p.4 #1 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
*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.
When taking a shot from the same distance with the m4/3 300/4 and the full frame 600/4, and cropping both images to equal framing, the DOF in the shot taken with the 300/4 will always be 2x the DOF in the shot taken with the full frame 600/4, because you need to zoom in 2x to get the same framing, and that doubles the DOF.
In that sense, a 300/4 lens becomes a 600/8 lens.
The difference between a 600/8 lens and a 600/4 lens is substantial I would say, even if that does not mean image quality is better with one or the other.
p.4 #2 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
ChrisMak wrote:
When taking a shot from the same distance with the m4/3 300/4 and the full frame 600/4, and cropping both images to equal framing, the DOF in the shot taken with the 300/4 will always be 2x the DOF in the shot taken with the full frame 600/4, because you need to zoom in 2x to get the same framing, and that doubles the DOF.
In that sense, a 300/4 lens becomes a 600/8 lens.
The difference between a 600/8 lens and a 600/4 lens is substantial I would say, even if that does not mean image quality is better with one or the other....Show more →
And the A1 with 600 F4 becomes a 900 5.6 equivalent when cropped to 20 Mpx, how about that for equivalence. Guy is in proper denial.
p.4 #3 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
ChrisMak wrote:
When taking a shot from the same distance with the m4/3 300/4 and the full frame 600/4, and cropping both images to equal framing, the DOF in the shot taken with the 300/4 will always be 2x the DOF in the shot taken with the full frame 600/4, because you need to zoom in 2x to get the same framing, and that doubles the DOF.
In that sense, a 300/4 lens becomes a 600/8 lens.
The difference between a 600/8 lens and a 600/4 lens is substantial I would say, even if that does not mean image quality is better with one or the other....Show more →
more DOF...bad or good in your opinion?
-good in my opinion.
is it bokeh then?
it's funny, bokeh comparisons are always included in lens reviews/comparisons yet not once have my colleagues and I ever compared (or even mentioned) bokeh.
we all look directly and specifically at the subject and look at the details of the subject to judge how sharp and plentiful they are.
no maths/calculations are performed.
odd heh?
any explanations or thoughts on the A1 600 f/4 image that I also referenced?
what do the maths say about the mushed/missing details of that image coming from superior equipment?
denial what?
p.4 #4 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
more DOF...bad or good in your opinion?
-good in my opinion.
is it bokeh then?
it's funny, bokeh comparisons are always included in lens reviews/comparisons yet not once have my colleagues and I ever compared (or even mentioned) bokeh.
we all look directly and specifically at the subject and look at the details of the subject to judge how sharp and plentiful they are.
no maths/calculations are performed.
odd heh?
any explanations or thoughts on the A1 600 f/4 image that I also referenced?
what do the maths say about the mushed/missing details of that image coming from superior equipment?
denial what?
To be fair you choose a photo that has obvious motion blur, the quality of that image has nothing to do with the camera or lens. I can find photos from any brand/format that has the same quality.
I have both setups in question and both have their place but there is a difference. Sometimes that difference matters and sometimes it doesn’t.
p.4 #5 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
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.
That is fine...everyone has different priorities. Like I said, you can get five star shots with either. But there is a fairly large difference, and there are situations where the micro four thirds setup will be superior, and there are others where the full-frame setup will be superior.
Not saying one is strictly better than the other, but there are some specific shots for sure where a 600mm lens on a 45mp (or higher) full-frame camera will render significantly more detail than a 300mm lens on a 20mp micro four thirds camera at the same distance. And there are some bird photography scenarios where such shots may only come once. Not everyone is concerned with getting such shots -- if you're the type of person who is just concerned with getting *some* collection of good shots rather than specific ones, then a 300mm lens on micro four thirds will be fine. But for certain specific shots, such a setup is rather insufficient.
Of course, there are other scenarios where 300mm on a micro four thirds camera will be superior as well, especially because the 300 f/4 has a very nice MFD....but certainly they are not equal in all scenarios. To claim that they are is the same illogical and defensive process as those who claim full frame is better in every case. And of course, your example is rather irrelevant, as there are heaps of images taken with every camera out there that lack IQ -- including micro four thirds.
I was merely pointing out a deficiency in micro four thirds, which by no means was meant to argue that micro four thirds is universally deficient in every situation, nor was did I mean to imply that full-frame is superior in all cases either.
p.4 #6 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
is it bokeh then?
it's funny, bokeh comparisons are always included in lens reviews/comparisons yet not once have my colleagues and I ever compared (or even mentioned) bokeh.
we all look directly and specifically at the subject and look at the details of the subject to judge how sharp and plentiful they are.
no maths/calculations are performed.
odd heh?
