Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: FrankG on June 15, 2012, 09:31:12 am
-
4/3 vs APS-C sensor size
We all know and accept that the two most determining factors to image quality are the sensor size (not necessarily the most # of pixels) and the lenses.
I am buying a small compact for when I don't want to take my 5DmkII out for 'street shooting' and want to have maximum image quality so that I dont feel compromised or that I cant make a large print (e.g. 16x20")
I am considering the Nex 7 or the Olympus OM-D.
Both are exccellent but on all counts except sensor size (and that the accessory grip is necessary for my big hands on the Olympus) the Olympus wins out for me - weather sealed, IS in the body, range of lenses, quieter shutter ...
the Nex 7 sensor size is 23.5 x 15.6mm
and the Olympus is 17.3x13mm
All along I've been thinking it has to be the Nex 7 for the larger sensor size, and it just occurred to me that aside from the proportional/ratio difference - one being 3:2 (1:1.5) and the other 4:3 (1:1.3) - they're not all that different (2.6mm in height) -the Olympus 4/3 sensor is really almost the same as using the larger Sony APS-C sensor but cropping the long dimension into the 4:3 format.
-
4/3 vs APS-C sensor size
We all know and accept that the two most determining factors to image quality are the sensor size (not necessarily the most # of pixels) and the lenses.
I am buying a small compact for when I don't want to take my 5DmkII out for 'street shooting' and want to have maximum image quality so that I dont feel compromised or that I cant make a large print (e.g. 16x20")
I am considering the Nex 7 or the Olympus OM-D.
Both are exccellent but on all counts except sensor size (and that the accessory grip is necessary for my big hands on the Olympus) the Olympus wins out for me - weather sealed, IS in the body, range of lenses, quieter shutter ...
the Nex 7 sensor size is 23.5 x 15.6mm
and the Olympus is 17.3x13mm
All along I've been thinking it has to be the Nex 7 for the larger sensor size, and it just occurred to me that aside from the proportional/ratio difference - one being 3:2 (1:1.5) and the other 4:3 (1:1.3) - they're not all that different (2.6mm in height) -the Olympus 4/3 sensor is really almost the same as using the larger Sony APS-C sensor but cropping the long dimension into the 4:3 format.
Not so sure...... In linear dimensions they seem pretty close. But if my math is right, in terms of area the APS-C is about a 60% increase over 4/3. That's quite a bit more and/or bigger pixels......
-
I think it's only fair to crop the APS (3:2 dimension) to be the same as the 4/3 (4:3 dimension) or 1:1.5 down to 1:1.3 and then compare
That way the long dimension is the same and there is only a 2.6mm short dimension difference....
-
I think it's only fair..
Why would that only be fair!? Why wouldn't be fair to crop 1.3 ratio to 1.5 and then compare?
-
Really, it all depends on what aspect ratio you generally crop your final images to. If you do tend to print at "classic" paper ratios, the difference is a lot smaller than if you are used to 2:3 sensors and printing the full frame.
-
Sensor size is useful for two things:
- Signal to noise ratio: noise, dynamic range, or whatever we call it is improved the larger the sensor
- DOF: shallower DOF can be achieved the larger the sensor
Between the NEX7 and the OM-D noise differences seem to be very reduced. Shallow DOF is around 1 stop better in the APS sized NEX7, not a great advantage. If really shallow DOF is required FF or larger formats are a better choice.
Michael's review of the OM-D (and he is a NEX7 fan):
"Simply put, the Olympus O-MD E-M5 is a winner, and has now become my preferred camera for travel and urban walk-around shooting"
Regards
-
Just to be clear...
We do know that sensor size as such does not affect DoF don't we? We do know that with smaller sensors you tend to use wider lenses and that's why you get more DoF?
I personally would have thought that the most determining factor for image quality wasn't the sensor size as such but rather a more complex mix of things including the sensor design. For example, it's possible to have a MFT sensor that has bigger pixels than an APS-C sensor and that could affect signal to noise and DR as could having on chip widgets, or not, and such like...
-
We do know that sensor size as such does not affect DoF don't we?
No we don't. If we keep all variables (focal length, aperture and subject distance) constant, the larger the sensor the larger the DOF, but the framing changes too since the FOV is wider. If we adapt focal length and/or subject distance to match the framing (in case we modify subject distance, perspective also changes), the larger the sensor the shallower the DOF.
-
So using two different cameras with different sized sensors with the same lens, aperture and subject distance changes the DoF?
OK.
-
I think it's only fair to crop the APS (3:2 dimension) to be the same as the 4/3 (4:3 dimension) or 1:1.5 down to 1:1.3 and then compare
That way the long dimension is the same and there is only a 2.6mm short dimension difference....
While by no means a universally true, you do have a point there. The 3:2 size lends itself to more cropping as it is many times either too wide or too tall. With 4/3rd there is usually less need of that.
-
So using two different cameras with different sized sensors with the same lens, aperture and subject distance changes the DoF?
DOF and sensor size is a favourite subject to be categoric and state opposite things. It depends on how you see things and which variables you adjust etc.
For landscape photography where you want maximum DOF a smaller sensor size won't help you since you need to open up the aperture to avoid diffraction to keep the resolution. But since smaller sensors typically have lower resolution one can accept more blurring and thus it appears one have more DOF.
If you want as short DOF as possible you'd want the format that can have the largest aperture in relation to the sensor size, which is full-frame where you can get say f/1.2, which is considerably shorter DOF than f/1.0 on 4/3 sensors. One can multiply with the crop factor to compare, 4/3 has 2x crop factor so f/1.0 on that corresponds to 1.0 x 2 = f/2.0 on full-frame.
Video/film cameras tend to have small sensors, the idea is to have fairly large DOF with large apertures so you get a lot of light on the sensor so you can film with the fixed shutter speeds you have. A drawback with large sensors when you need large DOF is that you need a smaller aperture so the shutter speed goes up.
