I Gave up the Panasonic G9 for? Sanity Check!

JDS

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
784
Location
San Francisco, CA
Real Name
David Schultz
Failed your physics class did you? :yahoo: The f-stop, which is also known as the f-number, is the ratio of the lens focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil. This determines the amount of light that is gathered and transmitted (depending on quality of glass and coatings) to the focus point of the lens.
Yes, but M4/3 causes the photons to get darker, or maybe smaller, something like that.
 

WT21

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,485
Location
Boston
The f-stop, which is also known as the f-number, is the ratio of the lens focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil. This determines the amount of light that is gathered and transmitted (depending on quality of glass and coatings) to the focus point of the lens.
It's crazy how hard it is for folks to get this, on both sides.

Yes, f/1.4 on FF vs 1.4 on m43 captures more photons, but there's also a bigger sensor, so it needs to (assuming here same shutter speed). f/1.4 on m43 has the same aperture diameter (well, not exactly the same, but close) as f/2.8 on FF, but if you close down to f/2.8 on FF then you are getting the same number of photons as 1.4 on m43, but over a larger sensor - hence a darker image and the need to boost ISO or lower shutter speed.

It's like if we measured fish nets in f/stops.

If f/2 in fish nets meant 2X the size of the fish (work with me on this, since a 1/2 fish net doesn't make sense), then you need a much larger physical f/2 net to get an Oscar than if you want, say, a betta fish. Sure, you get more fish with the "full frame" oscar net, but you also need a much larger tank to store it in, larger filter, more food, etc. Sometimes you just want a betta. If the fish analogy is lost on you, try fishsize.com and attach some lenses while you're there.

Oh, and sometimes people get a baby Oscar because it's really not much bigger than the beta, but later on they realize everything has gotten a lot larger and more expensive than expected.
 

stevedo

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
716
Location
UK
Real Name
Steve
Interestingly, in 94 posts (now 95) not a single person has left M-4/3. Not one. Those that have ventured into FF or a Fuji have done so as a second system, or gone and returned, or came here from another system. Given that, I think we're safe as a group.
I'm not sure 95 users is going to be enought o support Panasonic and OMDS :)
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,775
It's crazy how hard it is for folks to get this, on both sides.
Mmm, I tend to suspect most people do get it. Even if they're not ones to do the basic maths involved themselves. That leaves something of a noisy minority, though, and sometimes I think people just want to argue about stuff for the sake of arguing. Many of the people who do want to understand are motivated to use a search function and educate themselves, which tends to favor posting from folks who are less inclined to such an approach.

It's also likely those of us who have done the maths and do understand have posted explanations multiple times and therefore have limited motivation for creating yet another search indexed answer that duplicates wiki, blog, and book content, particularly since we've probably been called trolls for knowing stuff or mocked for caring enough to explain at some point. I'd be quite surprised if this doesn't compound the post selection bias.

In general, equivalence stuff consists of routine engineering tradeoffs about which tool offers advantage in which circumstances. Most equivalence "debates" I see consist of cherry picking parts of that continuum and advocating passionately on narrow grounds rather than taking wider, more nuanced views accepting of the diversity among photographers.
 

