Jump to content
Mattias Burling

The 4K Fuji X-T2 is here

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
29 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Yes but with an equivalent lens the A7 is bigger than a Nikon D750.

Maybe slightly smaller, but not really balanced (looking at the 28-70 2.8 for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Maybe slightly smaller, but not really balanced (looking at the 28-70 2.8 for example).

 

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Yes but with an equivalent lens the A7 is bigger than a Nikon D750.

But not with an equivalent lens from fuji. An equivalente a7rii with a sony/zeiss 55mm f1.8 would be a 35mm f1.2 on a Fuji (so you could get around the same dof and iso performance to compensate for the larger sensor from Sony). Well, this lens does not exist. Only the fuji 35mm 1.4, which is about the same size of the 55mm 1.8.

But I agree that the 28-70 2.8 is insane. I do not understand why sony went this route. They should have invested in lenses like the 55mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.8. They are optically outstanding, fast enough and relatively small. Well, the 28mm f2 was a good addition though. Together with the loxias, specially the 21mm 2.8, they are hard to beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice cherry picking :) You should redo that with Nikon's own 24-70 f2.8 (http://j.mp/29NNDmG). That Sigma is a) a third party lens and b) not in the same league as the Sony GM or the Nikon Nano.

If you had mentioned Canon then I would have agreed because the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is compact and the whole package is shorter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Depth of field doesn't change with sensor size, nor does lowlight. You only recalculate the focal length so the person you talk to will understand the distance he/she needs to fill a frame. A crop is a crop, nothing else.

Any who....

Rodis.md.jpg

In addition to the cherry pecking regarding the lenses you chose as pointed out by another member, you are wrong about the practical effects of image sensor size on lowlight and dof.

 

If you get same generation sensors with the same megapixel count, the FF sensor will perform better in lowlight than an aps sensor owing to its larger photo sensors. That is the reason why historically full frame cameras perform better in low-light than aps ones and a camera like a7sII perform better than an a7rII.

 

As to the dof issue, if you want to shoot the same composition (a headshot for example) with the same lens (a 50mm) with the same aperture using both a full frame camera and an aps one, you will need go further back and be more distant from your subject with the aps camera. Therefore, you will need to focus closer to infinity. By doing that, you get a deeper dof. Another opition would be to use a wider lens (a 35mm for example) and keep the same distance, however a wider lens has a deeper dof when focused on the same distance. That is the reason why I said you would need a faster lens to compensate for going from a full frame camera to an aps one and have the same options regarding low light and dof.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, if that's true, then a light meter has a setting for film/sensor size. But it doesn't. So no sensor size does not affect lowlight.

If true, a printed magazine cover gets darker when you cut it with scissors.

Depth of field stays the same. Exposure stays the same. Focal length stays the same.

A crop is a crop is a crop is a crop.

Take your camera and test/see for yourself.

I'm out of the discussion because I know how religious people get over it. Its like talking evolution with the Pope. Science from me and magic from the opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Ok, if that's true, then a light meter has a setting for film/sensor size. But it doesn't. So no sensor size does not affect lowlight.

If true, a printed magazine cover gets darker when you cut it with scissors.

Depth of field stays the same. Exposure stays the same. Focal length stays the same.

A crop is a crop is a crop is a crop.

Take your camera and test/see for yourself.

I'm out of the discussion because I know how religious people get over it. Its like talking evolution with the Pope. Science from me and magic from the opponent.

The one being religious or mystic here is you. Dof is a mathematical relation between focal length, focal distance and aperture. 

If you change the sensor size and want to keep the same composition you will have to change either the focal length and the focal distance. Therefore, you will have to change the aperture to compensate for that if you want to maintain the same dof. 

A light meter does not have a sensor size because a light meter is not concerned with the noise quality of your picture but only with the amount of light to get your exposure right. A full frame camera and a aps-c can shoot the same scene at f1.8 iso6400, both of them will be equally well exposed. But it does not mean the photos will have the same quality. To get the same quality (regarding low-light noise) you will probably have to shoot the aps camera at 1.2 iso 3200. Thus, you compensate for the worse low-light performance. 

That is it: when you cut a magazine with sizors you don't get the same composition. That is a very good example indeed. Everything stays the same (dof, focal length, focal distance, aperture) except the composition. Now, instead of having a headshot, you have the shot of a nose.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, veraguth said:

In addition to the cherry pecking regarding the lenses you chose as pointed out by another member, you are wrong about the practical effects of image sensor size on lowlight and dof.

