Interesting FF to M-4/3 low light comparison

fsi22

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
50
I use a Sony A1 and EM1X/iii.

The Sony is 2 stops better up til iso 6400.

With the ff iso12800 is about the same as iso 6400 on m43. There are other advantages and disadvantages to both systems in low light / higher iso. The Sony CAF is light years ahead, the Olympus ibis is in a league of it’s own.

012A1572-62E8-49C3-8324-91420B040E12.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
This is simply not possible with m43


CCEE6070-AE27-476D-A7B7-274DF482DE71.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Handheld 1/15s at 280mm ( 560mm crop ) is not going to be possible on any ff system right now.

M43 and FF have advantages over each other and the choice is more than just absolute sensor capabilities. Ibis, portability, lens selection, type of images one wants to create are the most important reasons to go with a format.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,773
I use a Sony A1 and EM1X/iii. The Sony is 2 stops better up til iso 6400.
Could you be more specific? Dynamic range measurements show differences of mostly a bit over a stop between the A1 and E-M1 III/X, very likely due to dual native ISO on the A1. So I'm curious where the second stop comes from.
E-MI III-X A1 PDR.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

fsi22

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
50
Could you be more specific? Dynamic range measurements show differences of mostly a bit over a stop between the A1 and E-M1 III/X, very likely due to dual native ISO on the A1. So I'm curious where the second stop comes from.
View attachment 913271
The A1 grain is different from the EM1 and looks that extra stop less in the lower ranges, When I was deciding on the A1, I downloaded dpreview raw samples, resized the A1 to the same crop and mp to the same as m43. Noise was about 2 stops to my eye. At iso 6400, m43 was better by a noticeable amount to the Sony iso 25600 and on par with it’s iso 12800.

Using Deep Prime on both systems, I now set my A1 limit at iso 25600 and EM1 at iso 6400. I use auto iso and am very comfortable with the high noise quality on both. A good NR software is essential.

C7D00825-0F3A-4667-B957-A65BFE8DE5CF.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I forgot to lower my ss for this image, iso 16000 and Deep Prime clean up.



Edit - Added iso 25600 example to show grain structure.
E12A9E94-F6BB-4B6F-A82E-8D650B8E3141.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,516
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
Note that he is comparing two video cameras, Panasonic BGH1 and BSH1.
The discussion can easily be attributed to other cameras with similar sensors. It's a discussion about low light and the difference in sensors, little else.
 

fortwodriver

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
1,263
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
I use a Sony A1 and EM1X/iii.

The Sony is 2 stops better up til iso 6400.

With the ff iso12800 is about the same as iso 6400 on m43. There are other advantages and disadvantages to both systems in low light / higher iso. The Sony CAF is light years ahead, the Olympus ibis is in a league of it’s own.

View attachment 913264 This is simply not possible with m43

I'm curious to know why the above shot is simply not possible with m43. Shorts like that were taken in the film camera days, Rather than bluntly claiming something, maybe explain it a bit?

Is it the poor lighting? Is there something about that bird that requires the Sony CAF to capture it?
 

fsi22

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
50
I'm curious to know why the above shot is simply not possible with m43. Shorts like that were taken in the film camera days, Rather than bluntly claiming something, maybe explain it a bit?

Is it the poor lighting? Is there something about that bird that requires the Sony CAF to capture it?

The autofocus system on the Sony is much faster and more accurate.

Yup, Swallows hunting 10 metres away requires an extremely precise and fast AF system.

At 10 metres with a 400mm , f5.6 lens , depth of field is 20cm.

Out of 400 images taken, about 360 were in perfect focus.

Additionally, I am lying on the ground which then means the extra challenge of the AF system dealing with grass and plants in the foreground.

This is in comparison to the EM1X / iii, which offer the best M43 for continuous af.
 
Last edited:

fortwodriver

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
1,263
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
The autofocus system on the Sony is much faster and more accurate.

Yup, Swallows hunting 10 metres away requires an extremely precise and fast AF system.

At 10 metres with a 400mm , f5.6 lens , depth of field is 20cm.

Out of 400 images taken, about 360 were in perfect focus.

