1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

ISO noise mu43 vs FF

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by zulfur666, Dec 9, 2014.

  1. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 30, 2014
    Just curious haven't found any comparison.
    If you have the lens
    40-150 f/2.8 and shoot ISO 100 at 150mm (300mm FF comparison f/2.8 (DOF being 5.6)) if I have a FF lens at 300mm f/5.6 what ISO noise could I compare?
    I know the settings would be the same if I set my mu43 to f/5.6 vs FF f/5.6 but considering the sensor is 4x as large I wonder if the 2 f stops in difference equal 2 stops in ISO noise (hence ISO 100 to 400) or 4x ISO noise?
    meaning if I see at ISO 100 f/2.8 some noise if I shoot f/5.6 FF would it be 4 times less ISO or only 2x less ISO noise considering a 24MP FF sensor like on the Sony A7 II or Canon 5D Mark III,
  2. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    What is noise? So far the only difference I have seen is that people using FF shout more lound and those who use smaller sensor make less noise :wink::wink:I have no idea about any other noises :biggrin:
  3. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Noises isn't linear. So the noise of a micro four thirds sensor doesn't achieve the 2 stop difference. It's more like 1.67 stops or less, depending on the sensor used.
  4. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 10, 2010
    Killarney, OzTrailEYa

    from my blog post: http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/shallow-portrait-lenses-43rds-vs-full.html

    animated GIF made from RAW -> dcraw converted to TIFF -> split into channels in photoshop.

    cycle is Colour -> Red -> Green -> Blue ...

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    The GH1 image looks softer beause I was comparing 100mm f2.8 on the full frame with 50mm f1.4 on the GH1 to attempt to see what was the differences between 2 stops and x2 focal length.

    I did not have access to a native 4/3 50mm f1.4 and so I compared OM100mm on the 5D and FD50f1.4 on the GH1

    of course this is 100% ... and as I've posted elsewhere on my blog you are unlikely to see this on prints in any meaningful way due to the inevitable blur that occurs during printmaking

    this shows the blurs which occur during printing (but don't appear on a screen)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    see the blog post for more details, the other example images I wanted to post are not showing here ...
    hope that helps
    • Like Like x 2
  5. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 30, 2014
    this helps in my decision if I should move to FF aka Sony A7 II :smile: while true it won't show in prints the higher MP will print better detail and will give you more room to crop if needed
  6. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 10, 2010
    Killarney, OzTrailEYa

    glad I could help ... going through that over time helped make clear in my mind what I want and what I'm "costing" myself to have it. I personally chose to stick with m43 for 99% of what I do, but if I want the look of larger formats (full frame, 120 roll film or 4x5 sheet) I know what I'll get from each and what (effort) it will cost me :) 
  7. tomtom

    tomtom New to Mu-43

    Dec 9, 2014
    I think there is no argument that, all things equal, m-43 will have more noise. But, in my case, the effects are mitigated in the way I take pictures.

    I typically select apertures to achieve a fair bit of depth of field. As you probably know, to attain the same angle of view, the focal lengh of an m43 lens is about half than that of a full frame. More importantly, the m43 lens will have about 2 stops extra depth of field.

    Now I realize the Sony has an image stabilizer, and if it is anything like my EM-1, it will be amazing. But, there are many cases where I am shooting at the limits of the stabilizer - for example, 1/8 of a second with a 25mm lens. Since I would not want to reduce my depth of field, and I cannot really go longer than 1/8S without risk of camera shake, with a full frame I would have to stop the lens down 2 stops and boost the ISO 2 stops to compensate (as I cannot make the shutter longer). So, in a situation like this, the question is which sensor is better - m43 at (say) ISO 400 or full frame at 1600?

    That all being said, if I was a shallow depth of field advocate and/or I didn't use a telephoto a lot (which is huge on full frame) then the Sony is very compelling.
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.