Mike Wingate

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
3,772
Location
Altrincham
Real Name
Mike Wingate
It is nice to try things out. But to buy a system, only to sell it to buy into another. Great? It really is one way to compare and contrast product and brands.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
2,257
Location
Tanagra (not really)
I think for me, the f-equivalence matters more to me in terms of the final result. In other words, the equivalent 50mm FF lens to get the same final DOF result of the PL25mm f/1.4 would be 2.8, right? Maybe I’m not seeing it right, but the light gathering depends on other factors, like shutter speeds, ISO, etc. There is also variability with each sensor model so you can’t just go “like for like” with settings and get the same result. There’s some fine tuning with each setup. So for example, with great IBIS, M43 can allow you to use lower shutter speeds in low light to compensate for the smaller sensor. I know that doesn’t work in those situations where you’re trying to stop motion, but I’ve had enough situations where I could just drop shutter speeds and lean on IBIS to help keep ISO down. What I can’t do is make a f/2.8 lens behave like an f/1.4 in terms of DOF.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
7
I started in photography 4 years ago and it wasn't art for me at first. I liked the technical aspects of photography. I liked the gear and gadget chasing. I started with a Nikon apsc and quickly accumulated lots of "pro" f2.8 glass. (By pro, I mean decade old third party lenses. I didn't spend over $300 for a lens) Good images obviously can't be taken with slow glass. I watched all the YouTube reviews. I read all the articles. Everything pointed to FF being the end all be all of sensor size. The more I watched and read, the more I was unsatisfied with my apsc camera. When reviewing images on a monitor I would quickly check composition, focus, exposure, and if they passed a very low standard for those three, I would zoom 200% or greater to look at the noise. This was the deciding factor whether or not an image was good or not. Noise became the filter in which I looked at all my images. It not only affected the way I culled images, but it also changed the way I shot. Motion blur was apparently more acceptable to me than a little noise at the time. I convinced myself that I would start saving to buy into the FF system. I was missing out! I needed to ascend to the FF club. All that light! The bokeh! No noise! It was gonna be great! Well I shopped and hunted and waited for just the right deal that I could afford... It never came. I couldn't justify the cost. Everything in my price range left me with even older cameras with less features. The only "benefit" was the larger sensor. As I continued to wait for the perfect deal and continued dreaming about FF I eventually I stumbled upon somebody who was finally honest with their viewers about gear. I wish I could remember who it was, but they snapped me out of the chase for the ultimate image quality. My images sucked because I sucked. I didn't know anything about photography. I only knew about photography gear. Maximum bokeh doesn't make a good image! I started looking into the art of photography. I'm still learning obviously, but the way I look at it and what gear I need to accomplish what i like to shoot drastically changed. Sold all the apsc stuff and went full frame! Jk. Ended up with a G9 and the PL 12-60. Quit worrying about gear and focused on the art. Soon enough friends, family, small businesses, etc started paying me for photos. I still consider myself a hobbyist, but along the way I used any profit from jobs to upgrade my kit to 3 small fast primes, the 35-100ii f2.8 and the panny 100-300ii. With the exception of the 100-300 it all fits in a small hip bag with a few extra batteries and a flashpoint mini speed light. I'm very satisfied with my kit, photography is as fun as ever and it fits in a small bag. I've delivered images with iso 10,000 and 12,800 with no complaints on image quality. Of course I'm not shooting for very demanding clients, but I'm okay with that. M43 is perfect for me and my photography. I have a long way to go before my skill surpasses the technical limits of my camera.

I say all this for those who are stuck in the technical side of photography. Quit worrying about noise, quit worrying about dynamic range, quit worrying about megapixels. I'm willing to bet it's not your cameras fault if you are dissatisfied with your images....especially as a hobbyist. Be honest with yourself.

Now for those who have never had full frame and feel that constant tug. For those who feel like they are missing out. For those who have gear envy. For those who like to impress with gear instead of images. For those who only enjoy the technical. Who obsess over each pixel. Do it already! Go full frame! Blow that background out! Quit wondering what it'll be like and taste the forbidden fruit!
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,696
It is nice to try things out. But to buy a system, only to sell it to buy into another. Great? It really is one way to compare and contrast product and brands.
Well, I can only speak for myself, but you can read every book, review, watch every video under the sun, but there's NOTHING like actually using a camera/system long term, to get a proper feel & idea for it. Especially when you're chasing such incremental, and small updates/improvements in your system, that a lot of the time take lab tests and such to quantify. Which is exactly how I got to m4/3. If you listened to all the prophets of doom & lab testers, you wouldn't give m4/3 a second glance. But actually use one for a few months, & you get a totally different view on things. Enough so, that I stopped using my APS-C & 36x24 sensor cameras, invested in more/better lenses for m4/3, & eventually sold my 36x24 camera. Actually owning & using something is VERY different from reading reviews about it.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,696
Another thing that I've learned/discovered, is that I generally have the most fun, with some of the more modest, entry level gear. Some of the best fun I've had with a camera, is with some of the cheapest lenses & gear I own. That being my Lumix 14, with a screw on wide angle converter, Lumix 20, & Lumix 25 (which I got for free as a bonus when I bought my heavily discounted GX8) I spent 3 months overseas with that exact kit, & had the time of my life with a camera. I know this to be true, yet still find myself getting sucked into buying "better" lenses, with no real difference in the impact of my photos. It struck me again -as recently as yesterday, as I was rolling around in the grass with my diminutive little 12-32, trying to catch Bee's in flight. Yes, I could have probably gotten sharper, more detailed & closer up shots with a dedicated Macro lens, but would it be any more enjoyable & fun? You've just got to keep telling yourself the truth. It's not the gear that's the problem. Of course, if you're a Pro shooting images for billboards and extremely fussy clients, things may be different, but I think it's safe to say the majority of us here don't fall into that category.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,775
if you're a Pro shooting images for billboards...
Billboards are printed down to around 4 dpi, so about 1.5 MP. If it's a 15 dpi board then you need 21 MP. Some of the smaller boards which are viewed more closely go to 30 dpi or so but ~16 MP is likely fine.

