Wishes for 10 years on from the birth of mirrorless

[Shirozina]

24 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Yes, of course if M43 looks as good as FF at any given iso it doesnt matter at all. The problem 'is', it 'doesnt'.

At any given iso M43 is 2 stops worse off than FF.

I am not really sure what you are arguing here when you say the 'number of photons hitting the sensor doesnt really matter, it is what you do with them'. Are you suggesting that M43 is defying the laws of physics and has conquered silicon QE?

You are comparing sensor tech not sensor size. Once you get down to base ISO levels where noise is not present there is no advantage other than DOF differences and as the Dual ISO in the GH5s proves sensor size doesn't necessarily mean poor higher ISO performance.  

BTW - given the sensor size difference between the GH5 and the A7r3 the visible difference is not as large as many would assume....

[jonpais]

36 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Yes, of course if M43 looks as good as FF at any given iso it doesnt matter at all. The problem 'is', it 'doesnt'.

It’s just plain common sense.

[Robert Collins]

5 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

You are comparing sensor tech not sensor size. Once you get down to base ISO levels where noise is not present there is no advantage other than DOF differences and as the Dual ISO in the GH5s proves sensor size doesn't necessarily mean poor higher ISO performance.  

Actually, I am arguing the complete opposite - there is no replacement for displacement. I assume that as both M43 and FF use the same Sony sensors, their 'tech' is pretty much the same and it is the 'size' of the sensor that makes the difference.

As a matter of factual consideration, the Sony sensor will have less noise at base iso than an M43 sensor because its base iso is lower (unless of course you assume no noise!!!! with either.) And of course the A7xiii sensors all have dual ISO much the same as M43.

Really if people maintain that M43 iso performance matches FF they are really arguing in the face of logic, science and facts - which was the whole point of the debate.\, I am out of here. At some point equivalence debates just make you want to stab your head with a sharp pencil to quote @jonpais

[jonpais]

24 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

You are comparing sensor tech not sensor size. Once you get down to base ISO levels where noise is not present there is no advantage other than DOF differences and as the Dual ISO in the GH5s proves sensor size doesn't necessarily mean poor higher ISO performance.  

BTW - given the sensor size difference between the GH5 and the A7r3 the visible difference is not as large as many would assume....

Actually, noise is visible at normal viewing distances at all ISOs with the GH5s, whereas it is invisible at low ISOs with the a7 III.

GH5s: Visual noise is moderate. In Viewing Condition 1 (a modelled condition simulating enlargement to 100 percent on a monitor), the noise is visible even at the lowest ISO  s (e.g., score of 1.1 at ISO  160, 1.5 at ISO  800, 2.1 at ISO  6400). Visual noise would be most apparent in the darker tones.

a7 III: Visual noise would be barely noticeable (score 1.0) at 100% (Viewing Condition 1) in frames shot at low ISO, but very noticeable (2.3) at high ISO.

 

[Shirozina]

1 minute ago, Robert Collins said:

Actually, I am arguing the complete opposite - there is no replacement for displacement. I assume that as both M43 and FF use the same Sony sensors, their 'tech' is pretty much the same and it is the 'size' of the sensor that makes the difference.

As a matter of factual consideration, the Sony sensor will have less noise at base iso than an M43 sensor because its base iso is lower (unless of course you assume no noise!!!! with either.) And of course the A7xiii sensors all have dual ISO much the same as M43.

Really if people maintain that M43 iso performance matches FF they are really arguing in the face of logic, science and facts - which was the whole point of the debate.\, I am out of here. At some point equivalence debates just make you want to stab your head with a sharp pencil to quote @jonpais

But not every situation demands you push the cameras ISO to it's limits - within base or near base ISO there are no practical differences in noise that would make you choose one snesor size over the other

[Robert Collins]

4 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

But not every situation demands you push the cameras ISO to it's limits - within base or near base ISO there are no practical differences in noise that would make you choose one snesor size over the other

I agree, The sensor size will only make a noticeable difference if you need...

1. Better low light performance

2. Better DR

3. Or better control over DOF

[Shirozina]

2 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Actually, noise is visible at normal viewing distances at all ISOs with the GH5s, whereas it is invisible with the a7 III up till ISO 800 or so.

Not used the GH5s but shooting video on the GH5 at base ISO I don't see noise unless I underexpose or have to boost the shadows. Even then the quality of current noise reduction software like NeatVideo and Resolve Studio really don't make noise a factor I worry about.

BTW - maybe you could post a screen grab to show this noise visibility at all ISO's? - or maybe not   

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Not used the GH5s but shooting video on the GH5 at base ISO I don't see noise unless I underexpose or have to boost the shadows. Even then the quality of current noise reduction software like NeatVideo and Resolve Studio really don't make noise a factor I worry about.

