Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 07:54:44 pm

Title: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 07:54:44 pm
I own a 1" pocketable camera.  I'm thinking of getting a m43 because it's got a larger sensor.  But I'm not interested in going larger than that.  What are the advantages and disadvantages between the two.   
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 07:56:25 pm
It would be very helpful to hear from those who have both 1" and M43.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on October 21, 2019, 10:22:44 pm
I also have the RX100iv. Before that I had the ii I think it was. Would like to buy the vii. I have also been using the Sony APSC format cameras for about 3 years although I am now mostly out of that system. I owned an A6000, A6300 and A6500. I think that background gives me a few insights.

The APSC and M4/3 give all the usual benefits you would expect with a greater range of lenses than what you are stuck with using the pocket camera. While I really liked the convenience of the RX and still do it is sometimes just too small to hold really comfortably, perhaps I should just use it more and get over that. The RX100iv doesnít have a viewfinder. I like a viewfinder. I was shooting commercially with the A6xxx system, canít really see that happening with the RX

Shooting now on FF commercially I wouldnít go back to A6xxx system for a walk about camera. I would simply upgrade to the RXvii. It has a viewfinder and the user reports I have come across, including some first hand experiences from friends, make me really lust after that camera.

In short it depends what you want to do. For a walking about camera 8 donít think APSC or M4/3 would bring any advantages for me over the RX

Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: BJL on October 21, 2019, 11:02:09 pm
Thanks Alan.

I'm coming at the same question from the opposite side; comparing walk-around options between MFT body with one lens vs a large sensor "compact". My usual lightweight one lens kit is an E-M5 with 12-50/3.5-6.3, and for others the lens could be the 14-42/3.5-5.6 or 12-100/4 or 14-150/4-5.6, or Panasonic's 12-60/3.5-5.6 or 12-60/2.8-4 or 14-140/3.5-5.6. I am tempted by more reach like getting one of the 12-60's or the 12-100.
Then I look at fixed lens ("compact") cameras with 1" and 4/3" sensors, and there are for example 1" format ones with lenses bright enough to offset the speed disadvantage of that smaller sensor.

I will describe everything in 4/3" equivalents rather than 35mm format equivalents, since the latter format is irrelevant to this thread! So, focal lengths and aperture ratios for 1" cameras multiplied by 4/3 and so on. [If you want "35mm film camera" equivalents, just double the numbers!]
 
- The only 4/3" format fixed lens option I know of is the Panasonic LX-100 II with 12-38/1.7-2.8 lens: shortish but brighter than any MFT system zoom lens.
- The Sony RX100 Mk VII in 1" format has a lens equivalent to 12-100/3.7-6 (true f-stop values f/2.8-4.5)
- The Canon G5 X Mk II in 1" format is equivalent to 12-60mm/2.4-3.7 (true f-stop values f/1.8-2.8), so a bit faster than either Panasonic 12-60.
- In APS-C format there is the Canon G1 X Mk III, with lens equivalent to 12-36/2.3-4.5 (16-38/2.8-5.6 true values?)

The main catch is financial; I would still need an ILC body to fulfill my more exotic lens desires: long telephotos and macros.

Any feed-back?
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 11:22:44 pm
Thanks for your input.  I guess I'm asking because I'm thinking there's a benefit with the larger sensor in the m43.  Although not pocketable, it is pretty small.  But would I notice anything due to the larger sensor? 
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on October 22, 2019, 12:12:12 am
Yes I think there is. But at the extremes. Like very high ISO perhaps printing above certain sizes. Honestly there is little in it in my opinion.

A3 plus prints and social media I donít think you will ever see it.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: John Hollenberg on October 22, 2019, 12:16:53 am
The RX100iv doesnít have a viewfinder. I like a viewfinder.

The RX100 IV has a popup viewfinder.  I know, I own one.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on October 22, 2019, 12:22:04 am
The RX100 IV has a popup viewfinder.  I know, I own one.

