Guide to Cameras

[davidc]

Interesting series of articles showing the relative strengths/weaknesses of different camera types, showing the progression from cameraphone up to top quality SLRs. I've paraphrased the intros to each to give a flavour of what it contains.

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/11/30/bu ... c-cameras/ - SLRs, the "natural step up from m43"
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/11/29/bu ... -micro-43/ - m43s, "niche cameras for those ... looking for more quality & versatility than a point & shoot"
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/11/28/bu ... t-cameras/ - compacts (albeit focused at those taking photography seriously)
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/11/26/bu ... eraphones/ - smartphones "good enough for most"
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/11/25/bu ... ra-part-1/ - overall matrix discussing pros/cons

I liked how it explains how camera capabilities increases as you progress through the different formats in easy to understand terms. Maybe useful to show to a friend/family member looking to get into photography over Christmas?

[Mike Farley]

Hmm, I am really not certain about what the author says about some of the different characteristics of the various camera types described.

What I am more certain about is that your summary of the m43 system does not accurately reflect what the intro says - "Micro 4/3 systems have found a niche in the space for photographers looking for more versatility and quality than a point-and-shoot and less expense than a full DSLR system." That is actually an example of where I think the author has not really got it right as prices for m43 equipment are often higher than their DSLR equivalents.

For me, the advantage of m43 is having a compact and lightweight system which delivers quality results. I was talking to a Nikon rep after the Joe McNally presentation the other night and he confided that he thought m43 hit a sweet spot for digital imaging.

[davidc]

Fair enough, have edited the paraphrasing, thank you.

[davidc]

I was talking to a Nikon rep after the Joe McNally presentation the other night and he confided that he thought m43 hit a sweet spot for digital imaging.

Aha that most reliable of sources, a nameless rep for a camera company

I still fail to see how full frame or APS-C mirrorless that will work one day can be beaten by m43 mirrorless More light > less light.

[davidc]

Interesting to see what gear Joe himself uses

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/whats-in ... g/cameras/

I wouldn't have assumed he'd bother with a Df. Though I suppose he gets them free.

[Mike Farley]

I was talking to a Nikon rep after the Joe McNally presentation the other night and he confided that he thought m43 hit a sweet spot for digital imaging.

Aha that most reliable of sources, a nameless rep for a camera company

I thought that it was a surprisingly honest thing for him to say, which is why I mentioned it. For his sake, I omitted his name. I agree that most of the time that the reps spout the party line regardless of the facts.

I still fail to see how full frame or APS-C mirrorless that will work one day can be beaten by m43 mirrorless More light > less light.

The main advantages of larger sensors:

• Slightly higher dynamic range
• Less noise at higher ISOs
• Capability to make really huge prints*
• Decreased DOF to isolate the subject from the background

That last point is debatable. Sometimes increased DOF is what is needed.

Sometimes I wonder whether if photography were being invented today, would we have full frame? It exists as a legacy from the days of film and the time a hundred years ago when Oskar Barnack turned 35 mm cine film through 90 degrees. Most manufacturers who are introducing new systems are standardising on APS-C, which is not much bigger than m43. Sure there is some trade off with a smaller sensor size, but the difference in overall area is not actually that much. APS-C is around 40% of full frame, m43 25%. Technology is moving very quickly and can compensate for any shortcomings, which in reality are not that great. My two most successful shots this season were both taken on m43, so quality is not an issue.

* On the basis that additional MP can be more easily crammed onto a larger sensor. An A3 print from just 8.65 MP is indistinguishable from one one printed at 36 MP. Try it if you wish, but I have seen a real life example produced by an imaging scientist, which is good enough for me. MP count is not an issue for the majority of people.

[Mike Farley]

Interesting to see what gear Joe himself uses

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/whats-in ... g/cameras/

I wouldn't have assumed he'd bother with a Df. Though I suppose he gets them free.

The Df has the D4S sensor in a smaller body, so there is sense in that. He is a Nikon Ambassador, so will have the pick of anything he wants from the range.

[davidc]

The main advantages of larger sensors:

• Slightly higher dynamic range
• Less noise at higher ISOs
• Capability to make really huge prints*
• Decreased DOF to isolate the subject from the background

That last point is debatable. Sometimes increased DOF is what is needed.

* An A3 print from just 8.65 MP is indistinguishable from one one printed at 36 MP. Try it if you wish, but I have seen a real life example produced by an imaging scientist, which is good enough for me.

Really interesting stuff there.