-
Hi,
The way I see it:
There are two advantages of having larger sensor size:
1) A larger sensor collects more photons, that's good for noise and DR.
2) A larger sensor would potentially resolve fine detail better using the same quality lens
3) Shadow noise depends much on sensor technology while factors 1-2 do not.
Regarding DoF it may matter little. With a larger sensor you may need to stop down more but a larger sensor will have better ISO and also better edge contrast on small detail (MTF), so you may stop down a bit more and still achieve the same quality. The 4/3 systems seem to have some very good lenses, but that advantage goes away if you stop down excessively.
In summary, I'd say that general image quality will be better with an APS-C sensor, especially as the Sony sensors seem to best of breed. Regarding DoF you will probably something like stopping down one stop more on APS-C.
Regarding cropping, what is relevant is how you crop. I usually crop according to image content and not to paper format.
You could also consider waiting a couple of months? Some interesting things may show up at Photokina. With digital we are not really bound by old film formats. Some new interesting concept with larger or smaller sensors may show up.
Best regards
Erik
4/3 vs APS-C sensor size
We all know and accept that the two most determining factors to image quality are the sensor size (not necessarily the most # of pixels) and the lenses.
I am buying a small compact for when I don't want to take my 5DmkII out for 'street shooting' and want to have maximum image quality so that I dont feel compromised or that I cant make a large print (e.g. 16x20")
I am considering the Nex 7 or the Olympus OM-D.
Both are exccellent but on all counts except sensor size (and that the accessory grip is necessary for my big hands on the Olympus) the Olympus wins out for me - weather sealed, IS in the body, range of lenses, quieter shutter ...
the Nex 7 sensor size is 23.5 x 15.6mm
and the Olympus is 17.3x13mm
All along I've been thinking it has to be the Nex 7 for the larger sensor size, and it just occurred to me that aside from the proportional/ratio difference - one being 3:2 (1:1.5) and the other 4:3 (1:1.3) - they're not all that different (2.6mm in height) -the Olympus 4/3 sensor is really almost the same as using the larger Sony APS-C sensor but cropping the long dimension into the 4:3 format.
-
So using two different cameras with different sized sensors with the same lens, aperture and subject distance changes the DoF?
Correct, this is basics in photography. Using two different cameras with different sized sensors with the same lens, aperture and subject distance changes the DOF and the FOV on a print of the same size and observed at the same distance.
You will perceive a larger area in front of and behind your subject to be in focus in the larger sensor copy, because the projected circles of confusion in that copy will be smaller. This is what DOF is about.
Regards
-
For landscape photography where you want maximum DOF a smaller sensor size won't help you since you need to open up the aperture to avoid diffraction to keep the resolution. But since smaller sensors typically have lower resolution one can accept more blurring and thus it appears one have more DOF.
This is wrong. In a smaller sensor, at the same aperture you suffer more from diffraction, but you need to stop down less your lens yo get the same DOF. In the end both effects compensate, and no format size is specially better to achieve large DOF's. An APS-C camera at f/11 will provide the same DOF and diffraction blur as a FF camera at f/16.
Regards
-
This is wrong.
I guess you did not really read what I wrote. I explained why smaller sensors may appear to have more DOF, I do know that if you want to achieve a specific resolution and you can choose aperture at will a smaller sensor won't help you.
-
From my understanding, depth of field cares not what size the image area is. Depth of field is dependent on focal length and F-stop. On a Minox or an 8x10 camera a 100mm lens at f5.6 will have the same depth of field. Unless my memory serves me wrong - I have discussed this subject many many times in my career.
-
I guess you did not really read what I wrote. I explained why smaller sensors may appear to have more DOF, I do know that if you want to achieve a specific resolution and you can choose aperture at will a smaller sensor won't help you.
Right, I read too quickly and thought you meant larger sensors are better to achieve large DOF's. My apologies.
-
If we adapt focal length and/or subject distance to match the framing (in case we modify subject distance, perspective also changes), the larger the sensor the shallower the DOF.
We do recognize that your explanation actually confirms what scooby70 already said - sensor size itself does not directly affect DOF?
Your mentioned change of focal length/or subject distance for adaption towards the same angle of view is what causes the change regarding DOF, not the sensor size itself.
Sure, the sensor size is the reason for making these changes in order to get useful comparisons as it dictates which angle of view corresponds to which focal length, but it's not the primary cause for any differences regarding DOF.
Greetings
-
Your mentioned change of focal length/or subject distance for adaption towards the same angle of view is what causes the change regarding DOF, not the sensor size itself.
If you keep all parameters the same and use different formats, you get different DOF: larger DOF with larger format. This means sensor size changes DOF itself.
If in addition to changing the format size you alter focal length (or subject distance) to preserve the framing (for example), you alter DOF in two ways simultaneously: larger format will tend to increase DOF, while larger focal length (or closer subject distance) will reduce DOF; and the second effect (DOF reduction) will prevail. That is why a FF camera produces shallower DOF for the same aperture and framing than an APS or 4/3 camera.
Just enter any values on Dofmaster (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html), change format (and only format), and see if DOF changes or remains the same. If it changes, you will agree that format size changes DOF itself.
Regards
-
From my understanding, depth of field cares not what size the image area is. Depth of field is dependent on focal length and F-stop. On a Minox or an 8x10 camera a 100mm lens at f5.6 will have the same depth of field. Unless my memory serves me wrong - I have discussed this subject many many times in my career.
You left out one other factor. The size of the acceptable circle of confusion, which is directly impacted by the final print size and viewing distance.
Tom Frerichs
-
Leaving the interesting DoF discussion aside (eheeem). Sorry if I sound double sarcastic, but one could state that about all digital camera's: "they're not all that different". I would say that a main difference of these two is their sensor size, and if you try your Canon lenses on both you will see the difference. If you cannot use your Canon lenses on both I would say that one argument is missing for choosing either one of these, and its up to yourself to decide if this matters.