I must have the iii then. Never did get all the versions of this camera straight. Thanks for the info

Correction. I have the ii. Talk about getting it wrong. Good grief!
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: jeremyrh on October 22, 2019, 04:04:58 am
I must have the iii then. Never did get all the versions of this camera straight. Thanks for the info

Correction. I have the ii. Talk about getting it wrong. Good grief!

Yes - the iii has a pop-up finder. I know because I looked at both - I had intended to buy the iii but when I saw how much nicer the viewfinder on the iv was I changed my mind.

Background somewhat relevant to Alan's question:  I took my i on vacation as a backup to an Oly EM1.  At some point the Oly started misbehaving and I switched to the RX100. When I got home I realised that I couldn't really tell much difference between the shots taken with the 2 cameras (maybe that is a reflection of the subject matter and shooting conditions), but it had been a problem composing in sunlight using the rear screen, so I went straight down to the shop to buy a version with a viewfinder.

It's true that the RX100 is quite small to handle nicely, plus it has the usual Sony abomination of a UI, but an add on rubber grip thing makes it much more manageable.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on October 22, 2019, 07:19:08 am
I am fully up to speed with Sony UI. Love it in fact. The RX100s are fantastic little cameras.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: armand on October 22, 2019, 09:52:54 am
Things are not as clear cut. I donít have time right now to go in full details but the short version is you should probably stick to the Sony for now.

Advantages of m43 consist obviously in multiple lenses for different looks. You can get more shallow DOF, particularly with a bright prime and also significantly better low light performance with bright primes. You can also get a more compact m43 kit for travel and superior weather sealing. Few other traits are nice, such as focus stacking or occasionally the high resolution image. I donít have much experience with the Panasonic cameras though.

Now, on pixel level the Sony is as good or better so in the end the actual quality difference is a little smaller than expected for the difference in sensor size. With the Sony I sometimes get really nice high ISO shots (above 800) and sometimes they are crap, still figuring out what determines the difference.

Sony focus is quite good but after the initial acquisition, it takes a while to zoom in and out and many times the scene already moved. The Sony RX10 iv is quite bulky, not necessarily light either. There are better ways to get a small kit.

Now the zoom is addictive and makes your life more fun, this is the main draw of the camera. Convenience with mostly good image quality and not a huge gain in weight.
If you donít know which m43 and what lenses you are going to get, and what specific advantages you will get that your current Sony canít, I would wait.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: jeremyrh on October 22, 2019, 11:11:58 am
Things are not as clear cut. I donít have time right now to go in full details but the short version is you should probably stick to the Sony for now.

Advantages of m43 consist obviously in multiple lenses for different looks. You can get more shallow DOF, particularly with a bright prime and also significantly better low light performance with bright primes. You can also get a more compact m43 kit for travel and superior weather sealing. Few other traits are nice, such as focus stacking or occasionally the high resolution image. I donít have much experience with the Panasonic cameras though.

Now, on pixel level the Sony is as good or better so in the end the actual quality difference is a little smaller than expected for the difference in sensor size. With the Sony I sometimes get really nice high ISO shots (above 800) and sometimes they are crap, still figuring out what determines the difference.

Sony focus is quite good but after the initial acquisition, it takes a while to zoom in and out and many times the scene already moved. The Sony RX10 iv is quite bulky, not necessarily light either. There are better ways to get a small kit.

Now the zoom is addictive and makes your life more fun, this is the main draw of the camera. Convenience with mostly good image quality and not a huge gain in weight.
If you donít know which m43 and what lenses you are going to get, and what specific advantages you will get that your current Sony canít, I would wait.

10? or 100?
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 11:25:16 am
Yes - the iii has a pop-up finder. I know because I looked at both - I had intended to buy the iii but when I saw how much nicer the viewfinder on the iv was I changed my mind.

Background somewhat relevant to Alan's question:  I took my i on vacation as a backup to an Oly EM1.  At some point the Oly started misbehaving and I switched to the RX100. When I got home I realised that I couldn't really tell much difference between the shots taken with the 2 cameras (maybe that is a reflection of the subject matter and shooting conditions), but it had been a problem composing in sunlight using the rear screen, so I went straight down to the shop to buy a version with a viewfinder.

