p.7 #1RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
“ The reality is that at the same subject, shutter, aperture diameter and angle of view, you get essentially the same results, independent of sensor size.”
We are going even more OT but this quote is not entirely correct.
At the same MP count M43 pixels are 1/4 the area of FF, so it hits the nyquist limit first. Adding more MP is useless past the nyquist limit, so M43 will always have 1/4 the useful MP of FF.
Yes. Again, aperture DIAMETER, not actual aperture is the salient point. To be clear, total sensor size does not change the math of the Nyquist limit. In this, yes two different physical sensors with identical 3.8 μm pixel sizes share the exact same theoretical Nyquist limit. So an M43 at 15mp has the same Nyquist as a 60mp FF.
If we overlay the curves of noise, DoF, Nyquist and total resolution against format size on top of each other, the advantages AND disadvantages of each sensor become more obvious. In my case, APSC was pushing up against the ISO wall already, though did gain some added DoF for a given compared to FF while losing limited DoF opportunity -- I wrongly assumed I could live with that tradeoff... Conversely, Medium Format pushes up against diminishing DoF wall a bit too significantly, to the point FF becomes sweeter *for my needs.*
Irony for sure, but in that last comment I could actually make a case for using higher resolution APSC for good light landscape images due to net DoF gains at essentially zero noise or DR cost; and wanting FF for travel and street due to superior lower light performance; but of course now we run into the relative size quotient. No free lunch...
p.7 #2RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
only the “spray” part is sacarsm (you need a real tan not spray, spray looks orange)
I have and do get the kids to wear clothes darker than their skin tone.
Why don’t you share why you don’t use M43 exclusively?
I’ve shared the latter repeatedly on the forums here. I use my GFX100s 99% in panoramic or 1x1 modes, so I crop a lot. Using a 100mp to start with, I still have plenty left in the end.
I use Canon FF because I like to do model shoots with my RF50mm f/1.2 and prefer Canon’s eye AF over OM System’s. I also like using alt lenses at their intended focal lengths, so I use them on my R8 and R5 now that there are good adapters for both. I’m selling my Leica M11, because I don’t need its resolution, even though its dynamic range is awesome. I also use my R5 with the 100mm macro to scan my negatives, for which I prefer 45 mp over 20 mp.
I have Fuji APS-c but I’m selling it soon, because it offers no benefit over MFT for me.
p.7 #3RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Well, one thing is for certain - seven pages in, and this thread has done nothing to help me decide whether to keep my Canon system or my Sony system...
p.7 #4RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Cliff L. wrote:
Well, one thing is for certain - seven pages in, and this thread has done nothing to help me decide whether to keep my Canon system or my Sony system...
Luckily for me I don't have to decide.....I love both systems!!
p.7 #5RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Cliff L. wrote:
Well, one thing is for certain - seven pages in, and this thread has done nothing to help me decide whether to keep my Canon system or my Sony system...
p.7 #6RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Cliff L. wrote:
Well, one thing is for certain - seven pages in, and this thread has done nothing to help me decide whether to keep my Canon system or my Sony system...
I pretty much think between Canon and Sony it’s a wash. IQ will be fine either way, so it comes down to ergonomics and lens choices.
And I doubt OP is going to find anything in FF that he actually wants to carry around when he travels.
p.7 #7RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote:
Welcome to my world. 😀
I read your Tokyo thread again. I thought that the RF 24-105/4 and R6MKII are perfect for travel. Anyway, I only worry about weight in case they need to weigh my carry-on luggage or backpack so I think my RF 24-70/2.8 L IS should be OK with the R6MKII and vertical grip.
p.7 #8RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote:
Welcome to my world. 😀
Allow me to make this patently easy for both of you. The primary decision YOU have to make for YOURSELF is system size and weight limits for travel and street vs say landscape, sports, wildlife, or lifestyle. Once you have that cemented, here's my view after years of shooting travel, street, lifestyle and landscape with a multitude of systems from M43 through medium format digital.
M43. You'll make nice "postcard" style images in good light with this system. It won't do shallow DoF or lower light evening outdoors or travel indoors like old churches and such. And why this became a non-option for me.
APSC. You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images, and fare a bit better in lower light, but still not really great at really low light or shallow DoF looks or styles if that's what you're after. Size is nice compared to Canon and Nikon top tier FF, but this advantage is reduced significantly when Sony FF enters the discussion.
