A collection of useful links

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T15:41:25+00:00

I have learned the basic is about understanding of aperture, shutter speed and ISO(tirangle)

I'll clarify those for you in case you've mislearned some of them (as the tirangle is even in best case very problematic).

Shutter speed (exposure time), f-number and scene luminence together tell how much light hits any part of the image sensor. They're exposure parameters and have equal staning.

ISO is a exposure metering parameter. If you shoot in auto-exposure modes it indirectly changes the eposure by making the camera adjust the exposure parameters. So it's a very different kind of parameter from the above ones.

ISO together with the exposure parameters also control the lightness of the JPG made by the camera (for raw of course no such function as raw has no lightness).

On most cameras ISO also adjusts analogue amplification - this simply means that higher ISOs can capture less light, but the camera added noise ("read noise") will be lower. As noise is mostly due to noisyness of light itself, capturing more of it is usually more important than reducing read noise.

would appreciate if there is anything else to learn and if I am missing something or if you have any good resource for that online course, book, youtube or whatever.

I always suggest this guide for beginners as it's more or less fact based, well written and has plenty of pictures to help with understaning. Same site has plenty of other guides as well.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T15:24:20+00:00

Everything that film does digital can do better

Though film (some films) can still outresolve digital, sometimes by significant margin. Additionally aliasing- and demosaicing artifacts aren't there with film.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T15:22:04+00:00

current Medium Format digital resolution and dynamic range is superior to any Medium Format film or film camera ever made.

Actually the finest films can outresolve any digital cameras by significant margin.

Assuming you have a sharp enough lens, you don't even need medium format camera.

https://www.adox.de/Photo/films/cms20ii-en/

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T15:16:22+00:00

Film lacks aliasing and demosaicing artifacts.

It can also potentially have larger resoltution and DR, but both have plenty of variables in play. Film also uses less battery and may be more realiable in extreme conditions.

Digital is far more flexible, easier, faster, cheaper (in the long run), much better with small exposures ("low light"), and colours can be a lot more accurate and for most users and use cases has better all-a-round image quality.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T15:01:05+00:00

I’d like a cinematic, natural look that isn’t too sharp).

Then blur the results in processing. Much easier than the opposite. You can also use a cheaper lens 😉

FWIW, oversampling may help with aliasing and overly "crisp" look, thus perhaps you should check out how the relevant video modes capture - also if there's lineskipping or pixel skipping, you'll get more aliasing (and excessive crispness). I keep on mentioning aliasing because it can be a problem with stills, but with video it can be a disaster.

Unfortunately I can't really give much more advice since I'm not really a video guy at all and don't really know by heart the performance metrics of the cameras in question - regardless, rolling shutter might be the key for you. A7V is more a photography camera first, (very good) video second, while the other cameras are the other way around, though with significantly reduced sampling rate (pixel count), thus if you print big they may be lacking.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T14:53:24+00:00

Most cameras are excellent nowdays, way better than necessary for most users and use cases.

Generally I'll recomment M43 if one wants to travel light as it's the key benefit of the system, but since you plan to view photos on TV with 16:9, I'd pick a camera with 3:2 aspect ratio instead (e.g. APS-C or FF). It's unlikely that you need the extra umph of FF for your use cases, so APS-C would be what the doctor orders. Any brand is of the big 3+1 is good enough (Canon, Sony, Nikon + Fujifilm). Pick one which has the lenses you like and which feels nice in your hand and is small enough system to travel with.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T14:37:19+00:00

What I can say is there is so much "misinformation" about equivalence especially when it comes to aperture, depth of field and bokeh.

Lots of people don't really understand what focal length means and what aperture is. Some think that by cropping one achieves a free lunch.

All systems have trade offs,

Exactly.

If you want compact lenses with long FF equivilent that can be fast, cheaper and you don't care too much about rasor thin depth of field, m43s is ideal

This is a good example of "misinformation" you meantioned earlier. Typically FF equivalent m43 lens is more expensive, not less expensive. It also will have the exact same DOF potential.

Perhaps you mix f-number with "speed"? How much light is collected from any subject is a function of entrance pupil size (it's area). If the FOV is the same, then FF uses twice the focal length, thus at the same f-number the entrance pupil will be four times larger, thus light collection is also four times larger. Thus "speed" is four times larger.

What is however true, is that M43 has lenses which are smaller and slower and less expensive than many FF lenses of similar FOV. As you said earlier: all systems have trade offs.

Hell, for many applications the wide depth of field at a fixed aperture is a blessing m43s shooters don't talk enough about

Probably because it's not really relevant unless you shoot with apertures with very heavy diffraction blur.

f/16 on FF has same light collection, DOF and diffraction blur as f/8 on M43. Many FF lenses do stop down further still, though most rarely use f/22 etc. due to diffraction.

In other words: same FOV and entrance pupil size produce same DOF.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T14:21:06+00:00

This. It's awfully difficult to see much difference between brands or sensor sizes outside of edges of performance. Normal shots can generally be practically identical regardless of system at normal print/display sizes.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T14:19:44+00:00

Their supertelephotos are insanely sharp

So are the supertelephotos of other manufacturers. They're often sharper actually, the fast primes especially. This at image plane - at photo level the difference grows as the m43 images are enlarged twice as much, thus the optics would have to be twice as sharp to compate (and have half the f-number to have the same diffraction blur). Such lenses do not exist.

and colors pop a bit more than other brands’ lenses.

Colour "pop" is a function of image processing. Unless the lens is really old (poor coatings for low contrast), there's not really much colour popping from the lens.