It's true that the RX100 is quite small to handle nicely, plus it has the usual Sony abomination of a UI, but an add on rubber grip thing makes it much more manageable.
Jeremy,  When I travel on vacation, I use a leatherette case with neck strap for my RX100iv.  So the thing is on my neck all the time.  Being so light, you don't notice it.  It was very convenient and protected.  If we went into restaurants, then I could pop out the camera and stick in my pocket. 

So that why I was thinking of going to the m43.  If I keep in in a similar case with neck strap, that seems like it would work too. Of course it's not pocketable.  Yet I'd have the possible greater advantage of better IQ with the m43.  I rarely  print anymore.  I make slide shows with 4K video clips that I show on a 75" UHDTV that only need 8mb (4K) (3840x2160).  So resolution isn't a large factor at all although the 20mb gives me a lot of room to crop.  SInce we moved, my wife has pretty much put the kibosh on littering the walls with 16x20"s like I had in our last place. 

The eye level viewfinder is a pain in the neck on the model iv.  It keeps popping in when my glasses hits the front.  The later ones have a single action and should be better.  The menus are atrocious but I think I've finally got them down. 
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 11:27:49 am
I forgot to mention, I have an Olympus E-PL1, the original m43.  I stopped using it years ago when I upgraded because it only has 720 video.  I wanted HD at the time. 
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 11:32:30 am
I am fully up to speed with Sony UI. Love it in fact. The RX100s are fantastic little cameras.
I agree., Martin.  It's amazing what it can do.  But miniaturization had always been Sony's trademark. Here are my pictures take in the Southwest. and movie slide show of stills at a local antique muscle car show.  These were all jpegs although I always shoot RAW +  jpeg.  Such sharpness from such a small lens. 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421  Southwest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MogdCeRNqBM Car show
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 11:37:48 am
Things are not as clear cut. I donít have time right now to go in full details but the short version is you should probably stick to the Sony for now.

Advantages of m43 consist obviously in multiple lenses for different looks. You can get more shallow DOF, particularly with a bright prime and also significantly better low light performance with bright primes. You can also get a more compact m43 kit for travel and superior weather sealing. Few other traits are nice, such as focus stacking or occasionally the high resolution image. I donít have much experience with the Panasonic cameras though.

Now, on pixel level the Sony is as good or better so in the end the actual quality difference is a little smaller than expected for the difference in sensor size. With the Sony I sometimes get really nice high ISO shots (above 800) and sometimes they are crap, still figuring out what determines the difference.

Sony focus is quite good but after the initial acquisition, it takes a while to zoom in and out and many times the scene already moved. The Sony RX10 iv is quite bulky, not necessarily light either. There are better ways to get a small kit.

Now the zoom is addictive and makes your life more fun, this is the main draw of the camera. Convenience with mostly good image quality and not a huge gain in weight.
If you donít know which m43 and what lenses you are going to get, and what specific advantages you will get that your current Sony canít, I would wait.
Armand:  I'm not into nature photography or sport, so a huge zoom isn't needed. Mainly, landscapes, people, travel, etc.  My RX100ix only goes from 24-70mm equivalent.  It would be nice to have the 200mm range of the later models.  But the cost isn't worth the upgrade.  Plus the later models does not have the built-in ND filter needed for video at times.  Also, you lose stops due to a darker lens. Trade Offs. trade offs. 
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: armand on October 22, 2019, 12:52:44 pm
10? or 100?

10, I thought the initial question was about it.
The 100 series are much less bulky, obviously. I have the original RX100.
I had some travel with just the RX100 and a compact Sony superzoom and it worked ok but there were plenty of shots where I wished I had miss flexibility.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 22, 2019, 12:55:43 pm
Just get a good phone and be done with all this gear angst sillyness.

https://petapixel.com/2019/10/18/using-an-iphone-11-pro-to-capture-the-northern-lights/

Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: armand on October 22, 2019, 01:00:48 pm
Funny but close to reality for many people.

