare a GX1 to the Nikon D7000, you'll find that while the D7000 is still a little bit better, they are really very close. The D7000 is a little better (maybe a half stop) better in the noise area, but it's very subtle, and the GX1 resolves more detail at base ISO (though with a tiny bit more noise).
Spyro P. wrote:
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....Show more →
Actually, not only do I "stick around with wedding photographers", I am one myself. And for most serious, full time professionals in this country, full frame is the standard. I'll see the low budget/weekenders/students out there with cropped bodies, but very few pros in my area. Whether shallow DOF is en vogue or not, we don't want to limit ourselves by choosing an inferior format.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking m43 at all. I have a GX1 and I LOVE it! For hiking/backpacking/nature/landscape/travel photography the system is a dream. But you won't catch me shooting any serious work with it, primarily because of the 2+ stops loss of DOF control I lose with the system. BTW the use of shallow DOF is absolutely NOT "just a recent internet/forum thing."
alunndb: But what if the full frame camera is not the $5200 D3s and the chosen area is not as well lit? Maybe Sony A900 and Canon 5DII, both excellent cameras, right? And let's throw the praised Nikon D7000 to the mix as it is considered one of the best 1.5x crop cameras. Dpreview just released a GX1 review so we have the most current m4/3 sensor. All cameras are ISO3200 and I choose jpeg since GX1 is too new to have optimized RAW profiles and jpeg should be what the manufactures could squeeze from the cameras at launch time.
Seems to like the "Sensor efficiency per area" in your formula has much greater effect than the other two. By using you reasoning I'd like to look at the 75/2 M.Zuiko as a 150/1.2 when compared to Sony A900!!
Glass is just glass and f/2 is f/2 and you're not "allowed" consider it something else. :-)
I'd like to say as Torbjorn Egner: "All the animals in teh forest should be friends!"
Jman13 wrote:
Also, choosing the GF3 for your comparison isn't the best route, since it's the old sensor...the GH2, G3, GX1 and E-M5 all use a much better, newer sensor. And, you're comparing a $300 camera with a $4,000 camera....if the $4,000 camera didn't kick the pants off the cheaper one, there would be a problem. The D3s is an amazing sensor...
The point of m4/3 is not to have equal image quality to a professional full frame kit...it's to have small portable camera systems that yield very good image quality. They compete with APS-C, not full frame. And if you compare a GX1 to the Nikon D7000, you'll find that while the D7000 is still a little bit better, they are really very close. The D7000 is a little better (maybe a half stop) better in the noise area, but it's very subtle, and the GX1 resolves more detail at base ISO (though with a tiny bit more noise)....Show more →
Comparing the newer GX1 to the any current FF camera gives basically the same results. ISO 200 on the GX1 is about equal to ISO 800 on the FF, at least a closer match than 400, where FF is clearly better.
Look, I don't knock on your system. It is just that when you buy a 75mm f/2 lens on your u43 and say that _ I _ would need a 150 mm f/2 to get the same results in terms of noise, that is just not the case. I know how to use the ISO setting, and I know what that gives in terms of noise.
hauxon wrote:
alunndb: But what if the full frame camera is not the $5200 D3s and the chosen area is not as well lit? Maybe Sony A900 and Canon 5DII, both excellent cameras, right? And let's throw the praised Nikon D7000 to the mix as it is considered one of the best 1.5x crop cameras. Dpreview just released a GX1 review so we have the most current m4/3 sensor. All cameras are ISO3200 and I choose jpeg since GX1 is too new to have optimized RAW profiles and jpeg should be what the manufactures could squeeze from the cameras at launch time.
Seems to like the "Sensor efficiency per area" in your formula has much greater effect than the other two. By using you reasoning I'd like to look at the 75/2 M.Zuiko as a 150/1.2 when compared to Sony A900!!
Glass is just glass and f/2 is f/2 and you're not "allowed" consider it something else. :-)
I'd like to say as Torbjorn Egner: "All the animals in teh forest should be friends!"