MF. Wonderful files, wonderful ability to render DoF styles, arguably the best landscape files you could wish for *as long as you're willing to accept the obvious at 100% diffraction that has crept in after f9.* Not so great at higher ISO, superwide glass, super long glass or faster action needs.
FF. The dreamland of options for everything from super wide to super long, to low light, to wide aperture, shallow DoF, to sweeping, extended DoF landscapes, to fast action and wildlife across all focal lengths. For travel can be heavyish and/or largish compared to APSC.
BUT here Sony has some options Canon and Nikon* don't... IF I couldn't take the weight of a Sony A7R5/6 and smaller f4 zooms and f1.8 primes for travel, I would get an A7CR or A7Cii. The last two with a few f4 zooms are essentially the same size and weight as the Fuji XT5/XH2 cams with their f2.8 zooms. And in the case of superwide, the Tamron FF 12-20/2.8 is a bit smaller and lighter than the Fuji 8-16/2.8 zoom; Sony's f4 70-200 OSS ii is about the same size and weight as the Fuji 50-150/2.8 zoom; and finally the Sony 20-70/4 is about the same size as the newer 16-55/2.8 Fuji zoom; so for the most part this becomes a net sum game where the difference is FF vs APSC. And for me, FF wins 8 days a week.
(*To be fair, Nikon has the Z7ii at about the same weight as the Sony A7R6, but the lenses are all significantly larger. In Nikon's corner however is the outstanding 24-105 zoom, so with that lens alone, it could be a worthy competitor to my Sony choice for travel -- assuming one is willing to put aside several camera function shortfalls compared to the Sony A7R6.)
In my case, the Sony A7R6 with battery and media is 198 gm heavier than the A7Cii. While not trivial, I carried both over my shoulder with the same lenses in the bag for a few extended days of shooting. The weight difference was not really all that noticeable, though surprisingly the size difference was more so; not hugely but there, and more importantly in the end for me, not enough for me to want to give up the newer cameras EVF, exquisite files and enhanced battery life. Add in dual card support and redundancy, and it was an easy decision for me to sell off the A7Cii.
There you have it in a nutshell. Yes, I am claiming FF in general for the broadest flexibility. Moreover, I am claiming Sony FF size and performance superiority for travel in the A7Cxx line; and if you can handle the extra bit of size and weight, I will go on record stating the A7R6 may as close to the ideal "all-around" camera body I have ever owned period...
And yeah, I know some of you won't like me being so utterly direct and decisive here, so flame-suit donned
EDIT: I'm going to go one step further for the OP. Sell EVERYTHING you now have except the Sony Tamron zooms. Buy an A7R6 and an A7CR. Use them with your Tammy zooms and decide what if anything you want to expand on OR eliminate and do it. You should have plenty of cash left over to add a couple GM zooms and good primes and you will literally own the best of all worlds to cover YOUR stated desires. You'll have great lens range, a great body for travel, a great body for landscape, sports and wildlife AND a good backup body to the A7R6 in case you need it.
p.7 #9RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Cliff L. wrote:
Well, one thing is for certain - seven pages in, and this thread has done nothing to help me decide whether to keep my Canon system or my Sony system...
I can personally help you out there. Drop over here with your Canon gear.
As for the OP, every member on this site can give him their opinion, but he still won't know what to do, and will still complain about pretty well every brand and model out there.
p.7 #11RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Can I suggest that you start selling stuff today right here on FredMiranda? This gear doesn't sell overnight and it looks like you're going to have lots of conversations through PM and trips to UPS ahead of you! Good luck with that. don't overthink it.
p.7 #12RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote:
APSC. You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images, and fare a bit better in lower light, but still not really great at really low light or shallow DoF looks or styles if that's what you're after. Size is nice compared to Canon and Nikon top tier FF, but this advantage is reduced significantly when Sony FF enters the discussion.
I’m going to disagree (collegially) with Jack on his description of the capabilities of APS-C.
First, though, I’ll agree that FF has capabilities in areas that are a bit more limited by APS-C. Objectively speaking, 40MP is not 66MP. You can get a bit more bokeh at a given aperture. Low light performance of larger sensors is a bit stronger.
So, with no argument from me, FF pushes the performance envelope a bit further than FF. (Just as miniMF pushes it a bit further than FF, etc.)
However…
“… You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images…”
Well, yes. You can do that with any camera, from your smartphone on up to a Fujifilm GFX system. But I strongly disagree that APS-C is limited to just “postcard style” images.
