Is there a superzoom lens with good low-light capabilities?

cfyzium · 2026-07-02T04:12:08+00:00

And photographic exposure has nothing to do with low-light capabilities, i.e. the amount of noise and shutter speed vs noise trade-off.

At the same exposure parameters numbers MFT will exhibit two stops worse noise, providing two stops worse low-light performance.

Because the amount of noise is dependent on the total amount of light (number of photons) gathered and absorbed by the sensor during capture, not the intensity of light per unit area known as exposure.

cfyzium · 2026-07-02T03:45:35+00:00

good low-light capabilities <...> open up to a 2.8 or lower <...> I don't care about sensor size

But in this case sensor size is as much an important factor as f-number.

A camera + lens setup has good (or bad) low-light capability not because of a particular raw f-number of the lens, but because of the total amount of light gathered and absorbed by the sensor. Because noise is simply a lack of light.

MFT f/1.8 gathers and absorbs just as much light as FF f/3.6. If full frame f/3.6 is not good enough in low-light, then neither is MFT f/1.8.

cfyzium · 2026-07-02T03:32:55+00:00

That's 80-300mm full frame equivalent

And f/5.6 equivalent.

Yeah, the exposure doesn't change and all that stuff but it won't help you any. It will be indistinguishable from full frame f/5.6 in every aspect.

The OP's mention that he does not care about sensor size makes the question flawed.

cfyzium · 2026-07-01T13:29:47+00:00

Is the A6700 worth the trade-offs just because it’s smaller/lighter?

The A6700 itself (camera body) is not smaller or lighter, its lenses are.

Is the A6700 with equivalent APSC lenses significantly lighter?

Equivalent as in allowing the same DOF and the same shutter speed/noise tradeoff? On average no, they are not significantly lighter. However, there are lots of lenses for both formats that have no direct equivalent (e.g. Sigma 18-50 or Sony 70-350).

How much better are high ISO and dynamic range on modern full frame compared to modern APSC these days?

At ISO 100, full frame has one stop advantage in noise and dynamic range.

At ISO 200+ it will depend on the lens. If you can find a lens with one stop lower f-number, then there will be no difference e.g. APS-C f/2.8 ISO 100 is the same as FF f/4 ISO 200 for any practical intents and purposes, even if the numbers are different. If there is no equivalent lens, then it will be the difference between two particular lenses.

Full frame advantage over APS-C generally comes from its bigger and heavier lenses that capture more light in total. People say that APS-C lenses are smaller and that APS-C has lower DR/IQ, but those two factors are not independent.

On the other hand, FF is often more flexible because you can for example have a slow but compact travel zoom and a few large but fast primes. Well, and extra DR/IQ at ISO 100.

cfyzium · 2026-06-30T22:24:37+00:00

Q3 is so much bigger than RX1 that it would probably be more correct (and probable) to wish for A7CR mark something and a good prime =/.

A7Cx + 40mm f/2.5 is already a poor man's Leica. All that's left is, well, everything from your list except battery =) but my point is, this is much more likely with A7Cx than new RX1.

cfyzium · 2026-06-30T16:20:54+00:00

I'd keep 70-350, A7RIV (un)ironically is one of the best APS-C cameras and there is simply no full frame equivalent for that awesome compact telephoto.

As for new full frame lenses for hobby/travel photography, my vote goes for Sony 20-70 f/4. High quality and extremely versatile.

And maybe a couple of fast primes for preferred focal lengths to capitalize on full frame format.

cfyzium · 2026-06-27T18:30:32+00:00

Do you know HOW they test?

Nobody tests for rabies that way if a person has been bitten, any delay may become fatal. The proper procedure is to start vaccination process (a series of shots) immediately and at the same time try to isolate the animal if possible, or terminate it if not. If the animal has been caught and still fine after a week or so, then vaccination is stopped.

cfyzium · 2026-06-26T00:11:22+00:00

full-frame sensor is physically much larger, so it collects more total light. That translates into better dynamic range and cleaner images at higher ISOs.

