M43, and why people are wrong about it

[Cagey75]

Adhominem how clever of you.

More ad hominem!

And back to Ad Hominem.

I can't help wondering if this guy has found any other fancy expressions they don't even understand? Is it one word? or two? and do they understand that they are most guilty of it here? #curiousthings

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I've never used full frame so don't know what I'm missing.
I've had aps c then went to m43 with a panasonic G3, which did everything I needed it to do. I found it a bit small though, and some of the buttons were too close together for me, and I found myself inadvertently changing settings etc so I went back to aps c with a Nikon D7000. Nothing to do with quality etc.
I then started getting into bird photography and bought a sigma 150-600 lens.
I carted this everywhere for a year or so along with a massive tripod and gimbal.
The weight was too much for me so I started looking for alternatives.
The results I was seeing on the G80 thread convinced me that m43 was the answer.
The g80 was a perfect size. Larger than the g3 but smaller and lighter than the D7000.
Along with the 100-400 lens it's been perfect for me. Ideal size and weight, and I've been delighted with the results.
It does what I need it to do, I've never been disappointed with the results, and never had to give any thought about how it compares to any other system.
Although I've been busy with work and my other hobby (mountain biking) and haven't taken as many photos this summer, I always have my camera with me in the car, just in case.
Is there snobbery towards m43? Maybe.(not that I've noticed)
Do I care? Not a jot.

 

[the black fox]

I switched earlier this year . I now have a panasonic g80 and a olympus omd10-mkii plus a 100-400 ,45-150,12-60 and a couple of legacy lenses and adaptors both cameras are 2x crop factor giving slightly more reach than a aps-c or twice that of a FF I shoot mainly wildlife with a sprinkling of other stuff , the final results i.e finished photos differ very little to previous results but the whole bag of goodies still weighs less that my previous sigma 150-600 sport on its own without the 1D camera attached . its a total no brainer .

when and if circumstances allow I will upgrade to whatever the top of the range MFT is at the time its that good .

simples init really

 

[Cagey75]

I switched earlier this year . I now have a panasonic g80 and a olympus omd10-mkii plus a 100-400 ,45-150,12-60 and a couple of legacy lenses and adaptors both cameras are 2x crop factor giving slightly more reach than a aps-c or twice that of a FF I shoot mainly wildlife with a sprinkling of other stuff , the final results i.e finished photos differ very little to previous results but the whole bag of goodies still weighs less that my previous sigma 150-600 sport on its own without the 1D camera attached . its a total no brainer .

when and if circumstances allow I will upgrade to whatever the top of the range MFT is at the time its that good .

simples init really

M43 is very under-rated for wildlife IMO, the ability to get nice and close, sharp detailed images of wildlife from lenses that are a mere fraction of the weight of their FF 'equivalents'

 

[Gaz J]

M43 is very under-rated for wildlife IMO, the ability to get nice and close, sharp detailed images of wildlife from lenses that are a mere fraction of the weight of their FF 'equivalents'

My walk about camera now is a D850 with a grip and 200-500. 7.9 pounds with a battery.

A Olympus EM1 MkII with grip and 300 f4 plus 1.4 converter. 4.8 pounds without a battery.

So around 60% of the weight which is still a significant saving but not so great that I’d want to change systems just for the weight saving.

My 1DX and 500 f4 weighs in around 12.5 pounds and that’s knackering to walk around with but the image quality is better than the 200-500 but I save it for short walks and hides these days.

 

[the black fox]

Ah but I was talking about my previous rig canon 1d3 or 4 plus sigma 150-600 add to that black rapid strap and lens foot plate your talking about approx 5 k.g just for camera and lens , my current rig giving if anything a slightly longer effective reach weighs under 1.5 kg and in fact if I take off the lens foot just over 1kg . Plus I now have four way ibis as well ,total no brainer

 

[Gaz J]

Ah but I was talking about my previous rig canon 1d3 or 4 plus sigma 150-600 add to that black rapid strap and lens foot plate your talking about approx 5 k.g just for camera and lens , my current rig giving if anything a slightly longer effective reach weighs under 1.5 kg and in fact if I take off the lens foot just over 1kg . Plus I now have four way ibis as well ,total no brainer

In that case I’d agree with you. A no brainer.