I’ve sold prints of and licensed a number of APS-C images (in some cases with lesser cameras than the most recent from Fujifilm) and I’m dead serious that I am confident that my XT5 files will print with excellent quality at 20” x 30”. (Larger in some cases. I licensed a slightly cropped APS-C monochrome image of a San Francisco architectural feature to a commercial user at a 44” height — and that was with an earlier Fujifilm camera.)
I regularly do urban night street and travel photography with my Fujifilm system and the results are WAY beyond “postcard” quality.
Now I”m not saying that the APS-C format is ideal for all kinds of photography. I rely on high MP FF gear for almost all of my landscape photography, for example. And while I have done some wildlife photography with my Fujifilm system, it has been less reliable for that than my FF gear.
If I had only a single system, these days it would likely be Sony, and probably based on the A7r6 and the A7CR, with the latter making a reasonably smaller and lighter option if equipped with the right lenses. But with two systems — not for everyone, but works for me — I’m sticking with my Fujifilm APS-C system for travel and street photography given its somewhat smaller size, its manual controls, and Fujifilm’s system of native lenses.
p.7 #13RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m going to disagree (collegially) with Jack on his description of the capabilities of APS-C.
First, though, I’ll agree that FF has capabilities in areas that are a bit more limited by APS-C. Objectively speaking, 40MP is not 66MP. You can get a bit more bokeh at a given aperture. Low light performance of larger sensors is a bit stronger.
So, with no argument from me, FF pushes the performance envelope a bit further than FF. (Just as miniMF pushes it a bit further than FF, etc.)
However…
“… You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images…”
Well, yes. You can do that with any camera, from your smartphone on up to a Fujifilm GFX system. But I strongly disagree that APS-C is limited to just “postcard style” images.
I’ve sold prints of and licensed a number of APS-C images (in some cases with lesser cameras than the most recent from Fujifilm) and I’m dead serious that I am confident that my XT5 files will print with excellent quality at 20” x 30”. (Larger in some cases. I licensed a slightly cropped APS-C monochrome image of a San Francisco architectural feature to a commercial user at a 44” height — and that was with an earlier Fujifilm camera.)
I regularly do urban night street and travel photography with my Fujifilm system and the results are WAY beyond “postcard” quality.
Now I”m not saying that the APS-C format is ideal for all kinds of photography. I rely on high MP FF gear for almost all of my landscape photography, for example. And while I have done some wildlife photography with my Fujifilm system, it has been less reliable for that than my FF gear.
If I had only a single system, these days it would likely be Sony, and probably based on the A7r6 and the A7CR, with the latter making a reasonably smaller and lighter option if equipped with the right lenses. But with two systems — not for everyone, but works for me — I’m sticking with my Fujifilm APS-C system for travel and street photography given its somewhat smaller size, its manual controls, and Fujifilm’s system of native lenses.
YMMV.
(t sure why the following Flickr links aren’t showing the images, but if the problem remains I’ll return and try to troubleshoot.)
I thought my comment might garner a collegial reply from you. You’re not wrong, but honestly neither am I. I’ll wait to hear further thoughts AFTER you get the A7R6.
p.7 #14RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
If you're trying to decide between systems, perhaps instead of concentrating on what you like about one system versus another, consider what you can't live without. Sony isn't the only system I use, though I do consider the e-mount primary and it will be the last to go for three reasons; the 70-200/4GII, the 300/2.8GM, and finding and potentially adjusting a whole new set of adapters sounds about as fun as getting a tooth pulled. While the last thing is something I'd like to avoid, the lenses are unique to the mount and useful enough to me to let them drive my camera purchases. I may envy specific lenses in other lines (both the RF 40/1.2 and Z 35/1.4 look like great inexpensive fun), but it's not terribly difficult to be content without them. So what's unique about your systems and how critical are those things to you?
p.7 #18RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
ruthenium wrote:
First, the "dynamic range" of a camera, at a given ISO, is a number calculated by dividing the signal (light captured by the sensor) by the noise originating from the camera. Thus, "For low-light photography, which is where I run into the most dynamic-range limitations" is a tautology (you say that for low light photography, you are limited by the amount of light).
This is correct that f/0.7 lenses (equivalent to full-frame f/1.4) don't exist. There is a series of manual-focus Voigtländer lenses (see the uploaded image) that offer equivalent f/1.9, and one is equivalent to full-frame f/1.6. The auto-focus MFT lenses are at the full-frame equivalent f/2.4 (f/1.2 on the MFT) at the fastest. Thus, if shooting at f/1.4 and auto-focus are critical for your photography, then the micro-four-thirds systems are not your first choice.