BTW - maybe you could post a screen grab to show this noise visibility at all ISO's? - or maybe not   

Then why make claims about GH5s sensor performance when you obviously have no real life experience?

[Shirozina]

3 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

I agree, The sensor size will only make a noticeable difference if you need...

1. Better low light performance

2. Better DR

3. Or better control over DOF

Even Better DR is not a given as the GH5s shows with it's ability to maintain a good DR even at high ISO's. Large sensors may have less noise s you crank up the ISO but the DR drops off quite a bit with it.

[jonpais]

Just now, Shirozina said:

Even Better DR is not a given as the GH5s shows with it's ability to maintain a good DR even at high ISO's. Large sensors may have less noise s you crank up the ISO but the DR drops off quite a bit with it.

Wrong again. Tests show little DR falloff with the a7 III as you raise ISO. Do I need to reproduce another lab test or what?

[Shirozina]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

Then why make claims about GH5s sensor performance when you obviously have no real life experience?

I didn't make any claims about the GH5s - again you really need to read my posts more carefully.......

Just now, jonpais said:

Wrong again. Tests show little DR falloff with the a7 III as you raise ISO. Do I need to reproduce another lab test or what?

You are talking about 1 camera. I referred to 'large sensors' as a general concept which hold true for the vast majority of cameras without Dual ISO capability.

[jonpais]

41 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

You are comparing sensor tech not sensor size. Once you get down to base ISO levels where noise is not present there is no advantage other than DOF differences and as the Dual ISO in the GH5s proves sensor size doesn't necessarily mean poor higher ISO performance.  

BTW - given the sensor size difference between the GH5 and the A7r3 the visible difference is not as large as many would assume....

The gaslight is always on at your house. ?

6 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

I didn't make any claims about the GH5s - again you really need to read my posts more carefully.......

You are talking about 1 camera. I referred to 'large sensors' as a general concept which hold true for the vast majority of cameras without Dual ISO capability.

 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

Yes, of course if M43 looks as good as FF at any given iso it doesnt matter at all. The problem 'is', it 'doesnt'.

You're comparing stills. 

We're discussing filmmaking. 

Look at video output. As the GH5S shows vs an a7Smk2, the gap has for practical purposes disappeared at a given ISO level. 

 

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

I am not really sure what you are arguing here when you say the 'number of photons hitting the sensor doesnt really matter, it is what you do with them'. Are you suggesting that M43 is defying the laws of physics and has conquered silicon QE?

 

[jonpais]

Just now, IronFilm said:

You're comparing stills. 

We're discussing filmmaking. 

Look at video output. As the GH5S shows vs an a7Smk2, the gap has for practical purposes disappeared at a given ISO level. 

 

We’re not comparing three year-old tech. You guys are exasperating!

[Robert Collins]

9 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Even Better DR is not a given as the GH5s shows with it's ability to maintain a good DR even at high ISO's. Large sensors may have less noise s you crank up the ISO but the DR drops off quite a bit with it.

Well noise is pretty much inextricably linked with DR as you measure from the shadows. But leaving that aside, I would agree that say a GH5s does make up interms of noise and DR relative to FF by making more efficient use of its pixels...

Here is DR of the GH5 and A7riii compared and you can see it is pretty independent of iso....

 

But this is for stills. Once you move to video, the GH5s (in particular) makes very efficient use of the 12mp on its smaller sensor for 4k video while the A7riii is pixel binning (which I assume to mean throwing away pixels.)

[sanveer]

I guess with the Nikon Z6 and Z7 releases (especially due to their video features like 10-bit via c-HDMI and the new NLog Profile), there is more pressure on Panasonic to up the video ante, and add more features. I am guessing a price revision may also be welcome, but that's a debatable point.

PDAF has become an absolute must for future Panasonic Cameras. And the video dynamic range needs to be opened up more (across All Profiles). 

Suddenly I am wondering whether Panasonic can make more 20mm f/1.7 Pancake type primes (10mm and 30mm Pancake Primes?). 

 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I am not really sure what you are arguing here when you say the 'number of photons hitting the sensor doesnt really matter, it is what you do with them'. Are you suggesting that M43 is defying the laws of physics and has conquered silicon QE?

Nope. 
What I'm saying is that the image quality is what matters more, than how it got there. 
Does it matter if the image is created by a thousand or a zillion photons hitting the sensor, if the image we see is the same?

So we should instead be talking about the performances of specific cameras rather than hypotheticals of what would happen in some idealized theoritical world where all sensors behave exactly the same. Which of course is not at all what happens!