Somebody asked me about a "better" camera and I thought of the new Fuji A7 (decent zoom, very good jpegs) but now I think I would recommend them to just upgrade to the newest iPhone Pro. For their use is likely good enough and definitely easier.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: John Hollenberg on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 pm
I am fully up to speed with Sony UI. Love it in fact. The RX100s are fantastic little cameras.

I fully agree.  One thing I didn't like about the camera was the difficulty in zooming with the little lever on the top front of the camera.  The control was way too coarse.  I recently discovered that there is a menu setting to make  the control ring on the front of the camera function to set the zoom.  Much finer control and shows a circular dial with the focal length selected.  I am very happy with this setting.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 02:47:03 pm
I fully agree.  One thing I didn't like about the camera was the difficulty in zooming with the little lever on the top front of the camera.  The control was way too coarse.  I recently discovered that there is a menu setting to make  the control ring on the front of the camera function to set the zoom.  Much finer control and shows a circular dial with the focal length selected.  I am very happy with this setting.
JOhn there are a couple of ways of using that ring.  It can be advanced gradually through the entire range.  Or, you can set it so it jumps from one setting to the next.  The normal size of most fixed lenses through the range: ie. 24mm, 28mm.,33mm, 50mm etc. 
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: BJL on October 22, 2019, 04:52:41 pm
Throwing the Sony RX10 Mk II into the mix, and also the update to Mk IV, here are some of the options I am thinking about:

- The 4/3" format Panasonic LX-100 II with 12-38/1.7-2.8 lens
- The Sony RX100 Mk IV in 1" format, equivalent to 12-35/2.4-3.7 in 4/3" (true f-stop values f/1.8-2.8)
(Added Alan Klein's current camera!)
- The Sony RX100 Mk VII in 1" format, equivalent to 12-100/3.7-6 in 4/3" (true f-stop values f/2.8-4.5)
- The Sony RX10 Mk II in 1" format, equivalent to 12-100/3.7 in 4/3" (true f-stop value f/2.8)
- The Sony RX10 Mk IV in 1" format, equivalent to 12-300/3.2-5.3 in 4/3" (true f-stop values f/2.4-4)
- The Canon G5 X Mk II in 1" format, equivalent to 12-60mm/2.4-3.7 in 4/3" (true f-stop values f/1.8-2.8)
- The Canon G1 X Mk III in its "1.6x" APS-C format, with lens equivalent to 12-36/2.3-4.5 in 4/3" (16-38/2.8-5.6 true values?) CORRECTION: 16-38 was a type for 16-48, and anyway I have been corrected below: it is 15-45mm; I divided by 1.5 instead of 1.6

Vs MFT bodies with lens options like:
- 14-42/3.5-5.6
- 12-40/2.8 (added later)
- 12-50/3.5-6.3
- 12-60/3.5-5.6
- 12-60/2.8-4
- 14-140/3.5-5.6
- 12-100/4
- 14-150/4-5.6

Also, I think a good question to ask is "under what circumstances (of both the scene photographed and the way the result is displayed) does one option produce visually better results than another, and by how much?" There is a wide range of cases where all above options can production an effectively "perfect" image because the subject brightness range of the scene is moderate and so there are neither blown highlights nor perceptible shadow noise, the desired print size is not too big (maybe not beyond A3 or 11"x14"), and so on.

I like to think of the "gamut" of a camera: the image-making situations (scene and display intent) where its results are not perceptibly inferior to what any other gear can give because the DR, resolution, usable shutter speed, color accuracy etc. are enough. And in fact, I suggest that there is a significant "gamut" of situations where good phone cameras produce effectively "perfect" results. More importantly, a great proportion of people rarely or never want to do photography outside that gamut, so the best choice for them is indeed a phone. And in fact also for me on outings where I am happy to stay within my phone's gamut.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: faberryman on October 22, 2019, 05:49:02 pm
What do you want to do with an m43 that you can't do with a 1"? Print larger?
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 06:40:19 pm
What do you want to do with an m43 that you can't do with a 1"? Print larger?
Well, I thought that I'd get better IQ from m43.  But it sounds like it's not that much different.  What about DOF for portrait shooting?
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: faberryman on October 22, 2019, 07:05:10 pm
Well, I thought that I'd get better IQ from m43.  But it sounds like it's not that much different.  What about DOF for portrait shooting?
You get better IQ from m43. You get less depth of field for portraiture with m43. Whether the differences are meaningful to your photography can only be answered by you.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 22, 2019, 07:18:20 pm
Well, I thought that I'd get better IQ from m43...

