Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

didn't you use to have some M43 camera, or am i somehow confusing you with someone else? could that be an option? should be doable in similar/smaller size than the a6000 with similar image quality.
 
I do have an M43, I have en E-PL1. I still like it, with the 20mm pancake it can produce images of great quality. However, there is a number of issues which prevent me from using it regularly:

- handling/menus is not so good (when you're used to a DSLR)
- speed of operation (mainly regarding autofocus) is not so good
- it doesn't have a viewfinder
- it doesn't have focus peaking (very helpful when using manual focus lenses)
- it's not so good in low light

It does take stunning pics when the situation allows it, but overall I think it is too fiddly and too complicated when you want to get all the settings right for that one moment.

I did consider selling the body and buying a newer generation M43 camera. The Lumix pancake (which is the only M43 lens I own) still is excellent, so I could continue to use it. However, while many newer bodies bring at least some of those desired features, I would find myself wanting one of the high end M43 cameras. Those however come at a price and a size which the Sony Alpha 6000 beats while ticking all those boxes.

Regarding the maximum possible image quality at this size and this price, despite trying, I found no camera which will currently beat the Sony Alpha 6000. As documented on FinalGear I am not a Sony fan, but it seems they got it right with this one.
 
fair enough :) ... and i agree, you'd definitely want to end up with one of the higher end m43 cameras. i made the switch from e-pl1 to e-m10 in the beginning of 2014 and am very happy with that (disregarding GAS ofc), but i admit that is already fairly expensive.
 
eizbaer said:
fair enough :) ... and i agree, you'd definitely want to end up with one of the higher end m43 cameras. i made the switch from e-pl1 to e-m10 in the beginning of 2014 and am very happy with that (disregarding GAS ofc), but i admit that is already fairly expensive.
Click to expand...
Money is not even so much the subject. Of course there is a limit of what I'm willing to spend, but I would also pay more than the Alpha 6000 + kit zoom currently costs (650-ish Euros). However, all the possible alternatives I checked are either more expensive, bigger, or even both while at best matching the image quality. Another issue is that I'm a pixel peeper, so despite loving the overall looks of the output of Fuji X-series cameras, on a pixel level their X-Trans sensor is not really my thing.

With M43 I have the additional issue that none of my existing older lenses are really useable due to the 2x crop factor. Even the 35mm Leica, which usually is a moderate wideangle and thus an all-purpose-lens, becomes a portrait lens. The APS-C sensor with 1.5x crop really makes a difference there.

Now you come to mention it, are there any Sony E-mount users in this forum at all?
 
Last edited:
Ahaaaaaa! But there is no NEX/Alpha discussion (thread) as such, right? I didn't see anything...
 
Black Z Eddie said:
I don't think there is for any brand. The thread would probably fall off really quick. :)
Click to expand...
You're right. Micro four-thirds has a lively thread going, but no other system seems to stir enough interest.

So what NEX do you have, and are you happy with it?
 
I have the a6000, and HELL YEAH I'm happy with it. This little thing packs a big punch. Image quality and AF accuracy is super excellent. I have Sony's 35 f1.8 and 50 f1.8 (both e-mounts) and typically shoot wide open. I have high confidence as it hits the focus 99% of the time. It even seems more accurate than my A77II (supposedly same AF system). It's a joy to use. If I didn't feel like such dork, I'd have it with it everywhere (grocery store, movies, restaurant, etc). :D
 
Black Z Eddie said:
I have the a6000, and HELL YEAH I'm happy with it. This little thing packs a big punch. Image quality and AF accuracy is super excellent. I have Sony's 35 f1.8 and 50 f1.8 (both e-mounts) and typically shoot wide open. I have high confidence as it hits the focus 99% of the time. It even seems more accurate than my A77II (supposedly same AF system). It's a joy to use. If I didn't feel like such dork, I'd have it with it everywhere (grocery store, movies, restaurant, etc). :D
Click to expand...
Oh damn you, you make me want to have it even more now!!! :lol:
 
There's something in photography I fail to wrap my head around. I'd be grateful if you guys can help me with this.

It's about the amount of light on the sensor (or the exposure if you will) when comparing full frame cameras with crop sensor cameras. For the ease of this, let's compare a full frame camera to a micro four-thirds camera. The crop factor is 2x, so it's easy to calculate. So, let's say we're taking a picture with both cameras and the following lenses at the following settings:

Full frame:
12 Mpx
100mm lens
f/5.6
100/s shutter speed
ISO 100


M43:
12 Mpx
50mm lens
f/2.8
100/s shutter speed
ISO 100

So the angle of view of both pictures should be identical, because the 50mm on the M43 camera is multiplied by the crop factor 2 and effectively has the angle of view of a 2x50mm=100mm lens. Also, the depth of field should be identical for the same reason: due to the smaller sensor the DOF is reduced by the crop factor, so a f/2.8 stop on M43 will give you the same DOF as f/5.6 on FF when using these focal lengths.