Additionally, I am lying on the ground which then means the extra challenge of the AF system dealing with grass and plants in the foreground.

This is in comparison to the EM1X / iii, which offer the best M43 for continuous af.

I get it... It's the automation that's superb. However, guys like Tim Fitzharris were running around with Pentax medium format AF cameras taking photos like that and they are published. Doug Herr stuck to manual-focus Leica SLRs and a Sony A7mk2 until he eventually went with the L system. Neither of those systems have anywhere near as complicated an AF system as the Sony, but they're getting the shots.

If Tim and Doug can get it done with something other than a Sony A1, so can you. But I agree that, right now, Sony seems to have masterful handle on AF automation. Is that a software/firmware issue? A patent issue? I don't agree that it can't be done on m43.
 

saladin

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
2,362
Location
Melbourne
Real Name
jason
Richard Wong made a similar video recently. As he pointed out, much depends on whether you need to maintain a certain depth of field on both systems. If you do, then there's not a huge difference. But if it's a situation where you can shoot both systems at f/1.2 (for instance) and matching shutter speeds, then the FF is clearly superior. Horses for courses, as always.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,516
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
I get it... It's the automation that's superb. However, guys like Tim Fitzharris were running around with Pentax medium format AF cameras taking photos like that and they are published. Doug Herr stuck to manual-focus Leica SLRs and a Sony A7mk2 until he eventually went with the L system. Neither of those systems have anywhere near as complicated an AF system as the Sony, but they're getting the shots.

If Tim and Doug can get it done with something other than a Sony A1, so can you. But I agree that, right now, Sony seems to have masterful handle on AF automation. Is that a software/firmware issue? A patent issue? I don't agree that it can't be done on m43.
The new generations of sensor will make it possible. There have been rumors that the new GH6 will have a hybrid focus similar to Sony's. We shall see.

As for the focus issue, this discussion was really about light and sensors. Of course film camera people did it. They used zone focusing and preset distances and depended a lot less on technology and a lot more on ability. But if we want to keep this thread on track (not that we need to) we should be discussing ASA12600 film...
 

fortwodriver

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
1,263
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
As for the focus issue, this discussion was really about light and sensors. Of course film camera people did it. They used zone focusing and preset distances and depended a lot less on technology and a lot more on ability. But if we want to keep this thread on track (not that we need to) we should be discussing ASA12600 film...

No it's not about light and sensors... Unless I am misreading, he even explains his comment to me by extolling the virtues of Sony's latest AF algorithms. Photos like that have been done with cameras loaded with film well below ASA 12600 and Sony digital cameras aren't the only ones that can get a shot like that.
 

fsi22

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
50
No it's not about light and sensors... Unless I am misreading, he even explains his comment to me by extolling the virtues of Sony's latest AF algorithms. Photos like that have been done with cameras loaded with film well below ASA 12600 and Sony digital cameras aren't the only ones that can get a shot like that.
No, my original post was pointing out the high iso differences and I further expanded by pointing out that different systems have different strengths. I was not extolling the virtues of Sony as much as I was about M43 but you focused on a part of my comment which was not controversial in any way or form and asked for me to expand on it. I am brand agnostic having owned most of them, and it was my fault for assuming that a response with real world applications and samples would not be taken out of context.


For further clarification, M43 is my primary camera as it covers my needs more than Sony, Nikon or Canon. To repeat what I said, sensor isn’t the only consideration. Lenses, portability, ibis and what images an individual wants to create is far more important.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
4,516
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
No it's not about light and sensors... Unless I am misreading, he even explains his comment to me by extolling the virtues of Sony's latest AF algorithms. Photos like that have been done with cameras loaded with film well below ASA 12600 and Sony digital cameras aren't the only ones that can get a shot like that.
I meant the OP. It was about light and sensors. fsi22 mentioned focusing, which is what you commented on.
 

fortwodriver

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
1,263
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
I meant the OP. It was about light and sensors. fsi22 mentioned focusing, which is what you commented on.

So the focus thing was just a non-sequitur? I asked and he answered. All I was asking was for clarification on "you can't do that with m43." That's why I quoted fsi22 and not the OP. What exactly is wrong with a small divergence to clarify a statement?
 
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