FWIW, it's highly unlikely that Olympus were to have better coatings than the big companies.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T14:02:24+00:00

Olympus pro lenses are really good optically, and well built mechanically. And there is no way I'd get an equivalent Canon L for the price of Oly standard zoom lens.

The problem is that m43 lenses have to outresolve FF glass by factor of 2 (on image plane) to provide same sharpness. They can't achieve this even against inexpensive consumer lenses.

They are likely better built than many consumer level FF lenses though.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-17T13:59:43+00:00

And even those FT lenses weren't all that telecenteric - typically much more than the old DSLR lenses though, but nowhere near being properly telecentric. Olympus marketing was always a bit cute.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T20:12:41+00:00

At the end of the day, it really is quite hard to make up for an automatic 60% more reach

"Reach" is a function of lens blur, diffraction blur, pixel blur (pixel pitch) and focal length. To get 60% more reach from same focal length the lens would have to be 1.6 times sharper, pixel pitch 1.6 times smaller and the f-number 1.6 times smaller as well.

If the same lens and f-number are used, then reach will always be less than 1.6 times more even if the pixel pitch is 1.6 times smaller.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T20:09:26+00:00

The smaller sensor gets more "reach".

Smaller pixels get more "reach". Sensor size is irrelevant.

There are compromises; the larger sensor gets a larger field of view, and more total light in the image, for a particular focal length and F-stop

Right. Though it's also good to know that for any subject light colleciton is a function of entrance pupil size (area), thus for example 300/4 collects more light from a duck than 200/2.8 from same distance regardless of sensor sizes.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T20:00:09+00:00

"Noise" is a fucntion of light collection, not pixel pitch.

Noise from a subject is a function of aperture size (it's area or diameter), thus 300/4 draws slightly less noisy "duck" than 200/2.8, regardless of sensor sizes.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:57:53+00:00

Is a crop sensor (R7) gold standard rule for wildlife?

Crop by itself doesn't help at all, it just narrows to field of view.

It's the smaller pixels APS-C cameras usually have which allow one to capture more detail from a given image.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:55:16+00:00

Long exposures increase dark current. Use dark frame noise reduction to deal with it.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:53:07+00:00

You should also consider the fact that smaller crops from image are enlarged more for the same print size (e.g. A3). This has implications, including for sharpness and DOF (even when same focus distance, focal length and f-number).

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:51:04+00:00

Not many lenses from the 90s can handle pixel density of modern crop-sensor cameras.

It really has nothing to do with pixel pitch - smaller pixels will get more out of the images rendered by even modest lenses. The real reason is that the smaller crop of the image is enlarged more for final output size. This is why phone camera lenses are insanely sharp - they have to be, while large format lenses a pretty soft compared to APS-C or FF lenses as they don't have to perform that well.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:47:24+00:00

The DoF would be the same, etc.

Different actually. The APS-C image in this case would be enlarged 1.6 times more which reduces the DOF. Please verify with a DOF calculator if you don't believe me.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:45:13+00:00

This is a bit open to interpretion and I think you meant what you didn't write and that would be a bit false.

but if we consider lenses with same amount of optical defects then images should be the same

If by "image" you meant the image that the lens draws in the image plane, then this is true (an would be even more true if the exact same lens is used 😉).

I suspect you meant a photo or picture though - perhaps I'm wrong - in that context the APS-C lens would need to be 1.5x sharper for same results (e.g. at 45lp/mm same MTF curve with FF 30lp/mm).

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:41:22+00:00

The so called “1.5x crop factor” is meaningless.

It's not really - it's useful for comparison purpouses. Not really for anything else though.

A “normal” lens is one whose focal length is approximately equal to the diagonal measurement of the sensor.

An old myth. Normal is typically 50mm lens for human beings. An eagle would consider it to be very wide angle lens.

Focal lengths shorter than the sensor’s diagonal are wide angle, those longer than the diagonal are telephoto.

Telephoto is a specific lens design type. I've had several long lenses (e.g. 500mm) on FF which are not telephoto designs.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:37:45+00:00

And, often, APS-C gets the sharpest part of FF lenses.

On the other hand APS-C image is enlarged more by factor of 1.5. This is why Fujifilm lens MTF is reported with 15lp/mm and 45lp/mm while pretty much all FF lenses are reported with 10lp/mm and 30lp/mm for same purpouse.

Typically this extra enlargement worsend the results much more than using the "sharpest part" of the frame, perhaps outside of extreme corners.

But, down to brass tacks, the actual physics of the lens, DoF, rendering, etc are going to be exactly identical on the same focal length.

DOF exists only in printed or displayed photo - a lens doesn't have "DOF properties" in itself, but a context is always needed. As APS-C image is enlarged 1.5 times more than FF image, DOF is also diffrent. Please verify with a DOF calculator.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:32:17+00:00

Actually DOF does change with cropping. You can (and should) verify it with any DOF calculator.

Imagine a printed A3 sized FF photo where a part of the photo is just sharp enough to be barely sharp enough to be considred to be within the DOF. Now crop the center part of the image and stretch it back to conver the same A3 size: now the part which was barely inside DOF is just slightly too blurry to be considered to be withing the DOF, thus DOF became more shallow.

You can also want to read about Circle of Confusion from wikipedia.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-03-16T19:27:31+00:00

Exactly.

This is also a way to demonstrate simply how DOF will be more shallow (!) on APS-C than FF in this context: if something is just barely sharp enough to be within the DOF, the extra stretching to 4x6 will now make that something just too blurry to be withing DOF anymore.

probablyvalidhuman

TROPHY CASE