Considering a switch from Full frame DSLR to mirrorless, have a few questions

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Cameras' started by CaptainNapalm, May 25, 2014.

  1. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    1,120
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
    If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.


     
  2. sashbar

    sashbar Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Location:
    Behind the Irony Curtain
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Where did you get that idea of 4 times more light for a FF sensor? If it gets 4 times more light with the same scene, it means the image is overexposed by 4 stops :allteeth:

    It does not work like that in real life. In real life an APS-C and even more so 4/3 camera can use a wider aperture for the same shot, simply because of a deeper DoF. Which allows for lower ISO than FF for the same shot.

    With a FF camera you often need to step down the aperture, because the DoF is too shallow for many shots and then crack up the ISO to compensate for that Yes, high ISO performance is great with FF, but 4/3 sensors do not need that ISO for the same shot in the first place.

    So there is an obvious way around that. :allteeth:
    As I said FF high ISO is often overrated .
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Gary A.

    Gary A. Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Messages:
    22,357
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    Location:
    Southern California
    Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. sashbar

    sashbar Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Location:
    Behind the Irony Curtain
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    You can also put it this way:
    Let's say you shoot a particular scene with both 4/3 and FF and you want a particular DoF and shutter speed (surprise,surprise)
    With 4/3, let's say, you are using 1.2 aperture and 1/100 shutter speed
    With FF camera, for the same scene you keep the same shutter speed, but need to stop down the aperture, because otherwise DoF will be way too shallow. So you stop it down by two stops compared to 4/3.
    Strictly speaking that means FOR THE SAME SHOT there will be 4 TIMES LESS light on the the each sq mm of FF sensor than it was with 4//3.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    1,120
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    My info about MFT takes 1/4 the light then FF I got from this interesting video



    I will not get into the need to close aperture to get more DOF on FF as I am not a scientist and I think this is much more complex but I can share with you my personal experience which might have value or might not, for me it does so you may accept it or not.
    My old D7100 was a great camera and most of my shots came out nice and sharp but I tried to get them not in f2.8 as it might come from time to time a weee bit soft.
    Now with my FF or FX I can shoot at f2.8 and honestly I am still waiting to find ONE picture that isn't in focus.
    AF system on the D750 is much more advanced and my personal skills keep improving so those might be the main reasons for my sharp results but the fact is that I can shoot at f2.8 all day long if I want.

    Bottom line I will be the last person on this planet to disrespect MFT, I saw too many results and too many pictures of these systems to know they are VERY good but for me I want the added low light performance and all the advantages FF is giving.
    I am sure Nikon and Canon in the future will come out with FF mirrorless which will replace their wonderful DSLRs and as long as their cameras will work with my DSLR lenses I will be right there with my visa in hand.
     
  6. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    1,120
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Check my replay with Tony's video, if you disagree with his video I am sure you can contact him and explain to him where he was wrong, to me it looks very simple.
     
  7. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    1,120
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    You should watch Tony's video, it will explain to you where you are wrong.
    f1.4 on MFT with their existing lenses isn't really f1.4
     
  8. Gary A.

    Gary A. Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Messages:
    22,357
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    Location:
    Southern California
    I watched Tony's video. Baloney. Tony is quite the convincing salesman.

    He is saying, what we all know to be true, is that generally, sensors, (regardless of size), will have better noise at a lower ISO. And yes there is math behind that, but he twisted the explanation of the math to support his statements. And Tony completely ignore differences in sensor technology and he assumed that all sensors are equal. To avoid getting into details ... think of this ... Tony's bucket theory. Tony said that a bucket with twice the diameter, (Tony said size but it is actually diameter), will gather twice as much rain, all else being equal. That is true. What he selectively omitted that if the bucket is a sensor ... then somewhere in the buckets is a line which represents a proper exposure. Lets say that line is three inches from the bottom of the buckets. All else being equal, (each bucket getting the same amount of rain over the same time period), both buckets will hit that mark at the same time.

    What I am trying to say is that a smaller bucket, like a smaller sensor, doesn't not need the same amount of "total" light to make a proper exposure (to hit the mark). It may need more light in order to get a higher S:N, which in turn will lower noise. Remember, lowering noise is different than a proper exposure. I am discussing proper exposure and you're, per Tony's video, discussing noise.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Didereaux

    Didereaux Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Location:
    swamps of texas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    "My main question is, for those of you who have ditched their DSLR system in favour of a mirrorless system, ditch you enjoy the switch? Do you regret it? Is there some things I should consider that are important that maybe you didn't take into account when switching? I would appreciate any advice you can give.
    Thanks!"

    First off real photographers don't ditch one system for another. Each system has its pros and cons. Right now the mirror-less has size and weight going for it (but a small lens library). Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income. I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system. Almost all even have little PS's they carry along. So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system, or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks. Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, but if you stop and think about it what I jsut wrote pretty well describes the reality of the situation as it is today with respect to mirror-less cameras.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Gary A.