 

If you get same generation sensors with the same megapixel count, the FF sensor will perform better in lowlight than an aps sensor owing to its larger photo sensors. That is the reason why historically full frame cameras perform better in low-light than aps ones and a camera like a7sII perform better than an a7rII.

 

False. There are way more factors than that which dictate the quality of the image output. Sensor size in this day & age aint one of em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Ok, if that's true, then a light meter has a setting for film/sensor size. But it doesn't. So no sensor size does not affect lowlight.

If true, a printed magazine cover gets darker when you cut it with scissors.

Depth of field stays the same. Exposure stays the same. Focal length stays the same.

A crop is a crop is a crop is a crop.

Take your camera and test/see for yourself.

I'm out of the discussion because I know how religious people get over it. Its like talking evolution with the Pope. Science from me and magic from the opponent.

I really liked the magazine metaphor. And I totally agree with your words, provided the two different sensor sizes have the same pixel density (and pixel size, consequently).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

False. There are way more factors than that which dictate the quality of the image output. Sensor size in this day & age aint one of em

Great. Thus, let me know which aps-c camera performs better in low-light than a full frame camera being both from the same manufacturer and same technological generation. I would love to hear. Of course, there are more factors involved, such as IBS for example, that is the reason why I was talking about same generation sensors. However, all factors being equal, the full frame sensor should perform better.

The issue (and a good thing) is that nowadays cameras can shoot in such high isos that we are starting seeing a difference only in very low-light conditions, which one does not use very often. However, it does not mean that sensor size has no effect on low-light performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Marco Tecno said:

I really liked the magazine metaphor. And I totally agree with your words, provided the two different sensor sizes have the same pixel density (and pixel size, consequently).

And you end up with a smaller image, which translates as a lower megapixel count... which is a form of performance compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought experiment: A Full Frame camera and an APS-C camera, both using a sensor from the same die, thus with the same dynamic range, same noise and same ISO per pixel. If this sensor had 12 megapixels in APS-C (24mm*16mm), it would have about 27 megapixels at full frame size (36mm*24mm, 225% the surface of APS-C).

Now, light sensitivity in ISO would still be the same for both sensors/cameras, but: if you downsample the picture to video resolution, the full frame chip would yield about 50% less image noise, therefore about twice the usable ISO. [EDIT: If the full frame-camera line-skips instead of doing a full pixel readout and downsampling, then indeed, it will simple throw away the extra light/image information, and the bigger sensor size will yield no advantage in terms of image noise/usable ISO/light sensitivity.]

It's the same when you would create same-size photographic prints from both pictures: The picture from the APS-C sensor would be noisier, and hence have less effectively usable light sensitivity/ISO.

The experiment is even easier when both sensors have the same pixel count (let's say, both 12MP/4K). Then the pixels on the full frame camera would have a higher full-well capacity, thus more dynamic range and less noise, and hence a higher ISO than the APS-C sensor with the same pixel count.

- One has to take into account that a bigger sensor captures more light/photons simply because of its bigger size. This is also true for lenses. A full frame f1.8 lens transmits twice the light that an APS-C f1.8 lens transmits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, frontfocus said:

Does the A7RII record full sensor readout yet? 

I don't know what exactly "same size" means to you...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#679.408,624.395,ha,t

Who said the a7rii recorded 4k in a full sensor read out? I said both cameras record full frame 4k, which they do. Of course A7rii does not do a full pixel read out in full frame. But I prefer to have it on my camera rather than no full frame at all. I have one, I find it very useful for close ups, when I am in tight spaces and when I want to shoot photos in order to take advantage of the 42mp.

OK. According to the specs, it is 2cm shorter. Mentally I thought it would not make much diference, that is the reason I said "about the same size", thanks for taking the "about" out. However, the image you showed says otherwise. The 35mm 1.4 feels much smaller. But I still think that one would need a fuji 35mm f1.2 to make a proper comparison.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omg those discussion still going on... DOF is a simple a length of a space that is in focus. Which doesn't change with single lens, constant aperture and distance from object. But when were talking about practical application and visual perception FOV/DOF ratio is much more important. So much more important that were replacing that ratio with single term "DOF". And i believe everyone in this thread is understand that. Just give to Mattias his medal of "definitions guardian" and please stop that annoying subject.

And of course size of sensor by itself doesnt affect its low light possibilities. Size of photosensitive element does. Which is easier to achieve with bigger size of sensor. Just give to Mattias his second medal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...