SpecFoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II? | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
SpecFoto wrote:
chiron wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
chiron wrote:
Does anyone have experience shooting both Sony full-frame and Olympus OM1 II Micro-Four-Third images?
Two of the things that I have wished for Sony to do is to make a stacked sensor camera that is no larger than the original A9 and to develop some computational photography functions for its cameras.
I recently came across specs for the newish Olympus OM1 II, and it really caught my attention.
It has a stacked sensor. It is about the same size as the original A9, with lenses that are much smaller than full-frame. It has 8.5 stops of IBIS. It has an array of computational photography features that seem very powerful and useful. For example, it has built-in regular and graduated neutral density filters. The latter let you position the line where the graduation begins and also let you set the angle of the graduation filter line and whether it is a hard or soft line. Users report that its focus-stacking can be used hand-held because of the excellent IBIS. There are lots of jpg filters and the camera lets you save any shot in multiple filter versions rather than only one. There is a lot more, but I won't go into it here.
The concern is that the 20mpix filter is MFT with a 2X crop factor. So, one wonders about details and high ISO performance.
I'd love to hear some reports from Sony users on the Olympus OM1 II's image quality, especially at high ISO, and their experiences in general with the OM1 II camera.
I have used a lot of Sony cameras (A7 II, A7r II, A7r V, A7S, A9, A1) and the Olympus OM 5 and OM 1 (but not the OM 1 II), and my general take is that the OM 1 II is an interesting and compelling camera, but how well it will suit your photography depends on what you like to shoot.
Do you shoot at base ISO a lot? If you do then m4/3rds sensors have a lot less DR at base ISO and that may be an issue for you.
What lenses do you use? Can you get photographically equivalent lenses in the other system. Both systems have lenses that don't really have equivalents in the other system. Let me give a couple of examples.
First, if shooting macro is important than the Olympus 90 f/3.5 2X macro lens has nothing like it for Sony or any other FF system. Its longer effective focal length and high magnification are pretty unique and its slow effective aperture really isn't a problem when depth of field is so thin for close focus and allows the lens to stay pretty small. In my view a 180 f/7 FF 2X macro lens doesn't exist for FF, but it is a really interesting option that may suit some people's photography well.
Second, if you shooting with one or two of the new FF f/2 zooms, then you aren't going to be able to get anything close to that experience with m4/3rds. Recently, Panny/Leica has brought out the 10-25 f/1.7 and 25-50 f/1.7 zooms, which finally get a couple of m4/3rds zooms lenses close to the capabilities of f/2.8 zooms (they are still a half stop deeper in depth of field, however), but they are nowhere close to the new f/2 zooms.
So, I think it is important to consider what lenses you would use for each system. Some will have similar capabilities, but some will be unique. FF lenses will tend to offer shallower depth of field capabilities than is available from any m4/3rds lenses, but that will come with bigger lens size. On the flip size m4/3rds will offer some lenses that are quite small and clearly smaller than anything available for FF but do not offer very shallow depth of field or faster shutter speed capabilities. When lenses offer the same effective focal length and the same depth of field, there won't be much difference in lens size or in what the lens can do or typically even in IQ, except at base ISO where the FF system will still have an advantage.
I hope that helps as you consider the OM 1 II.
......
1) Almost all of my shooting takes place in the range from 24mm to 90mm and can be described as documentary in style, whether it is travel, family, street, or even landscape, architecture, and still life.
2) So, I think I would gain the advantage of smaller lenses and that I would find the lenses I prefer on the Olympus system (though I quail at the thought of starting to acquire more lenses for another system).
3) The different depths-of-field of the sensor formats seems like more of a trade-off than a relative disadvantage to me. There are as many times that I wish for a bit more depth of field as there are that I wish for more isolation of the focal point. So, I am okay with this difference in the formats.
4) I prefer the 4:3 MFT ratio to the 3:2 full-frame ratio.
5) The main concern I have is with overall image quality in printed images (up to 16x20 size, but mostly 5x7), especially with images made at higher ISO settings (usually about 800-3200 and rarely higher than 12800). I am not one who loves very sharp detail in most of my images (I actually find it distracting, calling too much attention to itself). But the image should not appear soft, unless that is what is intended.
6) As for noise at higher ISOs, the advances in noise reduction technology make me think that high ISO images in MFT format might be quite workable.
........
3) For about 90% of my photos the added depth of field I find to be an advantage. When shooting portraits my 17 and 45mm f1.2 Pro primes I still have to be very careful to get both eyes in sharp focus if the subjects head is turned even slightly.
If you want a shot on FF to have the same depth of field as m4/3rds shot and still use the same shutter speed for the shot, simply stop the aperture down 2 stops and turn the ISO up two stops. Because you can almost always stop the lens down and turn up the ISO in that way, m4/3rds really doesn't have an advantage of having more depth of field. Further when you stop down the FF lens by 2 stops the opening in the two lenses will be the same size and that is exactly why depth of field will be the same, and if the sensors are equally effective at converting light to digital signal the imaging properties (things like dynamic range, color depth, noise etc.) will be about the same when the FF sensor has the ISO turned up two stops higher. Simply put, if the lenses have the same sized opening (i.e., they have an equivalent aperture) the depth of field will be the same and if the sensors perform similarly the images from the four times larger sensor of FF will look the same as the image from the m4/3rds sensor at two stop higher. As long as you can stop down and don't reach the minimum aperture, there is no advantage for m4/3rds in creating more depth of field. Believing that there is a depth of field advantage for m4/3rds is a misunderstanding.
Perhaps as example will make this clear. If you are shooting a 45mm f/1.2 prime on m4/3rds and you shoot it at f/4 and ISO 400 and it has the depth of field that you want and a shutter speed of 1/200. A 90mm FF lens shot at f/8 and ISO 1600 and a shutter speed of 1/200 will have the same field of view, the same depth of field, and if the sensors are equally effective at converting light to digital signal then will show the same dynamic range, color depth, noise, etc. The only differences in the photo will be in the rendering of the two lens just like you were comparing two 90mm lenses with the same f/number on FF or two 45mm lenses with the same f/number on m4/3rds. Sensor format wouldn't matter.
Further size wise a 45mm f/1.2 m4/3rds lens and a 90mm f/2.4 FF lens will have the same design constraint that the opening at the widest aperture at the entrance pupil will be the same size. This constraint is important for determining the size of the lens. It isn't the only factor, however, and so which lens will actually be smaller will depend on the specifics of how the lens is built. m4/3rds lens do have an actual shorter focal length, however, which can allow them to be a little shorter, but in the 24mm to 90mm FF range the OP is interested in it won't allow much if any shorter lenses, but allowing shorter lenses is something that really begins to matter as we compare super telephoto type lenses.
….blah, blah, blah… more equivalency bs.
Since 2008 I have taken over 100,000 photos with models for swimsuit, clothing and jewelry manufactures with Nikon D300/D500 APS-C and Olympus M4/3 cameras and NEVER once have I thought that I had to make a crop sensor DOF match the output of a FF camera. They are different and I accepted that back in 2002 when I bought a D100. Long before Sony ever thought about making an 50 mm FF f1.2 lens I was enjoying the benefits of using such super fast primes with crop sensor cameras and manual lenses. When P/Leica introduced the M4/3 42.5mm Nocticron in 2014 it was an immediate buy for me and has remained my most used lens over the last 11 years. It always at F2 or faster.
99% of camera shooters don’t care Steve, the EQ wars are over and the pinheads lost.
|