But what about the light? Note that both cams use the same ISO and shutter speeds. And for the sake of keeping it simple, let's assume that both sensors have the same sensitivity at ISO 100. My question is: will the resulting pictures have the same exposure? If not, which one will be brighter, and why?
 
Would be new to me, that the crop factor of the sensor influences the f-stop.
Unless you use some kind of adapter which has glas elements in there, so you may lose 1 or 1,5 f-stops of light coming though due to disstortion.

Aperture is always the same for Full Frame and APS-C/whatever. So lower f-stop = more light.
xvga_Aperture%20Diagram_App%20Example%20Photo.jpg
 
the Interceptor said:
But what about the light? Note that both cams use the same ISO and shutter speeds. And for the sake of keeping it simple, let's assume that both sensors have the same sensitivity at ISO 100. My question is: will the resulting pictures have the same exposure? If not, which one will be brighter, and why?
Click to expand...
Based off vids from YT (Northrup, Fro, Granger, etc) hehe :), I believe the FF will be brighter. It pulls in more light. And, you'll need to factor in the megapixels. The smaller megapixels the brighter...like A7S, D4S, 1DX.

ISO 100 will vary a lot. It's not like MPH for example. 100 MPH is 100 MPH regardless if you have a 4 cyl, 6 cyl, 8 cyl vehicle. Same can't be said about ISO.
 
Bobele23 said:
Aperture is always the same for Full Frame and APS-C/whatever. So lower f-stop = more light.
Click to expand...
This is what I was thinking, but then I read a compelling counterargument: a crop sensor only sees the center part of an image, so it effectively only uses a part of the total light coming through the lens.

Black Z Eddie said:
ISO 100 will vary a lot. It's not like MPH for example. 100 MPH is 100 MPH regardless if you have a 4 cyl, 6 cyl, 8 cyl vehicle. Same can't be said about ISO.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, bigger sensors with bigger pixels will usually be more sensitive. But for understanding this whole thing, let's assume that ISO 100 is identical for both cameras.

Let me rephrase the question. Let's take the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens for the M43 mount as an example:

It is a 20mm lens. But because the M43 sensor has a crop factor of 2x, it has the same angle of view as a 2x 20mm = 40mm lens on a FF camera.
It has a max aperture of f/1.7. But because the M43 sensor has a crop factor of 2x, it has the depth of field at max aperture like a 40mm f/3.4 lens on a FF camera.
However, what I don't know is whether the brightness of the image coming through the lens will be equivalent to 40mm f/3.4 FF or 40mm f/1.7 FF. This is what I just don't get.
 
the Interceptor said:
This is what I was thinking, but then I read a compelling counterargument: a crop sensor only sees the center part of an image, so it effectively only uses a part of the total light coming through the lens.
Click to expand...

wouldn't this argument on the other hand mean that the smaller sensor sees the exact same amount of light for the given part of the image as the FF sensor? isn't that basically the definition of those aperture values anyway? in effect this means a difference in dof because of smaller image, but the amount of light should be the same? now i've confused myself, thinking about this too much :?

argh... i read this whole stuff in an article some time, but i can't remember how that turned out, because in the end, who gives a crap as long as your pictures are alright. i'll see if i can find the article i was reading again...
 
eizbaer said:
wouldn't this argument on the other hand mean that the smaller sensor sees the exact same amount of light for the given part of the image as the FF sensor? isn't that basically the definition of those aperture values anyway? in effect this means a difference in dof because of smaller image, but the amount of light should be the same?
Click to expand...
This is my understanding, but some people say otherwise. So if you were to translate the previously mentioned 20mm f/1.7 pancake for M43 into figures comparable to FF, it would be:

a 40mm lens with a depth of field of a f/3.4 lens but the light-gathering ability of a f/1.7 lens. Agreed?
 
After watching some more videos and reading up, I'm beginning to get the hang of this.

One thing I never realized is that ISO is pre-compensated for sensor size. A smaller sensor has a smaller area and thus gathers a smaller total amount of light than a bigger sensor when presented an image of defined brightness. And since ISO is a fixed definition about the total amount of light, a smaller sensor needs a higher amplification to gather the same total amount of light as the bigger sensor.

For example, a FF sensor has 4 times the area of a M43 sensor. Assuming that sensor technology and pixel count is equal, the M43 needs 4x more amplification for the same ISO value. As a result, small sensors appear to be noisier than bigger ones, but actually they aren't. They just operate at higher default amplification levels because they are smaller, so they will produce a noisier image when set to the same ISO values in the camera. When you compensate for this and reverse-engineer the ISO values (e.g. ISO 100 for M43 = ISO 400 for FF, focal length and aperture also compensated for crop factor), the amount of noise in the image will be near identical.

Of course this compensation is not always possible or welcome for specific situations, so the FF sensor may have an edge to produce cleaner images in many situations.
 
Last edited:
I wish they redefined the videography market as well, with the inclusion of 4K. How come that a mobile phone and a matchbox-sized camera already has 4K, but Canon's prosumer offering still is lacking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top