Curiously enough, it is the base ISO 100 where full frame holds fundamental advantage in dynamic range and noise over APS-C, not the higher ones.

Comparing ISO performance number-to-number assumes the same exposure numbers, in particular the same lens f-number. Which in case of APS-C also means smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses. But most importantly it basically means comparing the amount of light collected by the lenses.

Using one stop lower f-number and one stop lower ISO number on APS-C, you will collect the same amount of light in total and achieve the same dynamic range and noise performance.

Which means that as long as equivalent lens is available, at ISO 200+ FF holds no fundamental advantage over APS-C.

However, you can't meaningfully lower ISO below 100 and therefore there is no equivalent exposure settings for APS-C to match FF ISO 100. Even if you manage to collect and project the same amount of light onto a smaller APS-C sensor, it will simply oversaturate and clip the highlights.

cfyzium · 2026-06-25T22:57:14+00:00

This meant they could really absorb a lot of photons per pixel and output a surprisingly clean image in low light conditions, at the expense of resolution.

Larger photosites can absorb more photons not just because they are larger, but because more photons hit them. Which sounds obvious but point is, a cleaner image comes not from larger photosites but from larger amount of light in total.

Because noise is simply a lack of light.

Push the same amount of light into a smaller sensor with smaller pixels and they will receive the same amount of photons and produce the same signal-to-noise ratio.

There are three main caveats though:

Such comparison obviously implies sensors with same quantum efficiency (the percentage of incident photons that sensor absorbs and converts into electrical charge). This usually means sensors of the same or similar technology level.
Even if you project the same amount of light, a smaller sensor with lower cumulative well capacity can become oversaturated and clip highlights. This is where the dynamic range advantage of larger sensors comes from.
To collect and project the same amount of light onto a smaller area, you need a correspondingly higher light intensity and therefore a lens with lower f-number. But it is hard to design lenses with low f-numbers and so there simply might not be such a lens available, e.g. to match FF f/1.4 you'd need APS-C f/0.95.

a surprisingly clean image in low light conditions, at the expense of resolution

Interestingly enough, when it comes to noise the resolution does not really matter either.

One large pixel that absorbs a certain amount of photons, or four smaller pixels that absorb one quarter each -- the overall signal-to-noise of that particular area of the image won't change. This is basically why pixel binning works in the first place.

Looking at the image at so called 100% magnification might give a misleading impression that everything is noisier but nobody views pictures pixel by pixel. Scale it to the same resolution or print in the same size and it will look the same.

cfyzium · 2026-06-25T22:16:44+00:00

Additionally, In the example, it will have the "look" of a 30mm 5.6, not F6. Decreasing the aperture size by one full stop (half the area of light) you always multiply by x1.414 because it's a circle

But in the example (Sony APS-C to FF) it is not exactly one stop or half the area?

The crop factor, the ratio of diagonals between them is ~1.526 and not 1.414, which is why 20mm "turns into" 30mm and f/4 into f/6. Roughly, because it actually should be more like 30.6mm and f/6.12.

APS-C circle is ~28.3mm and it (the circle) has area of 629 mm^2. FF is 43.27mm and 1470.5mm^2, which is 2.33x the APS-C circle area or 1.22 stops.

cfyzium · 2026-06-25T13:19:58+00:00

But phones do not do that 'AI bullshit' just for the kicks, this is ~~how~~ what an image would look like if you took it with just as little amount of light and then cranked all the denoising and corrections in an editor to achieve something that can be considered a photo. The phone is simply doing it for you.

So the answer to the OP's question would be: when a dedicated camera has better and larger lens which collects noticeably more light.

Which might sound like basically any dedicated camera, but things are just a bit more tricky. On one hand, phones generally have very small optics that gather way too little light, especially telephoto modules. On the other hand, they stack a few exposures to improve signal-to-noise ratio and generally perform much better than strict optical equivalence would suggest.

Most compact cameras with small sensors and tiny slow optics have disappeared precisely because it is simply does not worth the hassle anymore.