Look, people... they compared an iPhone 11 Pro with a Fuji 100 Mpx medium format and most people couldn't tell the difference.* You can't possibly see a better IQ from just a marginally larger sensor, as it is the case with 1" vs. m43, in 80-90% of cases.

https://fstoppers.com/bts/photographer-compares-iphone-11-pro-against-his-13000-camera-416228?fbclid=IwAR3AhnHY_EfMa924aDXm50OcaG_unp9M_4QSIbA_C-OtdTgx2saEz7QC5mE

Obviously, if you want to shoot mostly portraits with a shallow depth-of-field, an m43 with a fast telephoto (e.g., Zuiko 75/1.7) would be a better option.

*Remember Michael Reichmann's comparison between p&s Canon G10 and a $50,000 medium-format Hasselblad years ago?
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 07:22:37 pm
I think I'll sit on it.  In any case, the thought of learning a new menu system doesn;t make me feel any too cheerful.  Thanks all for your input.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: BJL on October 22, 2019, 07:56:15 pm
You get less depth of field for portraiture with m43.
That depends on the lens, and looking at the updated list in my previous post https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132572.msg1135445#msg1135445, Alan's current camera has a f/1.8-2.8 lens, so even allowing for the smaller format, that lens used wide open gives shallower DOF (and likely better low light performance) than almost any MFT zoom lens option. The only way to get shallower DOF is with a lens like the 12-40/2.8, 45/1.2 or 60/2.8.

Whether the differences are meaningful to your photography can only be answered by you.
Indeed!
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 08:07:52 pm
That depends on the lens, and looking at the updated list in my previous post https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132572.msg1135445#msg1135445, Alan's current camera has a f/1.8-2.8 lens, so even allowing for the smaller format, that lens used wide open gives shallower DOF (and likely better low light performance) than almost any MFT zoom lens option. The only way to get shallower DOF is with a lens like the 12-40/2.8, 45/1.2 or 60/2.8.
Indeed!

That's interesting.  I didn't think of it.  Now that you mention it, when you go to the later RX100 models, the ones with zooms up to 200mm, the aperture really gets worse. It starts at f2.8 to f4.5 and quickly loses even its low end as you move away zooming up from 24mm.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: scooby70 on October 24, 2019, 03:46:12 am
I have a Panasonic TZ100 which I think has a 24-240mm lens, also Panasonic GX9 and GX80.

I think for IQ the TZ100 is definitely behind MFT for DR and overall IQ and definitely if you pixel peep. I'll happily crop a MFT picture to 100% (for bird and flower shots maybe) and be happy with a picture filling the whole screen, much less so for the 1" and in fact I'll probably not crop at all but that may be in part down to the quality of the TZ100 lens also. The advantage of the compact camera sized 1" cameras is though that they're so small they can be used in situations when even a relatively small MFT camera may attract too much attention and be too intrusive.

I tend to use my TZ100 instead of a smartphone, when I think even a small RF style MFT camera is too much and when it's not even remotely a photograph centered occasion. For example I might take it when going out for a meal with the Mrs.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Ken Bennett on October 24, 2019, 10:07:09 am
That's interesting.  I didn't think of it.  Now that you mention it, when you go to the later RX100 models, the ones with zooms up to 200mm, the aperture really gets worse. It starts at f2.8 to f4.5 and quickly loses even its low end as you move away zooming up from 24mm.

I have the RX100 m6, with the 24-200mm equivalent lens. Yes, the aperture is rather slow as soon as one zooms. However, I'm very pleased with the images this camera is capable of making. It's not ever going to be a strong portrait camera, but for travel, hiking, and personal work, where having a compact camera that makes high quality images is important, it really shines.

