Thoughts about MFT vs. Fuji X

[efix]

That's probably true.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Being from an ad agency and marketing background, I think "soul" is a nicer way of saying that you really like the branding and industrial design. Apple, Coke, Mercedes all devote a lot of resources towards perpetuating their products' soul. I think Leica understands this and maybe Fuji is beginning to... I doubt most of the other manufacturers can even grasp the concept.

Of course if cameras have "souls" does that mean that when they die do they go to heaven? When you're floating through the pearly gates and finish with your 72 Virgins are you greeted with your old camera collection?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Of course if cameras have "souls" does that mean that when they die do they go to heaven? When you're floating through the pearly gates and finish with your 72 Virgins are you greeted with your old camera collection?

Crumbs! I hope not. I'd need all 72 of those young women just to carry them for me.

😀

 

[jsrockit]

Of course if cameras have "souls" does that mean that when they die do they go to heaven? When you're floating through the pearly gates and finish with your 72 Virgins are you greeted with your old camera collection?

Wait, does this mean no more rumor sites or endless upgrades in heaven? 😱

 

[efix]

And now it's time to rename this thread into "thoughts about the Sony a7".

 

[yinyangbt]

I shoot much in low light static subjects landscapes street architecture. No sports, fast action.
I ask myself if the ibis + fast primes is not cancelling the XTrans sensor advantage at high ISO+fast primes. In real life, could mean a bit smaller package, lighter and with practically the same IQ in the output because mft could shoot at longer shutter times handheld keeping a lower ISO. On top of that, the larger depth of field of mft, gives better detail where it's needed over the unwanted bokeh blur at large apertures. Am I wrong?

 

[willie_901]

The majority of the newest digital ILC cameras deliver similar, high-quality results. Larger sensors can be useful or sometimes even essential. But for the past few years, the limiting factor in technical image quality (signal-to-noise ratio) is photon (or shot) noise.

Are you surprised to learn the S/N of several of the newest APS-C cameras have 1/2 to 1 stop higher S/N than the Nikon D3?

Photon noise levels increase as exposure (what happens when the shutter is open) decreases. No camera can affect photon noise levels once the exposure is maximized. So, photon noise levels are totally independent of camera brand. Sensor surface areas differences between the newest M4/3, APS-C and 24 X 36 mm bodies fall in the range of 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop when their lenses deliver identical light levels (signal).

Choose a camera based on the lenses and on whether or not you enjoy using the camera. Quite a few brands offer excellent to exceptional lens quality. So using a brand that makes you happy has no practical disadvantage.

This was not the case 4-10 years ago when electronic noise level differences between brands were significant.

 

[willie_901]

I shoot much in low light static subjects landscapes street architecture. No sports, fast action.
I ask myself if the ibis + fast primes is not cancelling the XTrans sensor advantage at high ISO+fast primes. In real life, could mean a bit smaller package, lighter and with practically the same IQ in the output because mft could shoot at longer shutter times handheld keeping a lower ISO. On top of that, the larger depth of field of mft, gives better detail where it's needed over the unwanted bokeh blur at large apertures. Am I wrong?

In terms of hand-held photos of static subjects with prime lenses, you are correct.

With IS zoom lenses, you are not. For landscape and architecture zoom lenses mean you never have to crop. Unless you have no limitations on camera location, with primes, you could have to crop. On the other hand, primes typically have superior optics compared to zoom lenses. Computer-assisted optic design, improvements in manufacturing processes and post-production software corrections have reduced the gap. But it is not zero.

The DOF part is complicated because DOF also depends on subject distance. Now the focal length (angle-of-view) is another variable,

 

[yinyangbt]

In terms of hand-held photos of static subjects with prime lenses, you are correct.

With IS zoom lenses, you are not. For landscape and architecture zoom lenses mean you never have to crop. Unless you have no limitations on camera location, with primes, you could have to crop. On the other hand, primes typically have superior optics compared to zoom lenses. Computer-assisted optic design, improvements in manufacturing processes and post-production software corrections have reduced the gap. But it is not zero.

The DOF part is complicated because DOF also depends on subject distance. Now the focal length (angle-of-view) is another variable,

Thank you for the feedback
You are right. When using IS lenses, of course, the advantage of the IS is mutually cancelled, the conditions being similar.
Of course, DOF depends on subject distance and the angle of view, the ultra wide lenses having a deeper DOF vs the shallower one on teles. Which helps a lot the manual focusing with wides.

 

[yinyangbt]

The talk about the primes was in order to lower the bulk and the weight to a coat-pocket-able camera , easier to carry , and less intrusive in places where I have to shoot as discrete as possible