So if you have say a Panasonic GH5S camera shooting with a 25mm lens at f2 & ISO 1600, then if we're wanting to do the same with say the new Nikon FX mirrorless camera, then we must use a 50mm lens at f4 with.... and now here comes the slightly tricky part which people keep on tripping over:

1) stay at ISO 1600 but flood the light with four times more light! Which is tricky indeed do manage that much more light, and to still light the scene in a way which doesn't completely make it look differently

2) boost up to ISO 6400, but if this ends up looking worse (dynamic range / color accuracy / noise / etc) than the GH5S' video at ISO 1600 then you've clearly lost something.

3) a compromise between those two, such as ISO 3200 so you only need to stop down to f2.8

4) stick with the same f2 f stop, but this radically changes DoF and will end up compromising the story/production/1stAC/etc vs your original carefully chosen DoF at the start.

5) some kind of juggling act of tweaking ISO / F stop / lighting all at once, not the same as you had decided on before as best with the GH5S but might be the compromise with this full frame camera which leads to the least worst set of tradeoffs for it.

So you can see why those redusers had come and realized that visavision isn't the heavenly world of roses they thought it would be, which should have been obvious if they hadn't been stuck in the "bigger is better" belief many spread. 

 

[kye]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Sure, there are those who value extreme shallow depth of field above all else, this was especially popular in the early days after the 5Dmk2 as it was such an extremely unique look for many indies back then. But I'd hope we've moved on since those olden days. And are not simply striving to shoot with the most extremist minimalistic depth of field that we can physically achieve! 

Rather we are thoughtfully choosing the right depth of field for the shoot/story/crew/production. 

In my investigations I've noted that DoF isn't exactly what trends to be relevant in the frame - it's more a case of how blurry the defocused areas in front and behind the subject are.  Ie, if you're shooting a person at a given focal length and F-stop inside, where the background is relatively close to the subject, then that background will be a lot clearer than if you shoot the same settings outside where the background is a lot further away.  It also changes when you move the camera closer to the subject.

I came to the conclusion that if there was no other 'cost' (ie, lighting or ISO changes) you'd probably dial in a custom f-stop for each camera setup.  I'm lucky in the sense that I just want separation and depth so it's less of a worry for me.

1 hour ago, Shirozina said:

But not every situation demands you push the cameras ISO to it's limits - within base or near base ISO there are no practical differences in noise that would make you choose one snesor size over the other

It depends on who you ask.

It's a pity that the film industry hasn't adopted any standards for measuring colour shifts or noise, as these would be very useful for rating cameras.  Instead, what we get is people saying that a camera is "usable" to a certain ISO - I've heard people give figures that are usable from 6400 to 20000 for the same camera!

What we'd also find is that casual shooters have a much greater tolerance for noise and might not even notice subtle colour shifts, pros shooting for online or small-screen distribution would care more about noise but probably not be super picky about colour, and those shooting high-end stuff for the big screen are really concerned even with quite subtle shifts in colour.  Those shooting in RAW (where grain isn't mangled by compression algorithms) will have different tolerances again - my 700D looks abysmal at 6400 compressed but RAW with ML 6400 the grain has a nice quality to it.

If you hang out with some high-end cinematographers or professional colourists for a while you'll find that they're able to notice colour shift changes with ISO changes almost right down to the base ISO of a camera.

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Then why make claims about GH5s sensor performance when you obviously have no real life experience?

Because he shoots with a GH5, and sees that noise is nothing to worry about with the GH5!
Thus it is only logical for him to concluded noise from a GH5S also won't be the big issue you are trying to claim it is. 

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

Well noise is pretty much inextricably linked with DR as you measure from the shadows. But leaving that aside, I would agree that say a GH5s does make up interms of noise and DR relative to FF by making more efficient use of its pixels...

Here is DR of the GH5 and A7riii compared and you can see it is pretty independent of iso....

 

But this is for stills. Once you move to video, the GH5s (in particular) makes very efficient use of the 12mp on its smaller sensor for 4k video while the A7riii is pixel binning (which I assume to mean throwing away pixels.)

Yup, as I've said a bunch of times, comparing stills vs stills will only barely tell not even half the story.

 

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Because he shoots with a GH5, and sees that noise is nothing to worry about with the GH5!
Thus it is only logical for him to concluded noise from a GH5S also won't be the big issue you are trying to claim it is.

 

You’re just being silly.

You cannot presume the GH5 and GH5s are comparable as they use entirely different sensors.

If you really are a math graduate, you’d realize your conclusion doesn’t follow the premise.

And I never claimed anything would be a big issue for anybody. 

Stop twisting around and distorting reality.