The biggest problem with buying into a new system is that I can’t have really good hands on with the various models.

I’ve read reviews on the EM5 MkII, EM 10MkIII and the EM1 MKII. The EM1 is obviously their top dog and you would think that on price the EM5 would be next with the EM10 at the back. However I see that the EM10 MkIII has the 121 focus points compared to the 80 something of the 5. It’s hard to find comparisons between the two and does it suggest that an EM5 MkIII is in the pipeline.

 

[sk66]

M43 is very under-rated for wildlife IMO, the ability to get nice and close, sharp detailed images of wildlife from lenses that are a mere fraction of the weight of their FF 'equivalents'

Well, then my Nikon 1 system should be even better... but it's not. I use cameras in a wide range of sizes/formats, and every one has significant tradeoffs depending on what your priorities are. But when it comes to ultimate quality, the smaller formats loose every time. Still, they can be more than adequate for the requirements.
But when it comes to professional use I don't think "good enough" cuts it. IMHO, you should use and produce the best you reasonably can...

 

[the black fox]

In that case I’d agree with you. A no brainer.

The biggest problem with buying into a new system is that I can’t have really good hands on with the various models.

I’ve read reviews on the EM5 MkII, EM 10MkIII and the EM1 MKII. The EM1 is obviously their top dog and you would think that on price the EM5 would be next with the EM10 at the back. However I see that the EM10 MkIII has the 121 focus points compared to the 80 something of the 5. It’s hard to find comparisons between the two and does it suggest that an EM5 MkIII is in the pipeline.

I have the 10 mkii gary and its a very versatile little beast and once you get your head around the menu its easy to use . I have done b.i.f with it but get a better success rate with the Panasonic g80 ,but neither body is a slouch ,you missed out on the summer promos when they were just over £200 brand new . your best bet is a friendly camera shop that will let you have a play ,I think olympus have a trial day thing running at some dealers

 

[Cagey75]

Well, then my Nikon 1 system should be even better... but it's not. I use cameras in a wide range of sizes/formats, and every one has significant tradeoffs depending on what your priorities are. But when it comes to ultimate quality, the smaller formats loose every time. Still, they can be more than adequate for the requirements.
But when it comes to professional use I don't think "good enough" cuts it. IMHO, you should use and produce the best you reasonably can...

The lenses matter a lot too, and with that Nikon 1 you would be using the hefty Nikon glass right? So the body being small doesn't really matter. M43 is about as small as I would go, because as I said in my own summary of the system, ISO performance is a factor to me. It has some really cracking tele lenses, for all budgets though. The 100-300 Panasonic in terms of the equivalence people like to use, is akin to a 200-600 lens, but I could shoot that lens one handed and get sharp images at 1/20th second because of the IBIS also. The Pana-Leica 100-400 is even better again, equiv of 200-800 and works with the newer body's dual IS

 

[sk66]

The lenses matter a lot too, and with that Nikon 1 you would be using the hefty Nikon glass right?

Not usually... the only time that is the norm for me is for macro work.

The 100-300 Panasonic in terms of the equivalence people like to use, is akin to a 200-600 lens, but I could shoot that lens one handed and get sharp images at 1/20th second because of the IBIS also.

In terms of equivalence it's a 200-600 f/8-11 lens. And if you feel it delivers sharp images of high resolution at 1/20 handheld, then I would say your requirements are quite low. And that's fine. Most peoples requirements are quite low... if you're just putting ~2MP (2048x) images on the web then you really don't need much.

 

[Cagey75]

Not usually... the only time that is the norm for me is for macro work.


In terms of equivalence it's a 200-600 f/8-11 lens. And if you feel it delivers sharp images of high resolution at 1/20 handheld, then I would say your requirements are quite low. And that's fine. Most peoples requirements are quite low... if you're just putting ~2MP (2048x) images on the web then you really don't need much.