• The dynamic range thing I wasn't sure of and haven't seen anything conclusive - but you've reminded me I was going to try that out myself. Though with the 6D looking dirty and forlorn, that will have to wait
• The noise thing is definitely true though, and seeing what Sony are doing with FF sized sensors is particularly exciting. I'd love to get my hands on the A7 range
• The prints thing I'll come back to.
• The DOF for me is a definite winner. While it totally depends on the style of photography you are into as to how big a "deal" it is, there is definitely a measurable difference. I'd guessed/assumed it was less of a deal for you personally, based on what I know of you liking to shoot, but personally I love the effect and having the option available for me to use creatively. An 85mm 1.2 is on my neo-wishlist* as is a 50mm 1.4 But having the option for increased DOF vs being unable to tap into it is definitely a positive thing?

For the printing question, I didn't think sensor size had any bearing on the image? Megapixels do, definitely, but sensor size? While there IS a difference discernible using higher than 300dpi you're hard pushed to notice it, but at 300ppi you don't see any of the additional data from an 8MP image vs 36MP. The 36MPs just let you go beyond A3 and also crop your image down to 8MP. However, I didn't think a 16MP full frame image would let you produce a printed image larger than a 16MP full frame image? The resolution is exactly the same in both examples isn't it? Or am I missing something? It's just the ones on FF are physically larger and give the noise benefits by virtue of collecting more light.

Another item is the diffraction limit. For an average m43 16mp sensor the limit beyond which diffraction occurs is roughly f7-ish (scientific term). For a FF camera it's nearer f10 or f11. Add on a maybe 2/3 of an f-stop before the effect becomes visible in images and it starts to seriously hurt the IQ, especially around f/10 or above for landscapes on an m43. For the 6D I start to see the effect creeping in past f13 and never go higher than f16 if I can help it because stuff goes soft.

*the neo-wishlist is the stuff I will be paying for myself after having so luckily received my haul of kit back in March

Sometimes I wonder whether if photography were being invented today, would we have full frame? It exists as a legacy from the days of film and the time a hundred years ago when Oskar Barnack turned 35 mm cine film through 90 degrees. Most manufacturers who are introducing new systems are standardising on APS-C, which is not much bigger than m43. Sure there is some trade off with a smaller sensor size, but the difference in overall area is not actually that much. APS-C is around 40% of full frame, m43 25%. Technology is moving very quickly and can compensate for any shortcomings, which in reality are not that great. My two most successful shots this season were both taken on m43, so quality is not an issue.

Today we already see manufacturers not caring about FF beyond having to provide the crop factor to lens buyers. It's exactly APS-C, M43 etc. they are choosing. It's only that the standardisation from the film days that helps all manufacturers that it's used, even if in the case of FF as something to be compared to. Physics dictates that bigger sensors are always better than smaller, so as we're seeing now it's coming down to personal preference on sensor size. When Canon finally drop EOS it'll be interesting to see if they go larger for better quality or smaller for better convenience... a split we see now between high-end cameras and m43. There will always be a grey area of overlap between the two.

[Mike Farley]

OK, I missed diffraction from the list, but the point at which it commences and when it starts become an issue are two different matters. Eventual output size and the amount of downscaling will also be factors, when pixel peeping the image at its original size can be misleading. Personally, I rarely go beyond f/8 on m43, but it is my walkabout camera. If I were regularly shooting landscape, it would not be my first choice admittedly.

Dynamic range is probably marginal, a stop or so at most, with the Sony sensors getting better DxO results than those made by Canon. Your 6D experiment might not prove much.

Noise is only really a factor if you are regularly shooting in low light conditions. Most cameras can comfortably go to ISO 1600 and beyond these days and noise reduction software is very effective. It's a lot cheaper to buy than a full frame camera, too.

I thought I had explained my comment about equating sensor size to print size in my footnote. It's not something which will worry most people unless they are shooting for billboards. Once again, software plays a part. An example is the Landscape Photographer of the Year exhibition where in the past I have seen images taken on a modest amount of MP blown up to surprising sizes without loss of quality, presumably through the use of efficient resizing algorithms.

There are some very fast lenses for camera systems with less than full frame sensors. I am thinking of the Panaleica 42.5 f/1.2 and Fuji 56 f/1.2. Both can achieve the out of focus look you want and are substantially cheaper than the Canon 85 f/1.2, not to mention being smaller and lighter to boot.

One area where Canon and Nikon have both failed their customers is through not extensively addressing those who have bought into APS-C. Yes, there are a few EF-s and DX lenses available, but in the main the only option is to use a full frame lens which is larger and heavier than it needs to be. Based on the EOS M, I fully expect Canon to go APS-C when it finally gets serious about mirrorless and I would not be surprised if Nikon did the same. APS-C seems to be where there are the fewest compromises.

[Mike Farley]

m43 bokeh example.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1274#p6111