noone

Just now, tupp said:

 

Right.  So, let's just dismiss outright the discrepancies shown within the colored outlines, without any consideration nor response.

 

The differences are quite minor to the point of it proves theory and practice match to me, even in my crappy comparison between a more than 35 year old FF prime and a much more modern 1 inch sensor zoom.   

That you can not seem to understand that tells me you have visited that river and drunk from it way too many times!

Unless you CAN post proof that to setups to match exactly will not give the "same" photo, there really IS no purpose in continuing and if you do want to post more, just imagine me posting a reply that says I disagree.

Thank you.

Just now, markr041 said:

First, a mechanical shutter is irrelevant for video. And second, the fp does come with a cold shoe attachment. Why is a *hot* shoe important for video? So, yes, the fp is really a video camera. And this new Sony is much inferior in that dimension, unless you insist on continuous autofocus...

While I disagree about this harming the market (because the market is pretty much in free fall and it is getting to be every brand for themselves and this camera is about getting more sales for Sony), this is not even the lightest SONY FF mirrorless camera as the original A7 trio are all lighter (and the A7 can still even be found new if you look).

The A7c is also only a fair bit smaller in height but is only 3mm narrower and is actually quite a bit deeper than the first versions.

8 hours ago, tupp said:

So, if there is no way to get a close enough match in focal length for an equivalency test, how can any of the equivalency tests made so far be accepted as valid?

 

 

All I will say is if you want to prove an exact match would not give the same photos, do it yourself but again, when YOU do, make sure you have multiple lenses and cameras for each format otherwise I will just point out the differences why the equipment is not going to be an exact match and say it is invalid.

ALL the photos I have seen about this prove to my satisfaction the theory matches reality and even my crappy photos are close enough to prove that.

Beyond that I disagree.

Thanks for playing,.

1 minute ago, Trankilstef said:

Here in France it is the same price, which i find insane for a 2 years old tech.

I am not sure what the difference will be here in Australia (no doubt BOTH will be well out of my reach) but those other things are still valid reasons  for the A7c over the S5.

To be fair, there are plenty in favour of the S5 too.

EG twice the res LCD, slightly better IBIS, 60 sec minimum shutter speed VS 30 for the Sony, 1/250 VS 1/160 flash sync.

The Sony has a greater lens selection right now and clearzoom is a bonus.

I would take the A7c over the S5 any day but i guess if I was already using a Panasonic L mount camera it would be the other way around.

Pick your poison!

28 minutes ago, Trankilstef said:

People are sheeps. they're gonna sell a bunch load of it, based on Youtube vloggers recommendation until next "big" thing. When you see what the Panasonic S5 offers for the same money, why on earth people would choose this werid thing... New concept camera? Meh !

This is actually a couple of hundred dollars cheaper than an S5.

Better AF, faster stills shooting, smaller size and lighter weight, almost twice as long battery life might be some.

S5 probably makes more sense for video shooters but then there are probably better cameras still for similar money.

It will not be a huge number on this forum that buy an A7c but there will be many others that do.

While this IS quite small, it is interesting to me that it is marginally heavier than the first version A7 cameras and while smaller in height (by 23mm) than my A7s it is only a very small amount (3mm) narrower and is actually deeper by 12mm.

46 minutes ago, elgabogomez said:

So, it looks to be the same sensor from a73... how is it that Sony is the biggest sensor maker in the industry but it doesn’t use innovation on their own cameras??

Why not?   It is still a very good sensor. 

The A7iii sensor still rates among the top twenty cameras out of the hundreds listed on DXO.   There are a lot of very nice cameras rated below it including some that cost a fair bit more.

Price does seem a little high for now but like what I see.

I have no issue with the old Sony menus.

Reminds me a lot of the GX7 (I just wish the EVF tilted like the GX7).

It is NOT a camera for serious video but 8 bit will be fine still with most of those who buy it (and do not grade really).

The new little kit lens might be cheap enough for me to get one for my A7s, will wait for its reviews.

All in all, a good but not great photography camera probably with ok video for general use and it selling point will be its size (for a FF camera). 

Forgot to add I would skip the longer lens RX100s as while they might be better cameras daytime but because the lens is slower as well as longer they are not as good once it gets dark.

The Sonys also have clearzoom as well as digital zoom which is variable and so clearzoom extends the usable range out to 140mm equivalent (clearzoom is variable to 2x with little image quality loss , digital zoom is variable  to 4x but it gets  very noticeable so i would skip that    Both only work for jpeg stills and video, not RAW.

