ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.4 #7 · Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II? | |
Number-5 wrote:
I shoot A1 and OM-1.1 (same sensor and processor as Mk II). I was from Sony FF, then to OM-1 for the weight, but now Sony has quite a few lightweight tele-lenses, I'm more or less back to Sony. I still have m43 for lightweight travel.
The FF handles the noise better than OM-1, but the OM-1's IBIS is very good, especially with the Sync IS (only certain lenses). With the IS, you can drop the SS to offset the ISO. I'm comfortable shooting 1/40s @ 420/5.6 (840mm FFE) handheld, and in a pinch, 1/6s with less keepers. I think OM-1 is one of the best low-light performers via the slow SS. That being said, when you can't drop the SS low enough, you really really really want FF.
Sony's tracking works, not so much for OM-1 (AF is a bit jumpy at times).
Many m43 users bring up NR software for the noise, but IMHO, you still want a clean source image for PP. With the same ISO, FF still has the advantage.
...Show more →
The common mistake: "With the same ISO, FF still has the advantage"
The same ISO means the same exposure, that on the FF requires four times (two stops) more light on the sensor vs the m43.
When the FL and aperture are equivalent, the only way to have the same ISO is by setting the SS on the FF to be four times longer than the SS on the m43, to collect four times more light on the FF sensor.
Truly equivalent ISO values for FF and m43 are different by the factor of 4, the FF ISO being four time greater than the m43 ISO, e.g. FF ISO 1600 is equivalent to m43 ISO 400, when the lenses are equivalent.
Basically, FF has no "advantage" in terms of the noise or dynamic range at ISO values that are four times the base ISO of a m43 camera. For OM-1, this is at and above FF ISO 800. For G9 II, this is at or above FF ISO 400 (assuming there is no dual gain).
The true advantage in noise and DR of a FF camera such as A1 is in the ISO range 100 - 250 and at 500 (due to the dual gain of the sensor).
Another "advantage" of FF systems is the availability of very fast (and very expensive, and heavy, and large) lenses such as 400mm f/2.8 or 600 f/4 that have no m43 equivalents. I can imagine that a 400mm f/2.8 lens could be developed for m43, to be equivalent to FF 800mm f/5.6, however, most m43 users like this system exactly because the m43 telephoto lenses are relatively light and compact. I have both the Sony 200-600 mm and the Olympus 300 mm lenses. Guess, which one of the two I have not used since acquiring the Olympus lens 1.5 years ago?
I don't mean to claim that using OM-1 or A1 should make little difference. The AF performance can be different, and this is quite likely that A1 has better tracking. Thus, for critical cases, for top professional photographers, when the ultimate performance and the fastest possible lens (even if heavy, large, and expensive) are needed, then one may want to invest into a FF system. For the absolute majority of enthusiast photgrpahers who are looking at the birds in their backyards, or would like to do hiking in the nearby parks and woods with a telephoto lens, FF systems are not needed in the first place and are not ideal in general.
|