    Gary A. Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Messages:
    22,357
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    Location:
    Southern California
    To address your, less than courteous, remarks:

    I used to be a news photographer, a photo journalist ... a pro. I know how professional photographers, especially those in my genre operate and work. I shot Nikon professionally in the '60's, '70's and 80's. I hope most would qualify me as a 'real' photographer.

    Presently, I have three complete systems. A FF system (1Ds), an APS-C system (mirrorless Fuji) and a MFT system (Oly EM1). I haven't touched my FF system in a couple of years. I've been slowly giving it away to my kids. The latest system is the Fuji APS-C syste, I love the Fuji. The cameras and lenses are great and the IQ from the X-Trans sensor, to my eye is very film-esque. MFT is very digital-ish and the Canon FF is somewhere in-between. But these differences are subtle.

    Again, presently, I am a hobbyist. I still shoot for publication but most of those 'assignments' are performed pro bono. I, like many pro photogs, also had a smaller camera for fun. I was using a GF1 as my fun camera. After a bit I realized that many of my MFT lens were as sharp as my L lenses. I also realized that up to an 8x10+, there wasn't any significant differences in IQ between my FF and MFT (for what and how I shoot). Oly came out with the EM5 which had a significantly improved sensor and vastly superior performance and handling over my GF1. While, as a former pro, size and weight doesn't matter in photography ... all that matters is the final image. I appreciated the little bodies, lenses and diminished weight. (I remembered when Olympus initially marketed the OM1. It was this great little film camera that was dwarfed by our Nikons. Oly dropped off palettes of equipment to major newspapers and wire services. We all snatched them up and used them for about three to four months .. then they started breaking so we went back to Nikon.) The EM5 pretty much replaced my 1Ds.

    One day I was in my camera store and I spotted a Fujifilm X-Pro1. It was absolutely beautiful and sexy and it felt so good ... and I bought it. I just wanted to walk around with this sexy little number hanging around my neck. After I look at the images, I was blown away. The Fuji images were amazingly good. The XP1 was a bit larger than the EM5 and did everything slower than the EM5, but it was such a good looking camera with such good looking output that I adapted my shooting style to accommodate the sexy camera with lenses that were at least as good as L and quite often better. So now I'm shooting APS-C mirrorless with slow AF but wonderful IQ. Fuji came out with the XT1, about the same size as MFT (EM1) but sports a significantly superior sensor. The handling is easier because it has a very simple menu system, dials on top for shutter/ISO/Exp Comp/meter/et al. The AF is super fast, but cannot track, write speed can use UHSII and the EVF at under 8FPS and decent light is nearly seamless.

    System wise, MFT is way ahead of Fuji, (as it is a more mature system). But Fuji is getting there. I will still shoot MFT solely because of the longer and faster lenses available for MFT over Fuji.

    That is essentially my migration to mirrorless. So yeah, the "reality" is my migration is purely so I can be a big shot at Starbucks.

    Gary
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. Didereaux

    Didereaux Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Location:
    swamps of texas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    You marked my comment disagree. Yet in your reply you openly admit to owning and using several systems. That was my point!!! One system doesn't do it all. As for 'less than considerate' that is subjective. I did not attack the OP, that I was not particularly admiring of one segment of the population, well I doubt you love them all either. Again I point out that the gist of your reply sustained my conclusions.
     
  12. Gary A.

    Gary A. Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Messages:
    22,357
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    Location:
    Southern California


    I did not mark your comments with a 'Disagree". You are wrong on that count. Interestingly, possibly as a retort you marked 'Disagree' with my migration story. An action I cannot fathom, as how can one disagree with a story of my migration from FF to mirrorless ... it is my story of my migration. I can only assume your marking of 'Disagree', as the act of a small minded and negative person.

    While a "small lenses library" is subjective, I think you may be the only person familiar with MFT that would call MFT lenses collectively a small library.

    Your comments, in my subjective opinion, of "real photographers" is very condescending and arrogant.

    Your comment of "Other than that all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income." , is negative, condescending/arrogant and possibly not true.how do you know that "all the hype is from manufacturers, their flacks, yuppies, and wannabes with to much disposable income"? (I won't comment on the improper use of the English language as English may not be your mother tongue.)

    "I am unawares of any SUCCESSFUL pros who have only one type of camera/system." While this may be true, but the significance of this remark is dependant upon the greater audience/forum membership understanding the size of your "pros" universe. Without that knowledge, your statement has no merit.

    "So your real question is do you have a specific purpose for a new system," ... that is actually statement which is important and requires consideration. (Unlike your other statements.) But then you finished with "...or are you simply looking for something to talk about at Starbucks. " Again, condescending and arrogance on your part.

    "Now all that may seem harsh and judgmental, ..." Again, subjective, I prefer negative, condescending and arrogant to be better descriptors.

    Gary
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page