The truth is, just because more than one person agrees on something doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes a fact. If that were true, the world would be flat.
p.4 #7 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
palmor wrote:
To be fair you choose a photo that has obvious motion blur, the quality of that image has nothing to do with the camera or lens. I can find photos from any brand/format that has the same quality.
I have both setups in question and both have their place but there is a difference. Sometimes that difference matters and sometimes it doesn’t.
with the 300mm/4 m43 lens you cannot choose to have more bokeh if the situation calls for it. You will always get the equivalent of a 600/8
with the 600/4 FF lens you can choose use f/4 / iso 100 and get more bokeh, dynamic range and a cleaner shot because of the larger sensor, or choose to set the lens to f/8 / iso 400 which means more dof, and more noise and reduced dynamic range. (DR and noise similar to the m43 at iso 100)
The 300/2.8GM seems like a more interesting comparison imo. Set clear image zoom to 2x on the FF.
p.4 #8 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
aCuria wrote:
with the 300mm/4 m43 lens you cannot choose to have more bokeh if the situation calls for it.
That is correct, insofar as bokeh is a quality, not a quantity.
You can never have "more" bokeh with any lens, only different bokeh. However, you can have more or less depth of field, but that is not the same as bokeh.
p.4 #9 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
it's funny, bokeh comparisons are always included in lens reviews/comparisons yet not once have my colleagues and I ever compared (or even mentioned) bokeh.
It's mostly for the dorky "content creators" that feel the need to have out-of-focus Christmas lights in the background of their uncreative videos.
p.4 #10 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
palmor wrote:
To be fair you choose a photo that has obvious motion blur, the quality of that image has nothing to do with the camera or lens. I can find photos from any brand/format that has the same quality.
I have both setups in question and both have their place but there is a difference. Sometimes that difference matters and sometimes it doesn’t.
"the quality of that image has nothing to do with the camera or lens"
cool. thanks.
p.4 #11 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
molson wrote:
That is correct, insofar as bokeh is a quality, not a quantity.
You can never have "more" bokeh with any lens, only different bokeh. However, you can have more or less depth of field, but that is not the same as bokeh.
That is nit-picky and also disagrees with common interpretation of what the word Bokeh means. All the various effects are directly affected by the (equivalent) aperture. If one aperture gets you a certain size of bokeh ball (or diameter of smoothing) for a specific scene, half the aperture value will get you exactly twice the diameter and four times the attenuation of blurred point highlights. So this is in fact a quantity that is applied to your scene.
p.4 #12 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
JasonTheBirder wrote:
The truth is, just because more than one person agrees on something doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes a fact. If that were true, the world would be flat.
"The truth is, just because more than one person agrees on something doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes a fact"
cool. thanks.
p.4 #13 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
JasonTheBirder wrote:
That is fine...everyone has different priorities. Like I said, you can get five star shots with either. But there is a fairly large difference, and there are situations where the micro four thirds setup will be superior, and there are others where the full-frame setup will be superior.
Not saying one is strictly better than the other, but there are some specific shots for sure where a 600mm lens on a 45mp (or higher) full-frame camera will render significantly more detail than a 300mm lens on a 20mp micro four thirds camera at the same distance. And there are some bird photography scenarios where such shots may only come once. Not everyone is concerned with getting such shots -- if you're the type of person who is just concerned with getting *some* collection of good shots rather than specific ones, then a 300mm lens on micro four thirds will be fine. But for certain specific shots, such a setup is rather insufficient.
Of course, there are other scenarios where 300mm on a micro four thirds camera will be superior as well, especially because the 300 f/4 has a very nice MFD....but certainly they are not equal in all scenarios. To claim that they are is the same illogical and defensive process as those who claim full frame is better in every case. And of course, your example is rather irrelevant, as there are heaps of images taken with every camera out there that lack IQ -- including micro four thirds.
I was merely pointing out a deficiency in micro four thirds, which by no means was meant to argue that micro four thirds is universally deficient in every situation, nor was did I mean to imply that full-frame is superior in all cases either....Show more →
"you can get five star shots with either"
cool. thanks.
p.4 #14 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Everything else being equal a 600mm f4 lens on a 45+MP camera will have more pixels, better subject separation and better low light performance based on the larger shutter size and faster lens.
However, everything is not equal right now.
That m43 camera has raw pre-capture, pixel shift and a deep buffer @ 50f/s and the m43 purchaser has save at least enough money for one or two awesome trips where there are multiple subject availabilities that are not available locally.
And finally, the m43 rig is hand-holdable while a 600f4 lens is not for most people
p.4 #16 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
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...
I assume this is a response to JasonTheBirder and not directed at me. My post was merely to quantitatively compare two lenses, not prove superiority of anything.
Paul_100A wrote:
*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.