Anyway, best of luck!
-
To return to the original post, I should think the real decision is going to rest on how you feel about using the cameras and how they handle. In this comparison the IQ question is going to be less important.
Jim
-
G
Leaving the interesting DoF discussion aside (eheeem). Sorry if I sound double sarcastic, but one could state that about all digital camera's: "they're not all that different". I would say that a main difference of these two is their sensor size, and if you try your Canon lenses on both you will see the difference. If you cannot use your Canon lenses on both I would say that one argument is missing for choosing either one of these, and its up to yourself to decide if this matters.
Anyway, best of luck!
I suspect that the relative strengths of the AA filters and differences in sensor technology would outweigh the difference in size with current sensors. No empirical basis to say, just saying it.
-
No we don't. If we keep all variables (focal length, aperture and subject distance) constant, the larger the sensor the larger the DOF, but the framing changes too since the FOV is wider. If we adapt focal length and/or subject distance to match the framing (in case we modify subject distance, perspective also changes), the larger the sensor the shallower the DOF.
Hi Guillermo,
Scooby70 is partly correct when he writes: We do know that sensor size as such does not affect DoF don't we? We do know that with smaller sensors you tend to use wider lenses and that's why you get more DoF?
If we keep all variables constant, such as focal length, aperture, and subject distance, the larger sensor will produce a larger field, a wider 'field of view' or wider FoV. In some situations, that larger field may have greater depth, and only then will the image exhibit greater DoF.
Consider the example of a photograph of the facade of a house in which the whole house fills the frame of the smaller sensor, using a fairly wide aperture so that not all parts of the house are equally sharp, like the ridge of the roof, which is furthest away and therefore a little soft.
Supposing we take the same shot with a camera with a larger sensor, using the same lens with the same settings. The DoF of the facade of the house will be approximately the same. The ridge of the roof will be equally soft in both shots, and all other parts of the facade will be equally sharp (depending on sensor pixel density).
What may be more blurred in the shot using the larger sensor are any parts of the scene outside of the FoV of the smaller sensor, which are further away, or closer to, the person taking the shot, such as background mountains, or the garden in front of the house. If there are no parts further away, or closer, in the wider shot, DoF will not be shallower.
In this sense, any apparent shallower DoF in the image from the larger sensor is not due to the sensor size as such, or per se, but is both scene and FoV dependent.
One has to ask here, is it sensible to talk about differences in DoF between different images? Is it meaningful?
Cheers!
-
As a practical manner and currently owning APS-C, 4/3 mirrorless, and full frame DSLR cameras, the mirrorless have limitations which go beyond the size of the sensor. The 4/3 sensor is 6x as large as that on most P&S cameras and is good up to ISO 1600 so it should not be discounted out of hand.
The problems I see related to the lack of a viewfinder which results in two problems, one being the inability to quickly select a point of focus, and the second being the inability to brace the camera and instead having to hold it out from the body to view the LCD display on the back. I need 2x the shutter speed with the same FOV with any mirrorless camera compared to a standard DSLR with a viewfinder.
For photographing whales from the deck of a boat or birds in flight the mirrorless is a poor choice. For photographing hand held in low light the mirrorless camera is a poor choice. But that leaves open many situations, especially with the addition of flash where the mirrorless cameras are quite good.
I bought a 4/3 mirrorless Olympus E-PL1 for my wife and it has a flash that pops up and extends away from the camera for good fill flash and it has the ability to remotely provide TTL control over a remote Olympus or Metz flash which is a huge advantage compared to most non Canon or Nikon cameras. I have used this same feature to good advantage with my D200/D300/D800E cameras and with the SU-800 on my D3.
I read too many posts where people find themselves physically unable to carry around more than one lens with their DSLR and want advice on which ONE lens they should choose. They would be better off in many cases with a 4/3 camera and a zoom lens - the E-PL1 with its battery and 28-84mm FOV equivalent zoom weighs a total of 17 ounces or less than most of my Nikon lenses by themselves.
-
The problems I see related to the lack of a viewfinder which results in two problems, one being the inability to quickly select a point of focus, and the second being the inability to brace the camera and instead having to hold it out from the body to view the LCD display on the back. I need 2x the shutter speed with the same FOV with any mirrorless camera compared to a standard DSLR with a viewfinder.
Of course, this is not an issue with the Olympus E-M5 or the Pansonic GH-x series, all of which have built-in EVFs.
-
Or the very first m4/3 camera, the Panasonic G1, which my wife still uses very happily. The G2 and G3 follow the same form with an excellent built-in EVF, as does my GH2. And of course an accessory EVF is available for many other m4/3 cameras. I would consider it a mandatory purchase.
-
In his review of the OMD, Michael says it's good up to ISO 3200, and is very comparable to the NEX's APS-C sensor.
The D3 was, three years ago, considered a brilliant low-light camera, and I would not routinely push that past ISO 3200. I have two GX1s with the optional viewfinders and consider them the best street cameras I've ever used.
-
Hi Guillermo,
Scooby70 is partly correct when he writes: ...
Talking about DoF is one of the most contentious issues :D
In the past I've taken the same shot from the same spot with two different cameras with very similar lenses set to the same aperture. To make life easy a 5D and MFT (Micro Four Thirds, x2 crop) were good to compare. What I got was two images with different fields of view, as expected, and if I ignored or cropped out the image elements in the 5D shot which were not present in the MFT shot what I got was two images which in pretty much all real world ways were identical, and this didn't surprise me. There will be differences if we look closely enough as they're captured by very similar but not identical lenses and different chips but essentially the images were the same.
Given two sensors of identical design but different size there should be no difference at all between a whole and a cropped image. I believe that some DSLR's have a "crop" shooting mode so anyone lucky enough to own one should be able to test this theory.