That's in terms of DOF, which is why it helps for wildlife, for light gathering you do not double the aperture value. If it delivers sharp images at 1/20th that's only ever a good thing, great for still life - doesn't mean I would shoot at that setting often, just nice to know I can. IBIS doesn't just help with slower speeds, it helps a lot when composing images too, especially with a tele lens. Plenty of cracking wild life images around on here shot using M43 gear, they speak for themselves, I'm not trying to convince you, just saying I think it's a strength of the system.

 

[Box Brownie]

Just by way of comparison.

There is an Olympus lens, their 300mm f4 Pro

So, bare that is equivalence 600mm f4 or with the x1.4 TC an 840mm f5.6 and is sharp wide open whether bare or with TC.

PS my Olympus 40 - 150 f2.8 (same max across the zoom range) gives me the equivalence of 80-300 f2.8......add the TC I get max 420mm at f4 creditably wide at that FL!

 

[Cagey75]

Just by way of comparison.

There is an Olympus lens, their 300mm f4 Pro

So, bare that is equivalence 600mm f4 or with the x1.4 TC an 840mm f5.6 and is sharp wide open whether bare or with TC.

I didn't mention that one because it's pretty high end price-wise, though I suppose not when compared to a Nikon 600mm, looks a real nice lens for anyone serious about wildlife for sure though

 

[Box Brownie]

I didn't mention that one because it's pretty high end price-wise, though I suppose not when compared to a Nikon 600mm, looks a real nice lens for anyone serious about wildlife for sure though

Yes, at the very least I want to hire one In due course......in the meantime I get max 420mm at f4

 

[sk66]

for light gathering you do not double the aperture value.

Yes, you do. An image 2x as large (sensor area) taken with the same exposure settings has received 2x as much light... larger sensors perform better in low light *primarily* because they actually receive/collect more light (same settings).

Plenty of cracking wild life images around on here shot using M43 gear, they speak for themselves, I'm not trying to convince you, just saying I think it's a strength of the system.

plenty of 2MP images you mean... Using crop factor for reach is "a tradeoff," it is not "a benefit."

 

[Cagey75]

Yes, you do. An image 2x as large (sensor area) taken with the same exposure settings has received 2x as much light... larger sensors perform better in low light *primarily* because they actually receive/collect more light (same settings).

M43 lenses are specifically designed for the smaller sensor, a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens, it's not an equivalent anything in that sense because it wasn't designed to work for full frame. This is one of those debates that does the rounds, plenty of articles out there explaining in detail how values remain the same in terms of lighting. Fancy diagrams an' all to boot if you're interested, I'm not so much. All I know is when I use a 2.8 lens on m43 I get the same settings, the same amount of light as I would using an APSC or FF lens at 2.8. The only difference I will see is DOF

"Because aperture ratings are determined based on the focal length of the lens, a 2.8 aperture will let the exact same amount of light into the camera no matter the sensor size but the depth of field on a M43 sensor will be equivalent to 5.6 on a full-frame sensor with a similar field of view. Because the sensor is almost a quarter of the size of "full frame" the lenses can literally be half the size and retain the same apertures. "

Taken from here: https://fstoppers.com/originals/yes-micro-43-lenses-are-overpriced-im-still-buying-them-175383

 

[sk66]

M43 lenses are specifically designed for the smaller sensor, a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens, it's not an equivalent anything in that sense because it wasn't designed to work for full frame. This is one of those debates that does the rounds, plenty of articles out there explaining in detail how values remain the same in terms of lighting. Fancy diagrams an' all to boot if you're interested, I'm not so much. All I know is when I use a 2.8 lens on m43 I get the same settings, the same amount of light as I would using an APSC or FF lens at 2.8. The only difference I will see is DOF

"Because aperture ratings are determined based on the focal length of the lens, a 2.8 aperture will let the exact same amount of light into the camera no matter the sensor size but the depth of field on a M43 sensor will be equivalent to 5.6 on a full-frame sensor with a similar field of view. Because the sensor is almost a quarter of the size of "full frame" the lenses can literally be half the size and retain the same apertures. "

Taken from here: https://fstoppers.com/originals/yes-micro-43-lenses-are-overpriced-im-still-buying-them-175383

Yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8 in terms of exposure. It doesn't matter what sensor it is on, that is what makes it a constant of exposure...