I am happy using up to ISO 6400 with my RX100 iv (goes to 12800, the v goes to 25600 I believe so might be a bit better at 6400/12800).

Low light is about the same as an M43 camera with a zoom (against a good fast m43 zoom, a bit better at the wide end and a bit worse at the long end to me).  The best  M43 cameras will do slightly better at higher ISOs but you may not have to use really high ISOs because of the fast lens.

M43 or APSC with a fast prime will be much better though (So that means  the f2 fixed lens Fuji)   HOW much better and does the fixed focal length matter is the question and the RX100 is good enough for ME to overcome the fixed focal length).

The focus assist lamp is annoyingly blinding (like on my A7s) so I turn it off.

It also can be fun with video as it can do slow motion up to 1000fps (1000, 500 and 250fps) and are all taken at smaller sizes with 1000 being smallest and upsized in camera to 1080.    1000 is not great but can be fun 250 is not too bad.   Only short clips but you can set it to be recording and it will record the previous few seconds (you can change the length and so quality too).    You need very good light to do 1000fps though.

Just went out for a couple of early morning snaps (a but cold so I did not go far)

12 hours ago, tupp said:

 

The images from two different M4/3 primes of the same focal length would probably not look as different as the images shown in the test.

 

 

That would depend on the lenses but if someone really went to the trouble of trying for an EXACT match they would need to take into account everything including each individual lenses characteristics, and that would be almost as difficult to do with two M43 lenses of the same focal length as it would with a Pentax Q and a Mamiya 7 with a digital back (assuming you can find lenses to match).

I am satisfied the photos I posted show enough similarity to prove my point and just to satisfy myself I DID test with my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 VS the RX100 iv Sony Zeiss lens  and it is as i suspected a closer match still.....now since it is not an EXACT match and was also just a quick and dirty comparison, there is zero point posting because you would just say it is different.

Feel free to set things up to match theoretically lenses of two (or more) different formats but include a couple of lenses for each format used....If you do that, I am sure the photos would be the same, if you are not, then maybe you should disprove it...

Lastly regards Dr Caldwell,

"Do the experiment properly and you'll find that the perspective is the same.  Surely you must have heard countless times before that perspective depends only on the subject distance.  This is a truth that you shouldn't ignore.  More precisely, perspective depends on the distance from the subject to the entrance pupil of the lens.  For this reason, the entrance pupil is sometimes called the center of perspective. "

I disagreed with you in that thread and I disagree with you in this one hence why this is pointless now.

Enjoy what you use and use what you want!

7 hours ago, ThomHaig said:

Hey everyone,

I was hoping for any advice / recommendations on a compact camera for casual use. I know this forum is focused on a lot of pro video discussion, but I value the opinions the discerning crowd here!

Some context: I own an Xt-3 and love the image quality and handling (manual dials). I'm looking for something that is as small and lightweight as possible that will fit into a jacket pocket that I can take everywhere for pics for the family album, and will be significantly better than smartphones images and video. I've got a little kid who's getting faster and faster, so good autofocus is important. So far I'm deciding between: The Fujifilm X70, the Sony RX100 V, and the Fujifilm X100F as an outlier. Here are my thoughts on them at present:

 

X70 - like that it has the manual dials and colour profiles I like from using Fujifilm. Nice and small. But video is so-so, and apparently autofocus (stills and video) is unimpressive.

RX100 V - Seems to have very good autofocus, and video quality looks great for the size of camera. Very small. But suffers from the Sony colour science of yesteryear. High ISO isn't so great (stills), and would rather a larger sensor than 1". Might not be that much better than a good smartphones in quality. Fiddly looking handling.

X100F - Again, Love the image quality and potentially the Fujifilm handling. Big sensor and fast lens. Video not so impressive though. And it's larger size and weight means I may be less inclined to throw it in a jacket pocket.

 

I know these 3 cameras all have quite different intended purposes, but they all seem to be the closest for what I'm after, and within budget.

Would love to get any opinions, and if anyone has first hand experience with any of the above. Or if anyone has any recommendations, I'd love to hear them. 

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

I would go with the RX100 V.

I got an RX100 iv very cheap and it is a little wonder.    Very similar to the v except the v adds PDAF (the iv is actually very good for a CDAF camera) a few other improvements too of course and if I could have afforded a v I would have got one but am now very happy with the iv and no need to upgrade now for me..