Magnification, viewing distance and circles of confusion often get spoken about in discussions about DoF but it's best to concentrate on aperture, focal length and camera to subject distance unless going to extremes, IMVHO.
So, what works for me personally is believe that sensor size has no (real world) effect on DoF, not in the way that aperture, zoom length and camera to subject distance do as that's what my own logic and own tests show me. Anyone else is free to take and compare their own images and that's easy these days as many of us now own cameras with different sized sensors. Once shots have been taken and compared we are all free to make our own minds up about what affects DoF :D It's just that in my own mind, saying that cropping a image alters the DoF makes no sense at all :D
-
One has to ask here, is it sensible to talk about differences in DoF between different images? Is it meaningful?
Only as a mental exercise or when wanting to start a fight in an empty room :D
-
No no no, this is not true. The sensor size has no effect on DOF except thru the requirement for wider lenses for smaller sensors.
Think about it. Take a 4x5 view camera with a certain lens at a specified aperture. The image on the ground glass will have a certain depth of field. Now put a rectangular mask over the ground glass so that you can see only the middle 2x3 inch area - the equivalent of a smaller sensor - and change nothing else. Do you really think the DOF will change? Duh, no!
-
No no no, this is not true. The sensor size has no effect on DOF except thru the requirement for wider lenses for smaller sensors.
Think about it. Take a 4x5 view camera with a certain lens at a specified aperture. The image on the ground glass will have a certain depth of field. Now put a rectangular mask over the ground glass so that you can see only the middle 2x3 inch area - the equivalent of a smaller sensor - and change nothing else. Do you really think the DOF will change? Duh, no!
One has to ask here, 'The DoF of what?' The DoF of the uncropped scene, or the DoF of the cropped scene?
The reason why I can't completely disagree with Guillermo, is because Depth of Field is fundamentally a property of a field that has an illusion of depth on a two-dimensional representation.
Sometimes a change in the extent and size of the field, through cropping, will also result in a change in the depth of that field (ie. the fuzzy bits are cropped out). However, sometimes there may be no fuzzy bits, or fuzzier bits in the wider shot. Using the larger sensor we may simply get a wider shot of the facade of a large house, showing more windows and awnings.
To make this point clearer for the benefit of those who are logically challenged, we should go back to the basic definition of DoF. The defintion I'm using in this post is as follows. "Depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image." This is also the definition that Wikipedia uses.
A major point in this definition, is that DoF is essentially a property of a scene. If one changes the scene (through cropping) then clearly the possibility of changing the DoF must exist, but it's not inevitable or unavoidable. It depends on the scene. This is why I maintain that a change in sensor size, keeping everything else the same, will not always result in a change in DoF, but sometimes it will. Therefore both Guillermo and Scooby 70 are partially correct, but neither is completely correct.
For the benefit of those who are new to such concepts, all cameras in reality are cropped-format cameras. The difference is only in the degree of cropping. The image circle projected by the lens is always cropped. If it weren't, you'd have a circular image with a very dark and degraded circumference. Whether the scene is cropped by the sensor, or cropped in post-processing, makes no difference if the resulting FoV is the same.
-
It's just that in my own mind, saying that cropping a image alters the DoF makes no sense at all :D
It makes sense when you apply the definition of DOF: area (distance) in front of and behind the focused subject, that still seems to be in focus to our eyes for a given angle of observation of the image. If you use a cropped image, you could be able to distinguish blurred elements that appeared to be in focus in the non-cropped image, just because in the cropped version you are observing them with a higher magnification.
For the same reason and according to the definition, DOF changes with the viewing distance to a printed image. An image that may look to be entirely in focus to your eyes when observed from let's say 10m, could reveal out of focus elements as you get closer to the print.
People stating that DOF doesn't get altered with format, just don't understand the definition of DOF.
Regards
-
It makes sense when you apply the definition of DOF: area (distance) in front of and behind the focused subject, that still seems to be in focus to our eyes for a given angle of observation of the image. If you use a cropped image, you could be able to distinguish blurred elements that appeared to be in focus in the non-cropped image, just because in the cropped version you are observing them with a higher magnification.
For the same reason and according to the definition, DOF changes with the viewing distance to a printed image. An image that may look to be entirely in focus to your eyes when observed from let's say 10m, could reveal out of focus elements as you get closer to the print.
People stating that DOF doesn't get altered with format, just don't understand the definition of DOF.
Regards
On the other hand, Guillermo, if we keep all variables constant, which is the condition you stated in an earlier post, then these changes in viewing distance should not apply.
When isolating a specific quality for comparison, such as DoF and how it may change with sensor size, one should try to keep all other variables constant if possible. If you wish to compare how DoF changes with viewing distance from a print, then that should be a separate experiment in which one should keep not only sensor size, print size, and lens settings constant, but actually use the same camera and lens.
However, there are certain situations when it may not be possible to keep all other variables constant, as is the case when comparing images taken with different size sensors using the same lens, with same settings, from the same position.
If one crops the image from the larger sensor to the same size and aspect ratio of the image from the smaller sensor, then one is effectively comparing equal size sensors. Not much point in that, unless one is comparing some other quality such as the effect on resolution from the different pixel densities of the two sensors, as in a comparison between the Canon 7D and the 5D3.
In order to compare the effect that the larger sensor has on the DoF of a scene, one cannot sensibly crop the scene from the larger sensor in post-processing, because that would constitute a discarding of image information, and scene information, from the larger sensor. That would be really unscientific. However one should at least try to keep other variables constant, such as lens, aperture, focal length, shooting position, and print viewing distance.
But what about print size? Here we have a dilemma. If the two different size sensors happen to have the same pixel count and the same aspect ratio, we can also achieve equal print size without discarding any image information from one of the sensors and without applying unequal interpolation to the images for printing purposes.