But if the source is 2x as large on the sensor (i.e. same image on a 2x larger sensor) with the same exposure (same f/ratio), then the larger sensor has received more light from it (4x actually). This occurs either due to moving 2x closer to the subject using the same FL/aperture (inverse square law), or due to a change in the system etendue (i.e. 2x magnification of the subject and lens aperture opening with a constant f-ratio zoom lens). This is the reason larger sensors perform better, light/area (larger area)... it's not really "larger pixels" as most try to explain it as being.

So if you want to get the same image quality (noise level) you have to use a larger aperture on the smaller sensor using a lower ISO in order to collect the same amount of total light.

 

[JYC]

Yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8 in terms of exposure. It doesn't matter what sensor it is on, that is what makes it a constant of exposure...

But if the source is 2x as large on the sensor (i.e. same image on a 2x larger sensor) with the same exposure (same f/ratio), then the larger sensor has received more light from it (4x actually). This occurs either due to moving 2x closer to the subject using the same FL/aperture (inverse square law), or due to a change in the system etendue (i.e. 2x magnification of the subject and lens aperture opening with a constant f-ratio zoom lens). This is the reason larger sensors perform better, light/area (larger area)... it's not really "larger pixels" as most try to explain it as being.

Nah you aren't right here mate

There is 'more light' but it's spread over a larger area so each pixel on a sensor receives the same amount of light in m43 or FF at f2.8 (or 1.4 or 2) [edit: I should say each mm^2 receives the same light, obviously pixel counts can vary]

But the FF pixels are bigger, so there's less noise.

 

[sk66]

Nah you aren't right here mate

There is 'more light' but it's spread over a larger area so each pixel on a sensor receives the same amount of light in m43 or FF at f2.8 (or 1.4 or 2) [edit: I should say each mm^2 receives the same light, obviously pixel counts can vary]

But the FF pixels are bigger, so there's less noise.

No... image noise has to do with total light, not light per pixel. Per pixel is only relevant in terms of image magnification/enlargement (making the noise more apparent).

 

[Cagey75]

Yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8 in terms of exposure. It doesn't matter what sensor it is on, that is what makes it a constant of exposure...

But if the source is 2x as large on the sensor (i.e. same image on a 2x larger sensor) with the same exposure (same f/ratio), then the larger sensor has received more light from it (4x actually). This occurs either due to moving 2x closer to the subject using the same FL/aperture (inverse square law), or due to a change in the system etendue (i.e. 2x magnification of the subject and lens aperture opening with a constant f-ratio zoom lens). This is the reason larger sensors perform better, light/area (larger area)... it's not really "larger pixels" as most try to explain it as being.

So if you want to get the same image quality (noise level) you have to use a larger aperture on the smaller sensor using a lower ISO in order to collect the same amount of total light.

No denying FF handles low light better, and performs much better at higher ISO levels, by far in some cases - but there's even differences between FF sensors, or there would be no need for sites like DXO to rank them.

All I know is, I get plenty enough light using my M43 f/1.7 prime, and I was able to directly compare to my Fuji lenses when I still had them. Setting the Fuji 35 1.4 to f/2, and the same with the Panasonic 25mm 1.7 [in or around the same in terms of FF equivalent, both being similar to a FF 50mm] also to f/2, there was no noticeable difference in the light coming through at the same settings. I know Fuji is APSC, but there should still be a difference if light gathering aperture properties had to be multiplied.

No debating the DOF side of it, it is harder to get 'bokeh' using M43, though you certainly still can, just not quite as shallow

 

[JYC]

No... image noise has to do with total light, not light per pixel. Per pixel is only relevant in terms of image magnification/enlargement (making the noise more apparent).

Don't really know how to explain this better so I will give up, but 'f stop' is a relative measure of aperture size, not an absolute measure of light.

 

[Cagey75]

Don't really know how to explain this better so I will give up, but 'f stop' is a relative measure of aperture size, not an absolute measure of light.

This is how I see it too, I'm also not great at explaining the math or physics behind it, hence why I linked the article above, he said it better than I could.