With the extremely fussy clients it probably doesn't matter either. Nothing will be good enough. ;)
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,732
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Billboards are printed down to around 4 dpi, so about 1.5 MP. If it's an 15 dpi board then you need 21 MP.

With the extremely fussy clients it probably doesn't matter either. Nothing will be good enough. ;)
Exactly. Had a friend who used to print them for a living. The shaded area for barbecues at the side of his house used a discard for the roof. Up close, the IQ was appalling.

Same with a poster size print at my bank. Looks great from 3-4m away, just don't eyeball it, it's dreadful.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,775
Yup. I guess I should point out if you're doing a high rez 15 dpi board it's conceivable the ~3:1 aspect ratio could mean you want to crop a ~45 MP 3:2 sensor in half lengthwise. It's my understanding that's a "we have the pixels so we might as well use them" sort of thing but I don't have a friend in the business. Doing the same from 20MP 4:3 gives a bit over 10 dpi. Still plenty.

At the other end of this, I've run 1 m prints at 75 dpi from 4x5 drum scans and 150 dpi from 16 MP. Can't see a difference even well below typical viewing distance, which is hardly surprising as the first is a 340 μm dot size and second's 170 μm. If you're in the habit of viewing your prints through a 10x loupe I imagine it's important, though.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,732
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Yup. I guess I should point out if you're doing a high rez 15 dpi board it's conceivable the ~3:1 aspect ratio could mean you want to crop a ~45 MP 3:2 sensor in half lengthwise. It's my understanding that's a "we have the pixels so we might as well use them" sort of thing but I don't have a friend in the business. Doing the same from 20MP 4:3 gives a bit over 10 dpi. Still plenty.

At the other end of this, I've run 1 m prints at 75 dpi from 4x5 drum scans and 150 dpi from 16 MP. Can't see a difference even well below typical viewing distance, which is hardly surprising as the first is a 340 μm dot size and second's 170 μm. If you're in the habit of viewing your prints through a 10x loupe I imagine it's important, though.
I examine my A2 prints with a 4x magnifying glass before glazing.

Even my prints from my 5 MPx E-1 are very, very good! Of course, those from my 10, 12, 16 and 20 MPx cameras are just noticeably better.

Even noise disappears in print. Displays are very low resolution devices compared with printers. My 24" display is comprised of about 3.7 million pixels per screen (2560x1440) square inch - around 1.2 Bn or 11.1 million sub-pixels in total. Every square inch of a print from my Epson R3880 is comprised of 2,880x2,880 dots - about 8.2 million, or 3.2Bn dots on an A2 print (17x22")! Even allowing for bleed and overlay, it's still a vastly higher resolution than any monitor.

IMNSHO, most 'noise' seen on monitors is an artifact of this low resolution, and inability to display fine gradations and transitions.

[EDIT as above] sorry for my lousy arithmetic, folks. [End edit]
 
Last edited:

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
2,257
Location
Tanagra (not really)
I examine my A2 prints with a 4x magnifying glass before glazing.

Even my prints from my 5 MPx E-1 are very, very good! Of course, those from my 10, 12, 16 and 20 MPx cameras are just noticeably better.

Even noise disappears in print. Displays are very low resolution devices compared with printers. My 24" display is comprised of about 30,000 sub-pixels. Every square inch of a print from my Epson R3880 is comprised of 2,880x2,880 dots! Even allowing for bleed and overlay, it's still a vastly higher resolution than any monitor.

IMNSHO, most 'noise' seen on monitors is an artifact of this low resolution, and inability to display fine gradations and transitions.
Yes, 20MP is way more resolution than early digital FF cameras. Are we to believe that none of those early generations of digital cameras were capable of making good prints? I wonder if we’ll have this same discussion in a few years when we’re at 100MP sensors? :p
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,775
Even my prints from my 5 MPx E-1 are very, very good! Of course, those from my 10, 12, 16 and 20 MPx cameras are just noticeably better.
Without the magnifying glass, at what dpi do you stop noticing differences?

Are we to believe that none of those early generations of digital cameras were capable of making good prints?
Only when they were what ILC manufacturers wanted to sell you. Now that the manufacturers want to sell you something else clearly they're no good. Or least it often feels like half of forumdom is pretty hardcore subscribers to this viewpoint.