Whilst there certainly are cameras with different size sensors but similar or identical pixel counts, such as the Canon 1Ds2 and the Nikon D7000, the larger sensor usually has more pixels, so for the sake of clarity on this issue I'd make the following summary.
When comparing the DoF of two different sized sensors, it's not possible to keep all variables constant. The options are:
(1) Keep everything constant except FoV, and print size in circumstances when the two sensors have a different pixel count.
(2) Keep FoV constant by changing focal length of lens used, with the same problem applying to print size in accordance with pixel count.
Take your pick. ;D In both situations there is at least one additional variable which cannot be constant, apart from the obvious variable of sensor size which is a necessary variable and the basis of the comparison.
-
When comparing the DoF of two different sized sensors, it's not possible to keep all variables constant. The options are:
(1) Keep everything constant except FoV
Ray, FOV is not an independent variable, it's a resulting variable of sensor size and focal length. Hence it cannot be preserved if sensor size changes and focal length remains. The point is that sensor size itself (i.e. if you voluntarily only change sensor size/cropping and don't touch anything else) affects DOF. And it also affects FOV, since FOV is another output variable.
I think it is not worth taking the discussion furhter because it has become purely semantic/philosophycal and I think we all agree in what's going on.
-
I think it is not worth taking the discussion furhter because it has become purely semantic/philosophycal and I think we all agree in what's going on.
Good! I thought I sensed some disagreement on the issue in previous threads, which is why I contributed my opinion in the hope of dispelling some confusion. ;D
-
I think it is not worth taking the discussion furhter because it has become purely semantic/philosophycal and I think we all agree in what's going on.
Not to mention that the thread has been totally hijacked
-
Not to mention that the thread has been totally hijacked
By whom? All my comments are directly related to the effects and consequences of differences in sensor size. Isn't this the subject of the thread, the impact of the different sensor sizes of 4/3rds format and APS-C format?
-
You can stitch or crop images taken with the same lens, aperture, and perspective(same physical location of lens and subject) from different sensors and easily demonstrate the DOF is identical. What's harder to determine theoretically is what the IQ of each will be.
In any case, pretty much any current camera will take excellent pictures in normal conditions. I'd say base your purchase on ergonomics first, lens availability second, and subject type (low light, portrait, sports, etc.) last.
p.s. Just get the D800 and don't worry about any of the above :)
-
p.s. Just get the D800 and don't worry about any of the above :)
...and if you get a D800 add also a D3200 as a second body. Just a little bit larger as the MFT Panasonic G3 - to come back to the 4/3 vs APS-C sensor size discussion.
-
Well I'm ready to go out and finally buy my next compact camera and this discussion seems to not have helped at all ???
I think have it narrowed down to either the Panasonic GX-1, Olympus Penn, or the Sony Nex-7
Yes the OM-D is a winner but it seems much bigger and bulkier and defeats the purpose of a very low profile - consumer looking - camera. It would seem to me that the lens choices are paramount to the comparison. My first choice for a lens would be a 24-28mm equivalent. Then a 35 and 50. Any opinions on the best optics for these? I have no interest in the bulky zooms - I want to only stick with the smallest glass I can find- maybe M mounts? I also have no need for autofocus. Optical quality and bulk are more important.
Thanks for any opinions.
-
Why the GX-1 or the Pen series? Will you use it held out in front, or will you purchase the optional eye-level EVF and hold it up to your face? If so, you lose quite a bit of the sleek shape and low profile of these cameras.
Having used most of the Panny and Olympus m4/3 cameras, I much prefer the built in viewfinder of my GH2 (and I expect I would like the OMD.) For lenses, I like the Panasonic 14/2.5, the Panasonic 20/1.7 (though many love the 25/1.4), and the Olympus 45/1.8. All are terrific lenses. Some folks like the Oly 12/2, which is 24mm-equivalent and fast, though larger and heavier than the tiny Panny 14. For now I use an old Tamron 90 macro for a long lens.
If I had to do it over again, I would buy the Panasonic 7-14/4 zoom for my wide angle, and use it with the 20 and 45. Next on my list is the Panasonic 100-300 zoom, which also gets high marks.
The reality is that any of these cameras would be a fine choice. Pick one and start shooting, and just ignore all the talk of new cameras on the market for several years. Good luck.
-
I'm not crazy about the miniature SLR shape of the OMD or the GF-2 - I like the smaller slimmer bodies. The Sony has the benefit of a digital finder but without the shape of the slr. Yes the 12 f2 would be one of my chosen lenses if I went with olympus. I with the Sony had a better selection of lenses.
-
I bought a Lumix GF1 not long after it came out, along with the Panasonic 20mm F1.7, 7-14mm F4, and 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 lenses.
I was reasonably happy with it, but found that the lack of an EVF was a bigger pain than I expected. It's awkward to hold the camera in front of me, and hard to keep it steady. I looked at the optional attachable EVF, but the the picture quality was just too poor for me to part with my money.
The lack of in-camera image stabilization was also a limitation. The 20mm F1.7 is a terrific lens, but the lack of image stabilization and the difficulty of holding the camera steady somewhat limited its low light potential.
This Monday I yielded to temptation and upgraded to an Olympus OM-D E-M5. My experience so far is limited to a few low light shots and a lunch time stroll around central Sydney, but my initial impressions are very favourable. Here is a quick summary of my main observations, if they're of any interest to anyone:
Shooting with the EVF is vastly superior to using the rear display. I would go so far as to recommend avoiding any camera without an EVF or a reflex mirror.
The electronic level in the viewfinder is great. I hate even slightly crooked photos, but I'm not good at judging when the camera is level. My only complaint is that the level could be a little more sensitive. It seems to let you tilt the camera a few degrees before it indicates that it's not level.
I haven't had a chance to properly test the in-camera image stabilization, but it promises to be a killer feature in combination with fast optics.