It is a lot better in low light that you would think (it is not up to my A7s but then, not much else is).

If you use a kit lens on your XT3 the little Sony would actually do very well against it in low light and only if you add faster lenses would it make a difference.

I very briefly had a Fuji X100F (and a X100S) they were both my late Dads and I gave them to relatives.    The X100F was a very nice camera but fixed prime lens cameras are not for me.

The RX100 cameras are tiny but a bit thick and I would not call them shirt pocketable but are ok in coats and jeans in a pinch.    

Can be a bit "slippery" (I use a wrist strap and make sure it is on my wrist before using the camera.

RX100 V (and iv) Built in pop up EVF, and flash work well and built in ND is great as is the flip screen 1/32000 shutter (like the X100F though the Sony just goes from mechanical to electronic seemlessly).

They are all good choices and ideally you should try them all yourself.

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

FWIW, I did a very quick basic comparison between MFT, APS-C and FF at a couple of focal lengths a few years ago on here and the differences in those specific limited instances with zoom lenses to create the correct equivalent focal lengths were marginal.

A more thorough test at different distances using primes would possibly yield more telling differences but I got bored.

Close enough for jazz as we would say.

 

Thanks for the reminder of that thread.

That thread alone is reason enough to not proceed any further since people would argue with the bloke who designed the Metabones speedbooster as well as one of the best lenses ever (Coastal Optics 60mm f4),there is zero point in a non entity like me trying any further..

6 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

Just wait some photo reviewers saying that it looks like a Mamiya 7...

Years ago someone (in Korea i think) was modifying Mamiya 7 (or was it 6?) cameras to take a digital back and selling them on Ebay.

IF I spent ages and ages, setting it up and trying for an exact match, the photos WOULD look extremely close (24 at f4.8 vs 8.8 at 1.8) even with this apples to fish comparison.

Again though why on Earth would I want to?

Given I used a more than thirty year old prime against  a much more modern fixed lens zoom on a tiny 1 inch sensor camera and to me, the photos are pretty similar (with errors down to me), I think I proved my point.     I could have also used my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 (at f8 VS 2.8 also a Sony Zeiss lens) and it would be a closer match.

Lastly, if you compared different M43 lenses against each other at the same focal length and/or different M43 cameras the look would not be the EXACT same as no two of ANYTHING will be exactly the same.

1 hour ago, tupp said:

Strongly disagree here.  Even if #1 and #3 match according to the "equivalence principle," they won't look the same.

 

The DOF on a Super 16mm camera can be made to "mathematically" match the DOF on an 8"x10" camera, but they will not look the same.  Furthermore, in the same scenario, the rate and manner in which the DOF "rolls off" will differ between those two different formats.

I know I know (here I am again).

Three quick and dirty photos 24 1.8 FF, 24 equivalent at 1.8 1 inch camera (funnily enough the camera said 24mm the exif says 8.8mm), 24mm ff at 4.8.

Close but not quite exact and the 24mm lens is more than 30 years old and manual focus (though still a very good lens) while the 1 inch is a very good zoom lens that is aprox 4.8 equivalent at 1.8.

All at 1/25 auto iso 1000 for the RX100, 4000 for the 4.8 and 640 for the 24 1.8 (again, close but not exact matches.   Errors are down to me, not equivalence.

All resized to the same size.     BTW, to match or better the little RX100 to M43 at 24mm equivalent I woud need a 12mm prime and even a 12-40 2.8 pro zoom would not beat it at the wide end (but pass it from 26mm equivalent and up).

I just thought i should give samples ...now I am out , really, truly well maybe , ok probably.

33 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

You're taking this thread personally.  To me MFT is necessary as I have MFT lenses.  But in the wider issue, is MFT necessary, ie essential to making great video.   No, that would be silly. 

Fullframe gets singled out because 

Well YOU are taking it personal it seems because MFT is necessary to you.

FF is necessary (CURRENTLY) to me.    No big deal.

I disagree about why it gets singled out.

I am done with this thread (I am sure I will WANT to respond but guess I better not).

To all, enjoy what you have, use what you want.

3 hours ago, Jay60p said:

OK, I was not familiar with the Equivalency Debates so I found this all quite confusing.

I found Wikipedia to be even more confusing. But then I found this excellent article:

https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso  that begins -

"I know, I know. After the 2012-2017 Great Equivalence War, photographers everywhere agreed never to utter that word again. Nasim’s famous quote, “Everyone is right, everyone is wrong,” has been etched both into the peace treaty and into the hearts of millions. However..."