Note that we don't need to even bother with format (FF vs M43) to compare two lenses light gathering ability. More light gathered means higher usable shutter speed or less noise. Light gathered is due to the size of the lens' effective aperture (also called entrance pupil). We calculate a lens' f-ratio by dividing it's focal length by the effective aperture. Therefore with a focal length and f-ratio, we can get the effective aperture. For our two lenses:
Olympus 300mm f/4 | 300mm / 4 = 75 mm effective aperture
Sony 200-600 @ 600mm f/6.3 | 600mm / 6.3 = 95.24 mm effective aperture
This is the diameter of the effective aperture, but light gathered corresponds to the area (which is proportional to the square of the diameter). Comparing the two areas:
95.24^2 / 75^2 = 1.61 times the area
We can see this agrees with the previously given figure where I noted the Sony lens is 1.61 times brighter (0.69 stops). The above has nothing to do with sensor format. The Sony lens is simply brighter. The Sony lens is also a zoom, while the Olympus is a prime. All else being equal we should expect the Olympus to be sharper. The Sony is also bigger and heavier because the lens elements are larger for the larger effective aperture (and because it's a zoom).
p.4 #17 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
userjjb wrote:
I assume this is a response to JasonTheBirder and not directed at me. My post was merely to quantitatively compare two lenses, not prove superiority of anything.
Note that we don't need to even bother with format (FF vs M43) to compare two lenses light gathering ability. More light gathered means higher usable shutter speed or less noise. Light gathered is due to the size of the lens' effective aperture (also called entrance pupil). We calculate a lens' f-ratio by dividing it's focal length by the effective aperture. Therefore with a focal length and f-ratio, we can get the effective aperture. For our two lenses:
Olympus 300mm f/4 | 300mm / 4 = 75 mm effective aperture
Sony 200-600 @ 600mm f/6.3 | 600mm / 6.3 = 95.24 mm effective aperture
This is the diameter of the effective aperture, but light gathered corresponds to the area (which is proportional to the square of the diameter). Comparing the two areas:
95.24^2 / 75^2 = 1.61 times the area
We can see this agrees with the previously given figure where I noted the Sony lens is 1.61 times brighter (0.69 stops). The above has nothing to do with sensor format. The Sony lens is simply brighter. The Sony lens is also a zoom, while the Olympus is a prime. All else being equal we should expect the Olympus to be sharper. The Sony is also bigger and heavier because the lens elements are larger for the larger effective aperture (and because it's a zoom)....Show more →
that's great. thanks.
i'm still not into the maths of photography...just the end results/image quality (well, size/weight/money of the equipment too).
well maybe i am into some maths of photography;
+ good lens
+ good camera
+ good camera operator
+ good processing skills/apps
= (possibly) good image with good image quality.
minor deficiencies in one or two areas which may affect/degrade overall image quality may be overcome by extra strength in other areas.
in retrospect i will add...
i have no difficulties following the maths of photography.
i am not denying what the maths prove.
in my experience and according to my usage/purposes/requirements of my photography equipment, the topic of 'the maths of photography' is of no interest to me.
i should have been more clear in saying that I do not find it funny that the maths of photography prove what they prove. i find it funny that in spite of what the maths prove...real world results often do not follow the math's teachings.
i also find it funny when i see/know a person who has the best ($$$) photography equipment at their disposal yet they can make no better use of it photographically than if they were to use it as a hammer.
p.4 #18 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Paul_100A wrote:
that's great. thanks.
i'm still not into the maths of photography...just the end results/image quality (well, size/weight/money of the equipment too).
well maybe i am into some maths of photography;
+ good lens
+ good camera
+ good camera operator
+ good processing skills/apps
= (possibly) good image with good image quality.
minor deficiencies in one or two areas which may affect/degrade overall image quality may be overcome by extra strength in other areas.
in retrospect i will add...
i have no difficulties following the maths of photography.
i am not denying what the maths prove.
in my experience and according to my usage/purposes/requirements of my photography equipment, the topic of 'the maths of photography' is of no interest to me.
i should have been more clear in saying that I do not find it funny that the maths of photography prove what they prove. i find it funny that in spite of what the maths prove...real world results often do not follow the math's teachings.
i also find it funny when i see/know a person who has the best ($$$) photography equipment at their disposal yet they can make no better use of it photographically than if they were to use it as a hammer. ...Show more →
If isolating your subject is your main focus, real world results will always follow the math if you can fill the frame with your subject at 600mm f4 on a full frame vs a 300mm f4 on m43. This is irrefutable
p.4 #20 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Tom Reynolds wrote:
And finally, the m43 rig is hand-holdable while a 600f4 lens is not for most people
Tom
While the m43 rig is no doubt easier to use most can handle a modern 600/4 with a little practice. But the m43 setup will let you quicker and easier get into position and sometimes into positions that can be quite challenging with a 600/4.