The metering definitely tends to underexpose slightly, but it's very consistent - large areas of shadow or sky didn't seem to confuse it. In most cases I think 1/3 or even 2/3 of a stop of exposure compensation would be a good idea.
The image quality is good for the sensor size. With default settings in Lightroom I saw some noise even at ISO 200, but it has an inoffensive quality, like film grain. I expect it would be unnoticable at realistic print sizes, or easily removed with a few adjustments in Lightroom.
The 14-45mm lens did pretty well considering its low price, but it wasn't really worthy of the sensor. I've ordered an Olympus 45mm F1.8 and a Panasonic 25mm F1.4. Combined with my 7-14mm and 20mm they should make a great team. The Olympus 75mm F1.8 looks interesting, but pricey. I considered the 12-35mm F2.8, but decided to get the cheaper, faster, and probably sharper 25mm F1.4 instead.
-
Just to add to the confusion (there is confusion, isn't there?), the Canon G1X has a sensor slightly larger than the 4/3, but of course, smaller than APS-C. I've been considering it as an alternative to the Fuji X100 (APS sensor) & some of the various 4/3 offerings.
I want something lighter & smaller than my FF DSLR, no need for interchangeable lenses (and a fixed 35mm equivalent as on the X100 would do), don't want to be holding the camera at arm's length (so viewfinder please), want good ergonomics, and image quality is paramount.
It'll be a travel camera as much as anything else, so landscapes, city-scapes, 'street', family holiday snaps/portraits etc.
Thoughts on the merits of the Canon sensor could be enlightening & useful
-
People stating that DOF doesn't get altered with format, just don't understand the definition of DOF.
Regards
Indeed.
DoF only "exists" when a print (screen) size is defined and the image is viewed from a defined distance by a human who perceives which parts are "sharp". If those conditions are not met, DoF remains merely a qualitative concept.
To compare DoFs from different situations, the parameters that are fixed and those that are changed need to be stated. For example, if there is only a change in the viewing distance, we can say the DoF changes.
To compare the same image using different formats, the FL must be changed to compensate for the difference in AoV from the sensors. To use the same lens from the same camera position means the sensors will record different images. Why would one want to compare the DoF of two different images? What would we learn?
To the question: I am happy with my Lumix GH2, the 7-14, the Leica 25, the 14-140 (walkabout and video) and the 100-300 for wildlife. The more recent Olympus sensor appears to have some advantages over the Panasonic, by all accounts, so I will evaluate a body change later. The whole kit is so much lighter and easier to travel with and produces some great images. Can I print them as large as those from my 5D2 - of course not, but the trade-off is one I am willing to take under some/many circumstances (I have yet to stitch some panos I shot with the 25 but I'm optimistic :D ).
-
I have no problem making very good 16x20 prints from my OLY PL5. I do use PRIME lenses most of the time. The Oly 45mm f/1.8 and a Panasonic 14mm f/2.5. I think being able to carry around several very small and light prime lenses is the secret. They beat out all but the best of the full-frame zooms while being being far lighter and somewhat faster.
This above combo sure beats carrying around my old DSLR with it's bulky zoom lens.
-
It seems we are falling into the typical confusion of comparing the technical qualities of images of different scenes.
If one uses the same lens at the same F/stop with different size sensors, one gets different images. It doesn't make sense to compare the 'depth of field' in two images when the field itself is different.
Using the same lens and F/stop, the larger sensor produces a wider field. If that wider field is cropped to the same width as the image from the smaller sensor, the DoF will be the same, excluding minor variations due to differences in sensor pixel density and sensor resolution.
We experienced a similar confusion some time ago on this forum in relation to perspective. There were those who adamantly argued that focal length of lens has nothing to do with perspective. It's only the position that counts. To demonstrate this misconception, such people would present the argument that cropping a shot taken with a wide-angle lens to the same field of view as a shot taken from the same position using a telephoto lens, resulted in images that appeared to have the same perspective, thus demonstrating the principle that cropping an image is effectively the same as increasing the focal length of lens and that two images shot from the same position, using 'effectively' the same focal length of lens, will have the same perspective in all respects.
-
It seems we are falling into the typical confusion of comparing the technical qualities of images of different scenes.
If one uses the same lens at the same F/stop with different size sensors, one gets different images. It doesn't make sense to compare the 'depth of field' in two images when the field itself is different.
Using the same lens and F/stop, the larger sensor produces a wider field. If that wider field is cropped to the same width as the image from the smaller sensor, the DoF will be the same, excluding minor variations due to differences in sensor pixel density and sensor resolution.
We experienced a similar confusion some time ago on this forum in relation to perspective. There were those who adamantly argued that focal length of lens has nothing to do with perspective. It's only the position that counts. To demonstrate this misconception, such people would present the argument that cropping a shot taken with a wide-angle lens to the same field of view as a shot taken from the same position using a telephoto lens, resulted in images that appeared to have the same perspective, thus demonstrating the principle that cropping an image is effectively the same as increasing the focal length of lens and that two images shot from the same position, using 'effectively' the same focal length of lens, will have the same perspective in all respects.
Perhaps a rigorous definition of perspective would be in order :)
I would submit that you are correct when you state the focal length has nothing to do with perspective, but it doesn't follow from there that the focal lengths are equal.
-
Perhaps a rigorous definition of perspective would be in order :)
I would submit that you are correct when you state the focal length has nothing to do with perspective, but it doesn't follow from there that the focal lengths are equal.
The definition that I use, as found in all the decent-sized English dictionaries that I've checked, is as follows.
"The appearance of objects, buildings, etc, relative to each other, as determined by their distance from the viewer, or the effects of this distance on their appearance."
What I've found, without exception, is that scenes shot with wide-angle lenses result in the appearance, on the print or monitor, of close objects being larger and closer than they seemed to the eye in the real scene at the time the shot was taken, and distant objects appearing further away than they seemed to the eye in the real scene at the time the shot was taken.