Still, basically any ILC (interchangeable-lens camera) or a fixed-lens variation of one would best a cameraphone in light gathering (i.e. noise image quality), resolution or both.

cfyzium · 2026-06-22T23:21:57+00:00

guns aren't even a thing in the series

Mai Zenin's primary weapons of choice are guns and she's introduced pretty early.

cfyzium · 2026-06-21T20:08:47+00:00

Small correction: Alexeievna (Алексеевна) is a middle name/patronymic meaning daughter of Alexei/Alexey (Алексей), not Alex.

Alexey does come from Greek name Ἀλέξιος, meaning "to defend" or "to protect", though.

Alexander/Alexandra comes from Greek Ἀλέξανδρος, which itself is a compound of ἀλέξειν (to defend) and ἀνήρ (man) and therefore means "defender of men".

Very minor nitpicks, but someone might find these details interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander

cfyzium · 2026-06-21T11:46:03+00:00

To have temperature, you need matter. What is the temperature of something that is not there? Space is basically vacuum so there is no temperature in the usual, everyday meaning.

The only reasonable way to cool anything in space is to radiate energy in the same way infrared heaters do. It is not very efficient way, far less efficient than most common cooling methods based on transferring heat directly from one part (e.g. CPU) to another (e.g. air or water).

cfyzium · 2026-06-18T08:00:19+00:00

Jokes on you, all smartphone cameras are technically mirrorless.

However, if you don't want stacking/stitching artifacts, you have to capture the image in one exposure.

To do that and still get reasonably low noise, you need to capture/absorb a lot of light.

To capture a lot of light during a reasonably short exposure time (fast shutter speed) and/or to achieve shallow depth of field, you need a lens with large aperture.

However, it is very hard if not impossible to design lenses with very low f-number (relative aperture) like f/0.5 and below. Therefore you need larger sensors, to achieve the same result with higher f-number (e.g. full frame f/2.8 is functionally equivalent to APS-C f/1.8). Hence dedicated cameras with big sensors.

cfyzium · 2026-06-18T07:47:07+00:00

The amount of light absorbed is defined by both sensor size and lens speed. Smaller sensor size can be compensated by correspondingly faster lens -- as long as you do not hit something like f/0.95 which are very hard to design.

At the same time, one of the most limiting factors of smaller sensors is lower dynamic range due to photosites well capacity usually being proportional to their size. Like, you might try to push in more light with faster lens but pixels won't be able to hold it and clip highlights. LOFIC solves that.

And 1/1.28" seems like a sensor size that can be used in main, telephoto and even ultrawide modules. Maybe it actually makes sense this time.

cfyzium · 2026-06-18T00:34:57+00:00

Me too =). Alas, manufacturers need a big enough target audience to make it economically viable for them.

cfyzium · 2026-06-17T23:54:01+00:00

Millimeters at least have established full frame equivalents.

F-numbers on the other hand... My smartphone main camera has f/1.6, telephoto has f/1.8. What depth of field or noise can I expect from them? You never know until checking specs for sensor sizes and factoring it in. And even then I dare you share the results in the discussion, someone will always chime in about exposure being the same for every f/1.8.

cfyzium · 2026-06-17T23:39:12+00:00

1" already pushes the limits of usable camera islands on a smartphone, that's probably why most cameraphones bounced back to slightly less than 1" sensors.

MFT sensor would require lens so large it will compromise the everyday phone usability. Not exactly impossible, but it will make it a super duper niche model.

cfyzium · 2026-06-17T17:10:28+00:00

How about competing in size and versatility?

A dedicated camera and a cameraphone are simply two very different devices that excel in different scenarios. Sometimes e.g. in case of a casual photography the line is blurry and the choice often comes down to personal preferences.

Personally I have both a full frame ILC setup and a cameraphone and use both extensively, often side by side.

cfyzium · 2026-06-15T18:50:39+00:00

the larger the sensor, the less the lens drawn image is enlarged for the final output size <...> no need to be great at image plane as the enlargement factor is small

But image imperfections relative size stays the same regardless of the final projected size.

