Marekich

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

What's the problem? Plus the footage looks good. It has mojo. 

Looks pretty dam filmic to me... 

 

720p in 2018? Looks horrible by today's standards. (don't confuse content for image quality)

Is there a version of this video in 1080p? I suppose there isn't 4K version because of rolling shutter, and they wanted to show action.

2 hours ago, Robin said:

A bigger hole let's in more light, as in covers a larger area, this does not effect the intensity of light. Smaller hole - less coverage at same intensity.

This is not true. Covered area remains the same, regardless aperture size. Changing the F-stop doesn't change coverage - it changes intensity of light (exposure).

2 hours ago, Robin said:

Aperture equivalent is is useful to get same depth of field from a 25mm M4/3 lens to match a 50mm full frame. The 25mm needs a faster setting to match the same depth of field.

Aperture equivalent is useful for DoF, and also for determining the total amount of light the picture will be made from, and by that the expected quality and amount of noise. In essence, aperture equivalent is important when comparing cameras with different sizes of sensor, but also when comparing cropped image on the same sensor - like when trying to determine DoF, and quality/noise of severely cropped 4K video on EOS R.

So you see - aperture equivalent can be more useful than an F-stop - depending what you are doing.

2 hours ago, Robin said:

Regardless for exposure- f2 is f2 is f2 ?

If you are talking about exposure as a physical value (amount of light per unit area) - yes. But who cares for that? ?

If you are talking about exposure triangle, things get messy since you have to match DoF (otherwise you won't get the same image), and then you have to change F-stop. And when you change the F-stop, you have to change ISO also. And then you realize that ISO 800 on FF is about the same as ISO 200 on MFT - in other words, you realize that manufacturers adjust ISO value according to pixel pitch and sensor size, since the same amount of light (the same real aperture size) and the same shutter speed result in different ISOs for photos of the same brightness. So... Regarding exposure in exposure triangle - no, f/2 is not f/2.

27 minutes ago, 1Ale82 said:

Voigtlander makes lenses that fast with those focal lenghts for m4/3.

Manual focus only, which means almost useless or very bad for many photography tasks, and F0.95, which is equivalent to f/1.8 on FF. I don't see equivalents for f/1.4, even though these F0.95 lenses are plenty fast. But they are manual focus only. And for FF you get f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses with automatic focus. And I suppose those Voightlanders are very, very expensive.

27 minutes ago, 1Ale82 said:

Considering the "light gathering" topic, just consider the sensor size as simply the total number of photosites included on that silicon matrix, nothing more. The size of the silicon matrix is what we call medium format, full frame, apsc, m4/3, 1 inch sensors, etc. Then each photosite, regardless of how many of them are on the sensor, sends its own signal to the camera processor. The bigger the photosite, the lower the light needed to send that signal, keeping other things like time and aperture equals. You don't need more photosites to gather more light.

I really don't understand why you are explaining this to me. BTW signal from sensor is analog - some value will always be read. It's just that smaller size photosites will generate signal of a lower voltage, which is more prone to noise.

Yes, you don't need more photosites to gather more (total) light - you need a bigger sensor and/or larger aperture. Amount of light per pixel is basically irrelevant since with higher res image you can use more intensive noise reduction, or if you downscale image, some of the noise from higher res image will be lost so it will have similar amount of noise as lower res image.

1 minute ago, Shirozina said:

Fake news

Let's see your math. ?

21 minutes ago, 1Ale82 said:

Micro 4/3 cameras struggle with low light not because they have a smaller sensor that gathers less light, but because in that smaller sensor they have the same number of photosites (= megapixels) other camera have in bigger sensor, so each photosite is smaller. Its the size of the photosite that matters, not the total number of them on the sensor. Each photosite send its electrical signal to the processor regardless of how many other photosites are around it.

Not necessarily. Yes, there is size of photosites you don't want to go below, but the main reason is that MFT sensors in general receive less light per photo. Consider this - if you want to take a photo in low light, you might use 35mm f/1.4 on FF. To get the equivalent photo on MFT, you need 17,5mm f/0.7 lens. Does that kind of lens actually exist? If you use nifty fifty on FF (50mm f/1.8), to give the same amount of light to MFT sensor you would have to use 25mm f/0.9 lens. Does that lens even exist? Do MFT users use lenses that are that fast? No? No. They usually just use lenses with the equivalent focal lenght, but the same F-stop (which means 2-stop less light, and therefor get about 2-stop more noise at the same ISO).

So, that is the answer why MFT struggles with low light - because of the sensor size, and not having adequately fast lenses which would compensate for that small sensor size. For MFT cameras not to struggle with low light, used lens must have about 2-stops better F-stop than FF camera.

43 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Cropfactor applied to aperture is wrong unless you add a long ass sentence about shutter speed and/or iso, sensor generation etc, etc, etc. It makes zero sense.

F2 is f2 is f2.

No. f/2 is f/2 only in exposure triangle. f/2 is not f/2 when considering DoF or (total) amount of light per photo (not per pixel).

Think about this - aperture is the size of the lens opening. If you do not use the whole lens opening, the whole aperture size, that means that you are using smaller than maximum aperture. What does it matter to you if lens has a certain aperture when you are not using the light that that aperture passes through - you are using only a part of it? So, on crop sensor that f/2 aperture is effectively smaller than it would have been on full frame senzor. What is really important - physical size of an opening, or size of that opening that is actually used for taking a photo?

You have to realize that F-stop of f/2 (or F2) is a relative aperture - relative to the focal length! Without focal length you have nothing! On the other and, real aperture is what defines DoF and total amount of light per photo. In other words, when using 50 mm f/2 lens on a FF body, real aperture size is 25 mm. If you use f/2 on 100 mm lens, real aperture size is 50 mm. Wow! Mind blown! The same relative aperture (the same F-stop) equates to different real apertures on different focal length lenses!

But, if you use equivalent F-stops - 100 mm F4 on FF gives aperture size of 25 mm, which is the same as 50 mm F2 lens - real aperture size in both of those instances is 25 mm. F-stop (relative aperture size) is different, but real aperture size is the same. And we can expect the same FoV with that combination, the same DoF, and the same amount of light per photo (which means we should drop ISO on MFT camera by 2 stops - and obviously, FF cameras have about 2 stops better ISO performance - everything checks out).

It's all politics. It is clear that manufacturers try to advance their cameras as little as possible. They will cripple them on purpose (planned obsolescence). They are on a verge of creating almost perfect camera, but they just won't do it because they won't be able to sell newer cameras anymore. They just keep getting closer and closer to the verge, and slower and slower, but won't cross it - not because they can't, but because it would hurt future sales.

You can forget about Sony (and other manufacturers also) creating great universal camera (video + photo), because they still believe they have market for camcorders. Until they stop believing that, we will not get great all-around cameras - they will continue to cripple video functions and/or performance. It will take years, and then only the most expensive cameras will be really, really good and universal.