 

[HoppyUK]

Steven is right, but has maybe not explained it in the best way. (Keith, if you actually read those articles on equivalence you so dislike, maybe you'd understand )

I think the clearest way of looking at the change from full-frame to M4/3 is this:
- field-of-view if halved, effectively the same as a doubling of focal length in terms of framing (2x crop factor).
- Depth-of-field increases by the equivalent of two stops, ie, f/5.6 on FF delivers same DoF as f/2.8 on M4/3 (when the subject is framed the same from the same distance with focal length adjusted).
- Exposure/aperture remains the same in terms of light per square mm received on the sensor, but since the sensor is a quarter the area of FF there are 4x less photons gathered. What happens in effect - and this is the point in question - is that the sensor is working at two stops higher ISO to compensate, eg at ISO1600 rather than ISO400 on FF. Hence the extra noise, less dynamic range, reduced low light performance etc.

Edit: just for completeness, lens sharpness is reduced because it has to work at double the resolution for same size output/print. When lens resolution goes up, image contrast goes down (basic MTF lens principle) and contrast contributes most to perceived sharpness.

 

[Cagey75]

Steven is right, but has maybe not explained it in the best way. (Keith, if you actually read those articles on equivalence you so dislike, maybe you'd understand )

I think the clearest way of looking at the change from full-frame to M4/3 is this:
- field-of-view if halved, effectively the same as a doubling of focal length in terms of framing (2x crop factor).
- Depth-of-field increases by the equivalent of two stops, ie, f/5.6 on M4/3 delivers same DoF as f/2.8 on FF calculated as 2x crop factor (when the subject is framed the same from the same distance with focal length adjusted).
- Exposure/aperture remains the same in terms of light per square mm received on the sensor, but since the sensor is a quarter the area of FF there are 4x less photons gathered. What happens in effect - and this is the point in question - is that the sensor is working at two stops higher ISO to compensate, eg at ISO1600 rather than ISO400 on FF. Hence the extra noise, less dynamic range, reduced low light performance etc.

It was the first article happened to pop up after a quick google, was looking for how to word it more than anything, better to just quote. I don't waste time in general on these articles, numbers are not my thing

All I know is, I trust my eyes, I've directly compared similar lenses at the same settings all round and what I saw was the same amount of light for both.

 

[the black fox]

These days of electronic focus no one really looks at or for that matter can look at actual shutter holes , I have quiet a few legacy lenses to hand and later on I’ll try shutting them down respectively to see if there’s any actual difference in lens to lens make to make Actual hole size I.e f4 f8 etc etc

 

[HoppyUK]

It was the first article happened to pop up after a quick google, was looking for how to word it more than anything, better to just quote. I don't waste time in general on these articles, numbers are not my thing

All I know is, I trust my eyes, I've directly compared similar lenses at the same settings all round and what I saw was the same amount of light for both.

If numbers are not your thing, then be careful when arguing opinions based on an incorrect understanding of the facts.

But re-read what I wrote above and it does in fact tie in with your observations re noise.

(Also note my edit to the second point while you were posting.)

 

[snerkler]

I understand the larger surface area of the sensor etc affecting noise, but how does ‘tech’/processing help? For example the EM1-II has better noise handling than the mark I yet has a higher pixel density which you’d think would make it worse. Obviously the EM1-II is much newer but what do they do with modern cameras that make them better at noise handling? AFAIK Olympus don’t use backlit sensors.

 

[Cagey75]

If numbers are not your thing, then be careful when arguing opinions based on an incorrect understanding of the facts.

But re-read what I wrote above and it does in fact tie in with your observations re noise.

(Also note my edit to the second point while you were posting.)

Numbers not being my thing doesn't make me wrong, or doesn't mean I don't understand when I need to, I just don't like math, simple. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is either, you can't argue with light. There's no argument, in fact this is about the best discussion that's happened in this thread. I haven't said anyone was wrong, just I see it differently, went to find an article that explained how I see it, found one instantly so there's something to it obviously.