So "aperture equivalence" is about matching depth-of-field between formats, not brightness or exposure.

And about the FF F/2 and aps-c f/1.4 :

that is also about matching depth of field (to the shallow side).

So FF has an advantage if you are generally trying to throw the background out of focus, which is the current fashion no doubt about it. (Which seems to be about getting a "Hollywood" cinematic look?)

But if you want as much of your field of view and the people in it in sharp focus (like I do), then shorter focal lengths on smaller sensors have an advantage. Which is why I for one don't need FF.

 

 

It is about getting the "same" photo (DOF, noise levels ETC).     If you just want it as the same focal length, then that is a different story but a 50mm f1 lens on M43 does not make a 100mm f1 lens, it is still a 50mm f1 lens but is equivalent to a 100 f2.   

If you took three photos..

50mm f2 on M43, 100mm f2 on FF and 100mm f4 on FF (all things being equal) first and third will look the same second will not.

That is how it works.....Now why on Earth you would want to or need to do that is an entirely different issue.

As for getting as much DOF as possible, you do realize that even with an 85 1.2 lens FF you can have infinite DOF wide open?   Otherwise, just stop down or use a different shutter speed.

I have not been DOF limited yet with any system really (used many P&S including a Pentax Q. 1 inch Sony, M43 mirrorless, 43 DSLR, 1.5x APSC mirrorless, 1.6x APSC DSLR, several APSC 1.5x DSLRs, several FF mirrorless and larger format with film).

I only need FF because it gives me what I want that is not available with smaller formats and when/if they ever do, I will always go with smaller where possible.

Sooner or later EVERYONE is in trouble I think.

I just got an old Australian photography magazine from Feb 1988

I opened it to a random page and it was

"Video news" The three stories listed....

Sanyo Vision-8, 8mm camcorder

VHS-C- The future of video cameras

Polaroid aims to be Number one.

3 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

People see and react to the posts that trigger them the most.  Sony users says DpReview is full of Canon trolls, Canon users say it is full of Sony trolls.  Who is to blame.  I see both, but then I am neither Sony or Canon.  Its the same with fullframe or MFT.   I've seen and read many posts suggesting MFT is inferior to fullframe, even here.  Doubtless you've seen the opposite.  

Ultimately this thread has asked a question.  Most have answered it..   general opinion is that it isn't necessary, which of course its not.  No more than any other format; but with the industry moving towards fullframe, it is a question many of us will continue to debate as fullframe dominates the hybrid market whilst slowly entering the cinema camera market.

IF a Pentax Q did every thing I wanted, I would ONLY be using that and I would have got another (mine died too early)...a lot of fun to use.

FF is JUST as necessary to those who use it generally as ANY other format, should I start a thread about is M43 necessary?.

As to Canon and Sony trolls of course they exist and so do Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji ones....Not Pentax of course since no one uses it anymore (just kidding, I love Pentax and would still be using APSC Pentax if they did what I wanted).

I just do not see the need for arguing about sensor size (and yet I am posting more in this thread than anyone).

No matter, use what you like and have fun!

29 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

No one has said that MFT or S35 or even 1" sensor is necessary for anyone to deny that it is not.  Fullframe however seems to have some users suggesting it is necessary, hence I imagine why this thread was created, asking that very question.  

I shoot MFT and don't feel that format is necessary, nor do I feel S35 is necessary.  It maybe a requirement if you're looking at cinema cameras, as there are few fullframe cinema cameras out there.

Fullframe ILC and their equivalent lenses are numerous and affordable as they are targeted for Photography which has often favoured 35mm in the past.  Professional photo cameras are more likely to be fullframe with APS-C reserved more for budget users who are less likely to buy a wide variety of expensive lenses.

Once you look to invest more money in dedicated cinema lenses, there are more options for S35.  For most of us, this is out of our reach.  

I'm sure for many looking for a single or just a few lenses to invest in, fullframe is more ideal, as you can get a great single zoom lens that covers most needs, lowlight and zoom range at a good price.  With MFT, I use a variety of primes that give me a range from 12mm 1.4 to 75mm 1.8.  I have a 12mm to 35mm zoom lens at 2.8, which only disadvantage to a 24 to 70mm 2.8 is that depth of field and lowlight will be inferior at the lowest aperture.  The range is still there for regular shooting.  And of course the lenses are smaller, and easier to carry a number of.  