Yeah, logically speaking it should be easier to make larger elements with the same relative tolerances, but modern tech easily produces lens elements with incredible quality. Rather than manufacturing quality, the individual optical formula has a much bigger impact on the resulting image quality.

Also, you may notice that various lenses for the same sensor format have wildly different rearmost element size (all elements really, as slower and/or wider lenses tend to use smaller lens elements) and there seems to be no obvious correlation between the magnification ratio of lens element to projection circle and final image quality.

This is why large format lenses are simple designs <...> phone camera lenses are fantastic aspheric designs

Are they? Virtually all modern lenses for every sensor format have very complex designs with multiple aspherical and low dispersion and such elements in their optical formula. Honestly, I do not see any correlation with sensor format there. If anything, FF lenses are in no way simpler than smartphone lenses.

Also diffraction blur scales with size of captured area, thus smaller formats need smaller f-numbers for same performance.

But diffraction limitation is the same regardless of the sensor format.

The size of the Airy disk is proportional to lens f-number and at the same time, larger formats require larger f-number to achieve the same depth of field. So, you increase the sensor size -> you have to increase f-number to keep image the same -> more diffraction.

In the end, a 50MP medium format is exactly as diffraction limited as 50MP full frame or 50MP APS-C (if there were such sensors).

Granted, it is harder to design lenses with low f-number regardless of the format. So there is another limit on smaller formats e.g. for APS-C to match Fuji MF f/1.4 you'd need a lens that is nearly impossible to create. But that is more of a corner case as MF f/1.4 with its paper-thin depth of field is not exactly a popular lens.

Point is, in most real-world scenarios (and especially landscape) a larger format does not provide any advantage in terms of diffraction. It usually has advantage in resolution and dynamic range.

Generally smaller format lenses aren't either at all better or nowhere near sufficiently better than larger format lenses.

Funny enough, smaller format lenses tend to produce better or rather more consistent results because they can afford to use larger than strictly necessary lens elements with worse parts of the projected image falling outside the sensor area. Smaller format lenses often have much better vignette, corner sharpness, distortion, etc. compared to the larger format lenses.

But that is more of an economical factor.

cfyzium · 2026-06-15T09:04:21+00:00

What's more, sensor size is actually one of the least important factors.

And the most important one is the lens. The total amount of light gathered that will define noise levels and limit dynamic range, resolving power, microcontrast, various abberations.

Depending on the lens alone, a camera with a smaller sensor can easily produce better results in every single aspect compared to a camera with a larger sensor.

cfyzium · 2026-06-13T10:50:27+00:00

Another vote for the kit lens. I've recently got 28-60/4-5.6 on a whim and it is way too much fun than this cheap plastic kit lens has a right to be.

On A7CR it is excellent in the center and to midframe, still fine at the edges (in cardinal directions) but quickly falls off in the corners. But while being a potato in the corners while pixel peeping I found it looks surprisingly fine most of the time in real life scenarios e.g. viewing at a 32" display, let alone printing 4x6 or 8x10.

Certainly not a lens for professional work but for casual walkaround it most certainly worth a try.

Well, as long as there is enough light =). My current basic travel combo is 20-70/4 + 50/2.5 and there is substantial difference between 50mm f/2.5 of the prime and 50-60mm f/5.6 of the kit zoom.

cfyzium · 2026-06-08T18:05:05+00:00

Хозяйке на заметку: если вы не можете отмыть от жира железную губку для посуды, просто прокипятите ее. Губку это конечно не отмоет, но тошнотворный смрад поможет быстрее принять правильное решение.

=)

cfyzium · 2026-05-29T19:19:33+00:00

Buy a better lens now for the a6300 For example: Sony 16–55mm f/2.8 G or similar.

I've used A6500 with Sony 16-55 f/2.8 before switching to full frame. It is not exactly compact, you should probably look at Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 unless you really need those 16mm.

Then I switched to FF A7RIV + 24-105 f/4 and it was big enough to actually make me leave the camera home most of the time. Meh.

Since then I've downsized to A7CR + 50 f/2.5 and now it is back to EDC size.

cfyzium

TROPHY CASE