(I also have the Mark 3, with the faster 24-70 lens, and when I have to choose, I always take the newer one for the longer zoom range.)
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: petermfiore on October 24, 2019, 01:15:55 pm
I forgot to mention, I have an Olympus E-PL1, the original m43.  I stopped using it years ago when I upgraded because it only has 720 video.  I wanted HD at the time.

Alan that was Olympus's first m43 camera...Panasonic was first by under a year. Panasonic G1 was released in October 2008, the Olympus was July of 2009.

Peter
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: scooby70 on October 25, 2019, 05:56:34 am
I had a Panasonic G1 and at low ISO's I'd say the image quality was easily better than my Panasonic TZ100 and G1 bird and flower shots could easily be cropped to 100% for on screen viewing and I've not found that possible with the TZ100 as the quality just isn't there. It is fine for whole picture viewing though even at ISO 12,800.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: TonyVentourisPhotography on October 25, 2019, 04:54:46 pm
I think it really depends on your subject matter, style of shooting,  etc...  I often carry a Fuji x100 Bayer version when I want small.  Or just my phone if itís casual snaps.  I carry m43 without L brackets and just small primes if I want features and options for more intentional shooting but still not a photography dedicated outing.  The Olympus cameras can punch well above their weight class when used right.  The. Sensor size is hardly the end all in my decision.  It often comes down to form factor, volume of space needed to carry, and intent.  Image quality is dependent on far more variables.  Sheer Sensor resolution also will depend on variables in the real world and the subject for it to have a discernible difference in my opinion. 
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: armand on October 31, 2019, 02:18:33 pm
Agree. But even at the longer focal lengths, say 300-600mm, the shallow DOF, though better than at the 24-85 range, is still a far cry from a full frame super telephotos. I was shooting last year with a Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 and the bokeh at the end range is really creamy. I also tried a Leica 25-400 in a shop this year (another 1" camera) and wasn't impressed with the bokeh and shallow (or not) DOF at 400mm.

That said, I was aware of those limitations when considering RX10 IV and would work with what I would have (i.e., try to find images that would work with the camera/lens limitations).

Also, the kit zoom I mentioned, 18-150 APS-C format, is a rather slow one: f/3.5-6.3. Those f/stops roughly translate to the same DOF for the same focal lengths when compared to RX10 IV. However, I would have two high-speed lenses for the times when I need more light or more shallow DOF (22/2 and 56/1.4).

I didn't want to hijack that thread further so I'm replying here.
Here are several shots that I've taken with the RX10iv over the last couple of days. You have to keep your expectations in check. If that's your only camera/lens, the RX10iv is as good as any. If you just want to supplement what you have you can take a look at the Panasonic FZ-1000 which for a third of the price offers 80-90% of what Sony does. The extra 400 to 600 is nice, but many times haze takes care of it.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: armand on October 31, 2019, 10:28:08 pm
I realized that by default I stripped the exif info, so for the last 4 shots they are as follow (all shot wide open):
1. 247mm equiv, F4, iso250
2. 599mm equiv, F4, iso100
3. 221mm equiv, F4, iso400
4. 447mm equiv, F4, iso320
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: armand on November 01, 2019, 01:00:41 pm
And here are a couple of shots wide open at 600mm, no post-processing, to assess the DOF and background.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: armand on November 07, 2019, 02:25:44 pm
This is what I meant when I said the high ISO shots from the RX10iv can be quite variable in quality.
Both at iso 3200, default LR settings. 100% crops.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: Two23 on November 07, 2019, 06:30:16 pm
Generally you need to skip one size to see a real difference.  The difference between "adjacent" sizes is often 1-stop.  (DoF, high ISO, etc.)  I make my system choice based on available lenses.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: MarcRochkind on January 11, 2020, 11:52:02 am
I have a Sony RX100 IV and an Olympus E-M5 II with about 8 lenses.

The m4/3 made sense when I started with it, but not anymore, since there are excellent APS-C cameras that are physically smaller. For example, the Sony A6400.

All those lenses were taking the fun out of photography for me, and I found I was leaving the Olympus at home. Just acquired a fixed-lens Fuji X100F.