Having said the above, there is one peculiar point.
There are two ways of capturing more light: by shooting as wide-open as possible AND/OR by using longer (more slow) shutter speeds (when the subject permits). It is in the latter case that the outstanding IBIS of my OM-1 II allows shooting hand-held with the shutter speeds as long as 2s. In the situations when a tripod cannot be used, I can collect 4 times (2 stops) more light with the OM-1 II than a camera with a larger sensor that I would typically expect to allow slow shutter speed of no longer than 1/2s when shooting hand-held. Understandably, this wouldn't work for moving subjects (unless you want this for artistic reasons); for everything else, for the amount of light captured by a full-frame camera with an f/1.4 lens, the same amount of light can be captured with a micro four-thirds camera equipped with a f/2.8 lens if using a 4-times slower shutter speed.
This exceptional IBIS of the OM-1 II is also a great help for hand-held macro and semi-macro photogrpahy, and the M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 IS Pro Macro lens can be highly recommended.
To me, the main reason I like my GFX100S II better than the OM-1 II is that the former has 102MP whereas the latter has only 20MP. I find 102MP very useful as this allows extreme cropping and turns every prime lens into an about 2x - range zoom.
When shooting at high ISO (above 2000) the large sensor of the GFX100S II has no advantage in terms of light capture vs. the OM-1....Show more →
p.7 #19RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Does Sony really have that much of a weight advantage? Sure the a7 series is small and light but generally the equivalent lenses across systems with the same or similar focal length and aperture specs are very similar in size and weight. Where Sony may have an advantage for casual travel photography is the variety of super zoom options. Which is great if you want a single camera-lens combo and which might be exactly what the OP needs.
But is the Sony 70-200/4 smaller and lighter than the Canon 70-200/4, for example? Or the 28-70/2.8 options? Or in and around 16-28/2.8? While going with these gives up single-lens convenience and versatility, one also gains one to two stops where one can better exploit some aspects of FF, such as shallower DOF work, when desired. Or better light gathering capability vs. slow lenses and/or smaller formats.
I agree though that Canon hasn't really given small and light FF bodies much consideration beyond the RP/R8 bodies, which aren't exactly competing at the higher end, though the R8's guts are solidly mid-range and in some performance metrics outperform the Sony a7 non-R series. An R5II equivalent 'rangefinder' body style would be very interesting with a top left corner EVF.
In hindsight I think the OP would have benefitted from spending one of his shopping days in Japan at Yodobashi simply comparing every system under the sun for his carry requirements. And base his system decision first on which is most comfortable to carry with the lens(es) he most uses, regardless of sensor format. Point being that if a FF system is ultimately too heavy and will be left behind in the hotel during the latter stages of a trip, then it provides no benefit. OP might as well just use a phone in that case. So his decision to use the m43 system when the Canon became too heavy, seems to point to the solution given he's not printing or exhibiting large images and primarily shooting for personal satisfaction.
This is example from 1D, ISO 3200, Straight out of camera.
DR Equivalent to OM5 ~ ISO 12,800, so if you shoot at ISO 12,800 you would have more or less the same problem
To avoid blowing the highlights here I probably have to dial in like -2 or -3 compensation maybe, but the shadows already look bad.
The problem is ultimately lack of DR at higher ISO. This is the biggest problem with 1D. It can beat modern cameras in other areas, for example the only Sony milc that can match 1/500s flash sync is A9iii, and it can do mechanical shutter speed of 1/16000s which the A1 mechanical shutter cant beat.
I have been chasing more high ISO DR for > 20 years already... its hard for me to accept OM5 DR when A7C exists. ...Show more →
Or rather than using ISO 12,800 on the OM-5 he can use a lens that has a two stop faster aperture, which is often available and have the same depth of field and have 2 stops better DR than the 1D. Yeah you pick up an extra stop of DR with the A7C cameras, but that isn't the same as this three stops worse DR shot that you linked. Nothing even close to that. Yes, the 1D with light that low has really bad DR, but even 2 stops more helps a lot with the shadows.
Note I am not advocating for the OM-5, I was just pointing out that DR is not at all about blowing the highlights like you discussed in the post I quoted. Not blowing the highlights that one cares about, is about getting the exposure right. DR is about the quality of the shadows when you get the exposure right. For some types of shooting that can matter, but even in your example any modern camera, as opposed to the 1D, would do pretty well with the shadows if the exposure is right. Of course good post-processing can help too.
