Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
AmbientMike wrote:
Yes Steve, there can be an advantage to the smaller m4/3 sensor. You need half the magnification to fill the frame with the same subject. Or if you prefer, 2x the magnification on ff. And as I've already mentioned there's stuff that cuts into any ff iq advantage. Although the op made nice use of ff here.
Your A7r4 is about 50% heavier than the SL2. Plus metabones or sigma EF adapter, so it's well over 50% heavier. About half a pound so about the same as mirrorless vs some of the 2lb DSLR's. Pretty significant weight. And higher percentage. Aps mode might be handy, but the flip side is you could be using a much lighter, less expensive camera if you are using it.
Most of the "advantages" you mentioned, I mean, how often do you need 1/8000 for macro? Somewhere between not very often or never. 10fps isn't usually very useful. 1/3 stop flash sync? OK. You have less pixel density on ff vs m4/3. No 80mp ff cameras out there. Hopefully the much heavier camera has some advantages. Yes there are advantages to using the smaller sensors for macro. Whether you can see or comprehend it is another matter.
...Show more →
Uh, Mike you keep repeating yourself saying the same wrong things. It is simple. The big sensor can also be used as a small sensor. You have not recognized or acknowledged that, but it is obviously true. If the FF sensor camera can also function as a small sensor camera in every way, which it can with mirrorless, then the small sensor clearly has no advantage because the FF camera is also a small sensor camera.
Now this nonsense about cherry picking different manufacturer's outdated cameras and trying to compare them to a modern camera is all beside the point. It has nothing to do with the sensor and how it can be used. Sony has built for example the A7C which is a small FF camera. Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Panasonic might as well. They might build them smaller and with higher pixel density sensors (Sigma already has). All that is possible if there is a market for it. The fact that Canon built the SL2 ages ago and you can still use it and for some who can handle it many limitations it might even be a good deal, says nothing about whether small sensor cameras have an advantage over FF sensor cameras. It does say something about the relative advantages and disadvantages of outdated vs. modern cameras. Old outdated cameras like the SL2 are cheaper. They were built cheap to sell a ton of them and they were built light, They also were built with a lot of serious limitations including awful AF, slow fps, slow max shutter speed, and a terrible viewfinder (IMO). I find such cameras virtually unusable, but if you like them more power to you. It just makes little sense to compare such a camera to a modern mirrorless camera (such as comparing the weight) and it makes even less sense when you are trying to compare such cameras when you say it has anything to do with sensor size. So what that the SL2 is lighter. The Sigma FP weighs 427g (so lighter than the SL2) is a full frame camera with a 61 MP sensor (so same pixel pitch as the SL2) and can be used as a small sensor camera as well as a FF camera and because it can be used as a small sensor camera a small sensor camera clearly has no advantages over it. Personally, I would like a cameras that isn't stripped down quite so much, but if you just want to get small and don't care about any limitations of the camera a FF mirrorless camera can do that too.
Oh, and to be crystal clear when you use a FF camera as a small sensor camera it has zero advantage over the small sensor camera. The two cameras are on a level playing field when you only use a small part of the larger sensor. The FF camera doesn't have an advantage, but neither does the small sensor camera. Hence, there is no advantage to the small sensor camera. The advantage of the FF camera is you don't have to shoot it in small sensor mode. You can also shoot it in a mode that uses a larger part of the sensor. That you can use the camera both ways is clearly an advantage of the FF sensor and that really helps for shots like I posted on the first page. Those shots are not possible on a small sensor camera. In contrast, there are no advantage to a small sensor camera, because modern mirrorless cameras have the built-in ability to shoot as a small sensor camera.
And although there aren't any 80 MP FF cameras yet, we can bet there will be and the 61 MP cameras that exist have very similar pixel density to the common 16 MP micro 4/3rds cameras. When we use a 61 MP camera as a small sensor camera the size of a micro 4/3rds sensor (i.e., in 2X automatic crop), then we get an image with about the same pixel density as a 16 MP micro 4/3rds image. If you think a 20 MP or even now a 25 MP micro 4/3rds image is a lot better than a 16 MP micro 4/3rds then some micro 4/3rds camera could have a slight advantage over the 2X cropped FF image. Personally, I don't think those higher density cameras add much at this point, but if you do then it would be true that some micro 4/3rds camera have that higher pixel density advantage. This isn't an advantage of the sensor size, however, it is an advantage of the pixel density and that can and will change as we move forward.
And for macro shooting having a 6 shot buffer is just pathetic and would affect my shooting. If conditions are at all windy I often shoot in small bursts and being limited to 6 shots would totally suck. This is also when 10 fps is clearly an advantage over 5 fps. As I demonstrated on the previous page I often shoot at wide apertures when using macro so I do use 1/8000 some of the time. If you only stop down, then of course that wouldn't affect your shooting. I do often use 1/250 and when I use flash with macro I do like to use flash sync. I also will certainly take the extra half to a third stop in dynamic range. So the things I mentioned do matter to me. Again if none of those things matter to you, then more power to you, but to me these cameras just aren't comparable.
Finally, lets talk viewfinder. IMO, the SL2 OVF totally sucks. I find it so bad I would never use it and although you have a LCD that allows contrast detect AF (with lenses that aren't designed for that type of AF) you don't have an EVF and I would take an EVF over that crappy (IMO) OVF on the SL2 even though I like and appreciate an OVF. With the SL2 you are stuck with a crappy (IMO) OVF or a poorly designed and implement LCD, which IMO is a horrible choice between two bad alternatives. This is a huge reason why for me the SL2 is hardly useable. Of course YMMV, but I think there are some pretty powerful reasons APS-C DSLRs are no longer popular and it starts with the crappy (IMO, which may be shared by lots of people) OVF.
I have said my piece more times than I intended to. I will leave this as my last post.
|
Paeony Through Oshiro 60mm on A7r3
Blame me if you like, I hope it helps you feel better for your insistence on your position even though it was clear you were wrong. I was civil. I never attacked you. I just pointed out the many times you were wrong. It is not uncivil to point out someone's mistaken beliefs, Calling someone a rockhead? Now that is uncivil. Learn the difference between someone who challenges your views and someone who makes personal attacks. You should be able to handle someone who challenges your beliefs without attacking them. Unfortunately, that was not something you could do in this thread.