What I've also found, without exception, is that scenes shot with a telephoto lens result in the appearance, on print or monitor, of distant objects being much closer than they initially appeared to the eye in the real scene. In fact, if the lens is a long telephoto, objects that are too small for the eye to notice, or plain invisible, can appear in great detail and clarity on print or monitor.
I can therefore only conclude that focal length of lens has a strong influence on perspective. How anyone could argue against this, beats me.
However, that is not to say that position does not affect perspective. Obviously it does. And so does the focal length of lens used.
-
I guess our friend Ray subscribes to the marketing theory that "perception is reality" ;)
-
there is separate term for what you are talking about: perspective distortion.
the ideas are related but they are not the same.
-
The definition that I use, as found in all the decent-sized English dictionaries that I've checked, is as follows.
"The appearance of objects, buildings, etc, relative to each other, as determined by their distance from the viewer, or the effects of this distance on their appearance."
What I've found, without exception, is that scenes shot with wide-angle lenses result in the appearance, on the print or monitor, of close objects being larger and closer than they seemed to the eye in the real scene at the time the shot was taken, and distant objects appearing further away than they seemed to the eye in the real scene at the time the shot was taken.
What I've also found, without exception, is that scenes shot with a telephoto lens result in the appearance, on print or monitor, of distant objects being much closer than they initially appeared to the eye in the real scene. In fact, if the lens is a long telephoto, objects that are too small for the eye to notice, or plain invisible, can appear in great detail and clarity on print or monitor.
And as has been observed many times in these forums, the effect like change in the relative sizes of nearer and farther objects that you see is due to some combination of (a) the typical usage of wider angle lenses closer to the main subject and telephoto lenses from further away, with the camera position then being the cause of the perspective differences, and (b) the presence of a more objects in a wider angle image taken from the same location, so that a great range of distances and apparent sizes are present.
If instead one compares wide and telephoto images taken with a camera at the same location pointing in the same direction and so at the same main subject (but with more peripheral subjects in the wide angle version), for example by using a standard zoom lens on a tripod and taking successive shots at both its shortest and longest focal length, then there is no significant change in the "appearance of objects, buildings, etc, relative to each other" for objects that appear in both images. Instead the telephoto image is essentially a crop of the wide angle image.
-
If instead one compares wide and telephoto images taken with a camera at the same location pointing in the same direction and so at the same main subject (but with more peripheral subjects in the wide angle version), for example by using a standard zoom lens on a tripod and taking successive shots at both its shortest and longest focal length, then there is no significant change in the "appearance of objects, buildings, etc, relative to each other" for objects that appear in both images. Instead the telephoto image is essentially a crop of the wide angle image.
+1
-
The change in perspective because of different FoV is a viewing distance issue. Perspective changes with viewing distance because it comes down to a projection and angular size problem. When the first experiments in linear perspective where done, the idea of the "point of view," not only for the point where the painting was made, but also where it was viewed, was very important. We know know that the 3-D illusion created with linear perspective is a very robust illusion--we can even look at an image from the sides and our visual system will interpret the image as "normal looking."
There are two basic viewing distances; standard viewing distance and the correct viewing distance. The standard viewing distance is equal to the diagonal of the image/print--so a 16x20 print should be viewed at about 25". The correct viewing distance is proportion to ratio of the focal length to the format diagonal, so a 21mm lens on a 35mm camera (diagonal: 43mm) would be about 0.5X and so a 16x20 prints would be viewed at 12.5" for the correct perspective (a perspective we would have experienced). So when the correct viewing distance is less than the standard, the perspective increases; when greater, it decreases.
A "normal" lens is a called that, not because it has the same angle of view as the human eye (it does not), but because the correct and standard viewing distance is the same and the perspective appears normal to the viewer.
Now some folks don't get viewing distance--how can the image change because of that? Well, think about this. We can see if the image was taken by wides or telephotos. We can really notice if the photographer gets close to a wide. But yet, as we actually wander through the world, we don't actually feel our visual perspective change--your significant other does not look anymore strange across a room than when you have your faces close. It only becomes strange when we photograph.
-
It seems we are falling into the typical confusion of comparing the technical qualities of images of different scenes.
If one uses the same lens at the same F/stop with different size sensors, one gets different images. It doesn't make sense to compare the 'depth of field' in two images when the field itself is different.
Using the same lens and F/stop, the larger sensor produces a wider field. If that wider field is cropped to the same width as the image from the smaller sensor, the DoF will be the same, excluding minor variations due to differences in sensor pixel density and sensor resolution.
We experienced a similar confusion some time ago on this forum in relation to perspective. There were those who adamantly argued that focal length of lens has nothing to do with perspective. It's only the position that counts. To demonstrate this misconception, such people would present the argument that cropping a shot taken with a wide-angle lens to the same field of view as a shot taken from the same position using a telephoto lens, resulted in images that appeared to have the same perspective, thus demonstrating the principle that cropping an image is effectively the same as increasing the focal length of lens and that two images shot from the same position, using 'effectively' the same focal length of lens, will have the same perspective in all respects.
First; if there should be any point in comparing one should do that for different images. It doesn't make much sense to compare the same image (to itself) ???
The DoF as defined and used in photography depends on objective measures (CoC), so its quite easy and reasonable to compare the 'depth of field' in two images when the field itself is different.
We experience a similar confusion now for DoF as perspective. Some adamantly claims that a argument (perspective) that can be demonstrated and supported by proof in fact is a misconception. Well, it should be fairly easy to prove this wrong, not only make the claim ;D.
-
First; if there should be any point in comparing one should do that for different images. It doesn't make much sense to compare the same image (to itself) ???
Of course! You've misunderstood me if you think I'm recommending comparing identical images. I'm recommending comparing images of identical scenes. There's a difference. The purpose of such comparisons is find out how the images differ from each other.