2.8 is 2.8 no matter the sensor in terms of light gathering. I've not been convinced here of anything else I didn't already know. We've just established that we all agree on the change in DOF and light gathering in relation to ISO but we seem to disagree that aperture values should be doubled in terms of aperture light gathering on the smaller sensor, nothing more.

Nobody discusses this when it comes to APSC, which also has a crop factor. It tends to only crop up in relation to M43 for whatever reason

 

[HoppyUK]

Numbers not being my thing doesn't make me wrong, or doesn't mean I don't understand when I need to, I just don't like math, simple. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is either, you can't argue with light. There's no argument, in fact this is about the best discussion that's happened in this thread. I haven't said anyone was wrong, just I see it differently, went to find an article that explained how I see it, found one instantly so there's something to it obviously.

2.8 is 2.8 no matter the sensor in terms of light gathering. I've not been convinced here of anything else I didn't already know. We've just established that we all agree on the change in DOF and light gathering in relation to ISO but we seem to disagree that aperture values should be doubled in terms of aperture light gathering on the smaller sensor, nothing more.

Nobody discusses this when it comes to APSC, which also has a crop factor. It tends to only crop up in relation to M43 for whatever reason

I didn't say that, Steven maybe implied it and while I know what he meant it could be read differently. If you agree with what I wrote in post #144 above, then we're all on the same page

 

[HoppyUK]

I understand the larger surface area of the sensor etc affecting noise, but how does ‘tech’/processing help? For example the EM1-II has better noise handling than the mark I yet has a higher pixel density which you’d think would make it worse. Obviously the EM1-II is much newer but what do they do with modern cameras that make them better at noise handling? AFAIK Olympus don’t use backlit sensors.

Sensor tech makes a huge difference. When discussing noise/ISO etc, the debate has to assume a level playing field in terms of sensor development, ie same generation technology. The latest sensors are way better than those of just a few years ago.

I've never really accepted that pixel size is a determining factor re noise. It's one of many factors that are all ultimately determined by total sensor light collecting area. Along the way, there are all sorts of things that can 'get in the way' of the pixel well collecting the maximum amount of light, or can assist it, and then there's the efficiency of the processing engine that produces a usable signal. These things are moving forward all the time.

 

[Cagey75]

I didn't say that, Steven maybe implied it and while I know what he meant it could be read differently. If you agree with what I wrote in post #144 above, then we're all on the same page

Pretty much I guess, just got mixed up with who said what there. For me, end of the day, once I get sufficient light that i don't need to ramp up the ISO and can get a clean enough, workable image, I'm generally happy. There are certainly times when i wish I could push it more instead of having to go with off cam flash but it's not all that often

 

[sk66]

Nobody discusses this when it comes to APSC, which also has a crop factor. It tends to only crop up in relation to M43 for whatever reason

but we seem to disagree that aperture values should be doubled in terms of aperture light gathering on the smaller sensor, nothing more.

I don't normally discuss "equivalence" at all... But if you're going to use part of it as an argument for a particular format (i.e. crop factor) then you need to understand/accept the whole concept. And it really comes down to "enlargement"... larger sensors/negatives require less enlargement to be at any given display size, and therefore they have an advantage.

When it comes to noise at any given display size it is the total light contained in the image that is the determining factor. When the sensors are the same size and one has more pixels, each pixel has less light but the image contains the same amount. So when displayed at the same size the noise level will be the same (same amount of enlargement).

When a sensor is smaller, it receives less light (same light/mm but fewer mm's). And because it is smaller it needs more enlargement making the difference more evident (noisier). In order to get the same level of noise the image needs to have the same amount of total light, which means using a larger aperture (or a longer SS if ignoring shot noise). If you use a larger aperture and a correspondingly lower ISO you can record the same amount of total light and equalize the noise level at any given display size. And that does mean that for a lens to be able to deliver equivalent images it needs to be used at a wider aperture, both in terms of DOF, the amount of light recorded and SS achieved. I.e. in order to be "equivalent."

I did not say that it has to have a wider aperture in order to get the same "exposure"... exposure is different from total light (which is exposure x area). The exposure of an image doesn't change when you crop it, but the amount of light within the remaining image is less. And if you enlarge it to the same display size (different composition) it will look worse/noisier... it's all the same thing...

