Paul_100A
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #20 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm | |
JasonTheBirder wrote:
The main problem here is that in terms of number of pixels on the bird, 300mm on micro four thirds provides about the same number of pixels on your bird as 1.23*300 = 372mm on the Sony a1 -- you've got to consider pixel density and not just field of view, considering most bird photographers will be cropping. So with the Sony 200-600 you're getting 1.62x times as much reach. Of course, that doesn't account for the fact that with the Olympus 300mm you'll be aiming for *different* shots when the bird is closer, BUT, for those cases where you can't get closer and won't see that species again, there's really not much comparison.
Of course, you can attach a 1.4 TC to that 300mm f/4 prime, equalizing the scenario somewhat....whereas attaching a TC to the 200-600 is not that great. Still, for those who prefer to shoot with bare lenses, it's something to be considered, especially since later, IF you decide to upgrade from a superzoom to a prime, you've got longer primes like the 600 f/4 that the micro four thirds system simply does not have....Show more →
funny how maths are used to prove the superiority of FF over the 2X crop format yet the following always happens to me and my colleagues...in the real world...
*the m4/3 300 f/4 is the same as the FF 600 f/4 according to myself, and my colleagues who use FF and a 600 f/4, when comparing images taken shoulder to shoulder.
between myself and my colleagues the talking point arising from comparison of images from the two formats is always the same...there is no notable difference of IQ...just size, weight, and, money.
I stopped, long ago, unless they ask, comparing images captured with my 2X crop format equipment to those captured with my colleague's FF 600 f/4 equipment as I know it is simply cruel for them to see, time and time again, what the maths do not actually reveal.
i'm not into the maths of photography...but i find this interesting..."number of pixels on your bird"...
if interested...look at this absolutely lovely image, aesthetically-wise, image taken with an A1 and 600 f/4...
https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=1247591
good from far, far from good, relating to IQ, in my book.
this image, and any image like it, would be a delete for me 100 times out of 100 times.
i've never had to even consider using images with such low image quality when using m4/3.
weird or what?
how many A1 pixels do you suppose were on this bird?
what's better...optically enlarging the data/subject before it arrives at the sensor or enlarging the data/subject from the sensor afterwards?
what do you think of the sharpness and crispness of the details of the A1 and 600 f/4 when looking at this image?
i've used FF (since 2012) for people stuff (and love it) and i've used m4/3 for birds/wildlife.
i bought a second high speed AF Sony FF camera with the 200-600 and 1.4X TC (all brand new) planning to consolidate into one system.
-you are correct...using the 1.4X on the 200-600 quickly proved to be a no no for me.
so, i shot in APS-C mode mostly all the time.
long story short...i found it very easy to arrive at the decision to, and did so, go back to m4/3 for birds/wildlife.
i realized that i was using a FF camera in crop mode most of the time (throwing away a huge portion of the sensor's pixels) and therefor i might as well use a 2X crop mode sensor, and all of that sensor, instead.
|