My RX100 is currently for sale.

My current thinking is that the right combination for me is:

1. Camera that's always in my pocket: a phone.
2. Small camera for when I want a real camera: X100F
3. For special purposes (macro, ultra-wide, telephoto, etc.): Still have the Olympus system, but would go with APS-C or full-frame today if I had to do it all over.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: DP on January 11, 2020, 01:13:30 pm
This is what I meant when I said the high ISO shots from the RX10iv can be quite variable in quality.
Both at iso 3200, default LR settings. 100% crops.

as "ISO" is not part of the exposure the right way to say is - based on exposure shots can be different in quality @ the same gain (high or low, whatever)
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: BJL on January 11, 2020, 01:30:49 pm
The m4/3 made sense when I started with it, but not anymore, since there are excellent APS-C cameras that are physically smaller. For example, the Sony A6400.
I have to dispute once again that the dominant motivation for using a smaller format system is smaller bodiesóit is not as if choices between cameras in the same format are dominated by preferring the smallest body! With EVF cameras, there is a lower limit on good body size dictated by the ergonomics of controls, grip, rear screen and such that a particular user wants, not sensor size (which I will note is far smaller than the LCD right behind it, even in 35mm format.)

As far as size goes, what is far more important for many of us (telephoto users in particular) is the lenses, and things like having the smallest total kit that gets the job done for us. That is where smaller formats continue to offer an advantage.

But apart from generalities, the choice between MFT, Sony E, Fujifilm X, Canon M, etc. often comes down to the specifics of how well the system is supported by lenses that go well with the bodies, typically needing a good array of lenses designed for that format and lens mount, rather than lenses designed for a larger format or different lens mount, so requiring a heavy crop of the FOV they were designed for and/or a mount adaptor. There, I would say that MFT and Fujifilm X make a strong case with respect to the other "APS-C" format EVF camera systems, whose makers now seem chronically distracted by 35mm format.

But maybe that lens system issue is not important to Marc, given this comment:
All those lenses were taking the fun out of photography for me, and I found I was leaving the Olympus at home. Just acquired a fixed-lens Fuji X100F.
I agree than for many, a fixed-lens camera in 1", 4/3: or APS-C format can be the better choice, at least for a lightweight kit. But a singe focal length camera like the X100F is the absolute opposite of what I am looking for!
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: armand on January 14, 2020, 08:57:44 pm
Looking at some Z50 data on Bill Claff's site I noticed some interesting things.

1. At base ISO Sony RX10m4 has practically the same dynamic range as Olympus E-M5ii, and gets behind 1-1.5 stops at higher ISOs
2. The newer Oly E-M5iii has almost 1/2 stop more DR at low ISOs than the 2 version but it's the same at ISO 400 and above
3. The Oly E-M1ii has practically the DR as the Fuji X-T2, while X-T3 has 1/2 stop more DR only at base ISOs after which is the same as the X-T2
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: spidermario on February 09, 2020, 06:27:41 pm
- The Canon G1 X Mk III in its "1.6x" APS-C format, with lens equivalent to 12-36/2.3-4.5 in 4/3" (16-38/2.8-5.6 true values?)

Not quite, the true values are 15-45mm f/2.8-5.6. Itís marketed as a 24-72mm equivalent (which matches your 12-36mm M43 equivalent). In fact, I have one and when the UI displays a focal length (which is not often), it displays the 35mm-equivalent one between 24 and 72, not the true one between 15 and 45.

Itís nice but the lens is somewhat slow at the ďlongĒ end (which is also not very long). Still, itís sharp, has optical stabilization, and is weather-sealed, all in 400 grams (thatís 0.9 lb). Itís the camera that I always have in my backpack in case a photo opportunity presents itself unannounced.
Title: Re: 1" vs. M43 Cameras
Post by: BJL on February 09, 2020, 07:36:36 pm
Not quite, the true values are 15-45mm f/2.8-5.6. Itís marketed as a 24-72mm equivalent...
Thanks: a mixture of a typo and bad arithmetic up there, so I added a correction.