The DoF as defined and used in photography depends on objective measures (CoC), so its quite easy and reasonable to compare the 'depth of field' in two images when the field itself is different.
No it isn't. Take a photograph of a brick wall that fills the whole frame, using a good lens at F2.8 that's sharp from corner to corner. Take another photograph of the same wall and same field at F5.6, and compare DoF. Take a third photograph of the same brick wall at F11, but increase the size of the field so there are a few distant, rather blurry trees visible around the borders of the wall. Which image has the largest circles of confusion?
I'd suggest that the images at F2.8 and F5.6 will appear to have the same DoF, and that the image shot at F11 will appear to have a shallower DoF because it's the only image out of the three that has blurred components, the distant trees.
However, when comparing the effects of lens focal length on perspective, it is necessary to compare different fields because that's the purpose of using a different focal length, to create a wider or narrower FoV from the same position. I would be very foolish to use a 14mm lens to shoot a distant bird, thinking I could just crop the wide-angle shot to get the same perspective that a 400mm lens would provide.
Imagine such a comparison. I produce on the one hand a lovely, A3 size print from the 400mm shot, showing the birds feathers, beak and eyes in sharp clarity. On the other hand, I produce an A3 size print from a very small crop resulting in a hugely interpolated print file that gives a very blurred impression of a few daubs of color that might be loosely interpreted as a semi-abstract rendition of a few leaves. The bird is not discernible.
What! Can't you see that these two images have the same perspective? ;D
-
No it isn't. Take a photograph of a brick wall that fills the whole frame, using a good lens at F2.8 that's sharp from corner to corner. Take another photograph of the same wall and same field at F5.6, and compare DoF. Take a third photograph of the same brick wall at F11, but increase the size of the field so there are a few distant, rather blurry trees visible around the borders of the wall. Which image has the largest circles of confusion?
In order to have a meaningful comparison the elements compared must be within the most "tele" crop. The definition and use of CoC is already agreed, so lets not waste time on discussing this. The bottom line being that CoC can be used to decide DoF for any given photography irrespectively of aperture, field of view etc. The purpose is just that; to be able to decide DoF in a objective manner transparent from equipment. Its not a question about "Which image has the largest circles of confusion?", but up to the analyzer to choose an appropriate CoC and then compare with the same CoC across images to check DoF.
From Wiki and other sources “acceptable sharpness” in the final image (e.g., print, projection screen, or electronic display) is that the blur spot be indistinguishable from a point" and
"Visual acuity. For most people, the closest comfortable viewing distance, termed the near distance for distinct vision (Ray 2000, 52), is approximately 25 cm. At this distance, a person with good vision can usually distinguish an image resolution of 5 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm), equivalent to a CoC of 0.2 mm in the final image.
Viewing conditions. If the final image is viewed at approximately 25 cm, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm often is appropriate. A comfortable viewing distance is also one at which the angle of view is approximately 60° (Ray 2000, 52); at a distance of 25 cm, this corresponds to about 30 cm, approximately the diagonal of an 8″×10″ image. It often may be reasonable to assume that, for whole-image viewing, a final image larger than 8″×10″ will be viewed at a distance correspondingly greater than 25 cm, and for which a larger CoC may be acceptable; the original-image CoC is then the same as that determined from the standard final-image size and viewing distance. But if the larger final image will be viewed at the normal distance of 25 cm, a smaller original-image CoC will be needed to provide acceptable sharpness.
Enlargement from the original image to the final image. If there is no enlargement (e.g., a contact print of an 8×10 original image), the CoC for the original image is the same as that in the final image. But if, for example, the long dimension of a 35 mm original image is enlarged to 25 cm (10 inches), the enlargement is approximately 7×, and the CoC for the original image is 0.2 mm / 7, or 0.029 mm."
Imagine such a comparison. I produce on the one hand a lovely, A3 size print from the 400mm shot, showing the birds feathers, beak and eyes in sharp clarity. On the other hand, I produce an A3 size print from a very small crop resulting in a hugely interpolated print file that gives a very blurred impression of a few daubs of color that might be loosely interpreted as a semi-abstract rendition of a few leaves. The bird is not discernible.
What! Can't you see that these two images have the same perspective? ;D
I say that, and further more they have the same perspective irrespectively of what you or I say! The "blurred impression of a few daubs of color" is simply due to that the small crop has been enlarged so much that details are lost. But the perspective will be exactly the same. You are mixing perspective with resolution. If you take your A3 print and aply the same resolution as to the small crop they will be identical. This is simply nothing to discuss unless you claim to change the laws of physics. If this is the case your results should be published elsewhere than here.
-
I say that, and further more they have the same perspective irrespectively of what you or I say!
So in other words, you think that perspective is determined by some mathematical theory or imaginary model that may have nothing to do with what we see? If you see a difference in the perspective of elements in two images and such differences seem at odds with your interpretation of the mathematical model, then you assume that your vision must be faulty. Right? ;)
The "blurred impression of a few daubs of color" is simply due to that the small crop has been enlarged so much that details are lost.
Sorry! You've got that wrong. Enlargement does not result in loss of detail. It's downsizing that results in loss of detail.
But the perspective will be exactly the same. You are mixing perspective with resolution.
No I'm not. Resolution comes first. It is the basis of all images. No resolution, no image. No image, no perspective.
If you take your A3 print and aply the same resolution as to the small crop they will be identical. This is simply nothing to discuss unless you claim to change the laws of physics. If this is the case your results should be published elsewhere than here.
But it is you who are attempting to break the laws of physics by applying the same resolution to a very small crop of a wide-angle shot. The laws of physics put a limitation on lens resolution. It's known as diffraction. The laws of physics also put a limitation on sensor resolution. Such limitations are photonic shot noise, thermal noise, read-out noise, and even the frequency of the light waves themselves which would eventually put a practical limit on the smallness of pixels.