So there are advanatges a smaller sensor can provide, cheaper options if your needs are extreme telephoto.  You can adapt a lot more lenses out there to it and video functions are less likely to be crippled by crop or overheating.  

Thing is though I actually see far more people saying things like FF is not necessary than saying it is...why is that? 

Just like DPR in the M43 forum, lots of angry posts about FF trolls and equivalence but the vast majority of those posts are started by M43 users (I long ago stopped participating there but visit those forums out of interest now).

 Again, it comes down to the individual....FF IS necessary for ME (as a hobby) as is a 1 inch sensor camera and a Fuji superzoom with a half inch sensor (that I use as a 1 inch sort of by using EXR mode), for others, M43 or APSC or anything is "necessary" but is ANYONE saying people who use smaller sensor cameras are wrong?

I guess I should stop now since I am turning this into something I would hate it to become.

5 hours ago, Jay60p said:

Just curious as to the theory that an f/2 in FF would require an f/1.4 in APS-C?

I just checked several lenses on my X-T3, pointing to my computer screen with this post.

Using manual exposure, 1/60th at ISO 1000:

APS-C Fuji zoom 18-55 required f/8 at 24mm.

My Nikon full frame 24-85 on a dumb adapter also required f/8 on it's manual aperture ring at 24mm.

A 16mm C mount 25mm prime lens at f8 measured 1/3rd stop lower, due to some black vignetting.

Why would aperture brightness change one stop between FF & APS-C, assuming no other glass added?

 

You are using all the lens on the same camera?  Ahh, it is because as I said, a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens regardless of the format.

When you use them on a different format they are still the same focal length but you get an EQUIVALENT focal length (and different angle of view) to a different lens you should also multiply (or divide depending) by the same factor.

7 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

 How long has it been since any of the lens makers released a new ~17-50 f/2.8 or similar lens? 
 

Sony, just on a year ago!  16-55 2.8 G   Supposedly a very nice lens at a very high price

I do not mind the look of it and while it will STILL be too expensive for me, I bet it will sell very well (actual performance depending).

4 hours ago, Jay60p said:

Just curious as to the theory that an f/2 in FF would require an f/1.4 in APS-C?

I just checked several lenses on my X-T3, pointing to my computer screen with this post.

Using manual exposure, 1/60th at ISO 1000:

APS-C Fuji zoom 18-55 required f/8 at 24mm.

My Nikon full frame 24-85 on a dumb adapter also required f/8 on it's manual aperture ring at 24mm.

A 16mm C mount 25mm prime lens at f8 measured 1/3rd stop lower, due to some black vignetting.

Why would aperture brightness change one stop between FF & APS-C, assuming no other glass added?

 

It is not just "theory".   

A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter the format but if you are multiplying the focal length to get an equivalent focal length, you should ALSO multiply the f stop.....if for some god forsaken reason you actually wanted to shoot two cameras with different size sensors alongside each other (and everything else was equal), you would need (aprox) a f1 lens on a 1 inch sensor camera, a 1.4 lens on a M43 camera, a f2 lens on an APSC sensor camera and a 2.8 lens on a FF sensor and a f4 lens on MF (though MF sensor size varies). 

A 50mm f1 lens has a aperture of 50mm, an f2 50mm lens has an aperture of 25mm.    If you use that 50mm lens on M43, you are using it as if it was a 100mm lens but it still only has a 50mm aperture and 100/50 is 2...hence f2.

That said, I have NEVER chosen a camera lens based on equivalence but again, FF is no less necessary than ANY other format so those saying it is not necessary should also be saying M43 is not necessary or APSC or anything.

If I want a similar photo using my RX100 iv against my A7s with 55 1.8, I have to use f8 on the FF and 2.8 at 55 (equivalent...the camera even says 55 but it isn't) on the RX100.

There are advantages to all systems.

Now, that said equivalence arguments belong on DPR, not here.

Just got this in at a charity shop i work at.

Donated with an old Nikon film camera with a Nikon 50 1.8 mounted (and this 50 1.8 E separate in plastic and in its original box).

I say near mint but it may actually be unused since the OTHER Nikon 50 1.8 has been used (that lens is still in very good condition too).

I need another lens like I need a new hole in my head but even as a collectors item, what would it be worth?

It was only a low end lens when brand new so long ago but being so old in such good condition and it does seem to have a reasonable following.