 

[Cagey75]

I don't normally discuss "equivalence" at all... But if you're going to use part of it as an argument for a particular format (i.e. crop factor) then you need to understand/accept the whole concept. And it really comes down to "enlargement"... larger sensors/negatives require less enlargement to be at any given display size, and therefore they have an advantage.

When it comes to noise at any given display size it is the total light contained in the image that is the determining factor. When the sensors are the same size and one has more pixels, each pixel has less light but the image contains the same amount. So when displayed at the same size the noise level will be the same (same amount of enlargement).

When a sensor is smaller, it receives less light (same light/mm but fewer mm's). And because it is smaller it needs more enlargement making the difference more evident (noisier). In order to get the same level of noise the image needs to have the same amount of total light, which means using a larger aperture (or a longer SS if ignoring shot noise). If you use a larger aperture and a correspondingly lower ISO you can record the same amount of total light and equalize the noise level at any given display size. And that does mean that for a lens to be able to deliver equivalent images it needs to be used at a wider aperture, both in terms of DOF, the amount of light recorded and SS achieved. I.e. in order to be "equivalent."

I did not say that it has to have a wider aperture in order to get the same "exposure"... exposure is different from total light (which is exposure x area). The exposure of an image doesn't change when you crop it, but the amount of light within the remaining image is less. And if you enlarge it to the same display size (different composition) it will look worse/noisier... it's all the same thing...

You equated a 4-5.6 lens to an f/8-11, this is where it started, and that is not the case when it comes to light gathering or those tele lenses would be useless for anything but hot sunny days for wildlife. Thankfully, they are, I used mine often for birds in the garden during winter, and could stop down to f/7.1 and not have to ramp the ISO very high. I'm not disagreeing with anything else

 

[snerkler]

Sensor tech makes a huge difference. When discussing noise/ISO etc, the debate has to assume a level playing field in terms of sensor development, ie same generation technology. The latest sensors are way better than those of just a few years ago.

I've never really accepted that pixel size is a determining factor re noise. It's one of many factors that are all ultimately determined by total sensor light collecting area. Along the way, there are all sorts of things that can 'get in the way' of the pixel well collecting the maximum amount of light, or can assist it, and then there's the efficiency of the processing engine that produces a usable signal. These things are moving forward all the time.

Sorry, I don’t think I explained myself well. I know sensor tech makes a big difference, I just don’t understand which part of it makes the difference (except the new BSI)?

 

[Cagey75]

Can't remember where I read it but some were suggesting when the em1 mkii got listed that dxo inflated the scores, I have no idea why they would do this though

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Sometimes I feel photography has lost its soul. It's become all about the technical exercises aiming for speed, low light performance and resolution and we have lost the ability to overcome obstacles and create. I can't help remembering Capas D-day pictures and think if they would really be better if they where in focus, sharp and very detailed. No, the mood, fear, agony and confusion would be lost (at least to me) if they had been done with a modern digital camera. I think people has become so obsessed with detail and resolution they have forgot to see the whole picture.

 

[the black fox]

So well said soeren ,sums it all up these days

 

[Cagey75]

Sometimes I feel photography has lost its soul. It's become all about the technical exercises aiming for speed, low light performance and resolution and we have lost the ability to overcome obstacles and create. I can't help remembering Capas D-day pictures and think if they would really be better if they where in focus, sharp and very detailed. No, the mood, fear, agony and confusion would be lost (at least to me) if they had been done with a modern digital camera. I think people has become so obsessed with detail and resolution they have forgot to see the whole picture.

You can have it both ways. I do feel there are far more gear heads than photographers lately, and vloggers now seem to dictate what features cameras should have with photographers becoming a distant second. But all the old gear is still out there if you'd prefer to use it, and there are still people producing wonderful images today. Maybe in 50 years time people will look back to now with rose tinted specs too and think this era had bags of soul

 

[Nostromo]

@soeren
I agree with you to some degree, there can be too much emphasis on technological stuff and not enough on taking photos. But technology moves on and progresses, with that there is a greater need to have some understanding of how it works. I think @sk66 started a thread about something similar a few months ago.