Me, I've been pretty good ever since DSLRs and compacts got to 8 MP. Most of the people I shoot for are happy with 2 MP and don't want big files so seldom ask for 8+ MP. Recently I actually negotiated to use μ43 on a shoot instead of a phone.

I do like having 16 MP though I don't actually use it much. 20 MP would be OK. 40+ MP files would be getting totally overkill big.

I wonder if we’ll have this same discussion in a few years when we’re at 100MP sensors? :p
Well, 100+ MP medium format does predate this discussion. ;)
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,696
Yes, 20MP is way more resolution than early digital FF cameras. Are we to believe that none of those early generations of digital cameras were capable of making good prints? I wonder if we’ll have this same discussion in a few years when we’re at 100MP sensors? :p
I think it may take more than a few years. Take 4K TV. How long has that been around, and the TV stations here are still not broadcasting it. You're lucky to get full HD. I'm a bit old school, and not a Netflix or cable TV subscriber, is their content now 4K? Perhaps I'm just old and out of touch? 🤣🤣
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,732
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Without the magnifying glass, at what dpi do you stop noticing differences?
At a 'normal' viewing distance, glazed, there is little noticeable difference in resolution between 5 and 20 MPx cameras. However, the 5 MPx 2/3" sensor in my Nikon Coolpix E5000 is nowhere near as good as the 5 MPx in my E-1.

My Blackberry tiny 5 MPx will print well to A4 size. The 16 MPx in my new phone, ZTE T86 is very similar, but probably better than the old Blackberry if pushed in any direction. Phones are just bloody hard to hold, with other ergonomics being lousy.

If you are talking about printer DPI, I only ever print at highest resolution. Ink costs far too much to waste on full size experiments!
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,732
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
I think it may take more than a few years. Take 4K TV. How long has that been around, and the TV stations here are still not broadcasting it. You're lucky to get full HD. I'm a bit old school, and not a Netflix or cable TV subscriber, is their content now 4K? Perhaps I'm just old and out of touch? 🤣🤣
Almost all, if not all, free to air TV here in Victoria is SD up-rezzed to 1080. My recorder gives the game away! So do my eyes ...

With Netflix, it depends on what plan you are on. Basic is SD (576?), Standard is 1080, Premium is either 1080p or 'true' 4K, either '4K' or true 'Cinema 4K', depending on aspect ratio. We are paying for Premium. AUD$22.99 p.m.

Where native 1080p is noticeably better is skin tones and also better resolution, just that the latter is not so noticeable.

We have a top line Sony 55". Nature shows in 4K are stunningly good - see every hair on a leopard's face ...

We are finally getting the resolution I originally bought the TV for. Our other Sony 42" gives excellent colour, but is limited to 1080p. Still noticeably better than free to air, and many DVDs.

There are NO advertisements on Netflix. They give a 'proper' implementation of pay TV IMNSHO. I will NOT pay to watch advertising!

It is straightforward enough so that my wife doesn't struggle with it. She's not stupid (by any means, quite the contrary ... ), but she's just not technically minded.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
2,257
Location
Tanagra (not really)
I think it may take more than a few years. Take 4K TV. How long has that been around, and the TV stations here are still not broadcasting it. You're lucky to get full HD. I'm a bit old school, and not a Netflix or cable TV subscriber, is their content now 4K? Perhaps I'm just old and out of touch? 🤣🤣
Ah, but they want us to buy 8K next! 4K was already a smokescreen in most households. You'd need a massive TV and sit way too close to it to notice 4K over 1080P. What made the most noticeable difference with the "UHD" spec was not so much the 4K resolution, but the inclusion of HDR. But they got to get us to buy something new, right? It's funny, for the last 3 HDTVs I purchased, I spent $400 each time. The first was a 32" 720p Sony. The next was a 42" 1080P Viseo, and the last and still household champion was a UHD 48" LG. They are running out of reasons to get us to upgrade, and my last upgrade was just due to the Viseo taking a dump. I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade from the LG, and thankfully it has also lasted the longest!
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,732
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
@Darmok N Jalad Randy, we sit about 4m from our TV. I can easily tell the difference between SD, up-rezzed SD, 1080p and 4K.

My wife can't easily, except between SD and 4K, but she has mild cataracts that will be attended to in the new year.

I am yet to see any set that comes close to the Sony for picture quality. That's looking at them all side by side in the store, all showing the same feed.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom