Small sensor challenge

tonyturley

Hall of Famer
Nov 24, 2014
Scott Depot, WV, USA
Tony
Near my car this morning, I spotted a small patch of one of my favorite late summer flowers, Ironweed. I decided to see how the X30 and LX100 compared directly. I set both on f/2.8, and tried to keep the exposures and FOV as close as possible. The sun didn't cooperate, however, as the light shifted between exposures. It would have been nice to see the LX100 example if the direct sun hadn't changed, but the X30 image (1st photo) compares favorably in my eyes. The LX100 clearly has the shallower DOF, which is to be expected.


 

macjim

Regular
Jun 20, 2011
Hello. I too have an X-T1 (XF35 f2) camera and am enjoying it immensely, bought it a few months ago, but I've been wanting a small compact camera to carry with me when I don't want to take my Fuji. I've previously owned a Leica D-Lux 5 which I like a lot but had to sell it when I was out of work. So after returning to full time work I looked at getting a camera again. What to buy? Well, the the equivalent to the D-Lux 5 is the LX100, but I decided it was too big so I went on the hunt for a Fujifilm X30. They are so rare now that the only place that had one, Argos, wanted over £500 for it. That was a ridiculous amount so I looked at other options. I ended up buying a Sony RX100, a first generation RX100. It was £250 which is a huge saving on the latest model and still works well. It could be a bit sharper focus wise especially in low light but it does me.


Sent from my iPhone using Photographers Lounge mobile app
 

wee-pics

Top Veteran
Sep 13, 2016
Germany
Walter
I wanted to add another Lumix proof that small sensors can give good results. That has to wait. I agree with you about having the OM-D EM-5 at hand. This was taken with the 75-300 (150-600 with micro 3/4) without tripod.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

tonyturley

Hall of Famer
Nov 24, 2014
Scott Depot, WV, USA
Tony
I guess "small" is relative in sensor size. I recently asked in jest "Is MFT the largest of the small sensors or the smallest of the large sensors?". I don't tend to get hung up on labels . . . 2/3" and MFT are working very well for me. No complaints from this keyboard.
 

wee-pics

Top Veteran
Sep 13, 2016
Germany
Walter
I wouldn't have sent a OM-D EM-5 photo to this thread as I see quite well the difference in quality between EM-5 and Lumix with the small sensor. Mattia is right, I wouldn't call the 3/4 sensor small either. The results I get with the Olympus could never be achieved with the Lumix. But better than getting no shots at all is to have the small-sensor Lumix in my pocket ... just in case (used in manual mode with ISO fixed in between 100 and 400). My Olympus photo was only meant to show that you can get "much closer" with the EM-5.
 

tonyturley

Hall of Famer
Nov 24, 2014
Scott Depot, WV, USA
Tony
No worries. I'm the one that started the thread, and in my eyes, MFT is a smaller sensor. However, I don't want to debate about semantics. If someone wants to share an MFT pic here, I have no issues with it.
 
"I know some have poo-poo'd the Fuji 2/3" sensor, but in my estimation, it does a fine job." Tony, I agree. Do I dare say, "the right tool for the right job". All puns fully intended. I own four X series cameras/bodies and use 'em all. However, for a fast paced early morning walk that includes, according to my FitBit, the equivalent of 29 flights of stairs, it's doubtful I'm going to have an X Pro1/2 slung over my shoulder.
So, yes, embracing the smaller sensor/cameras available is definitely a "good thing" regardless. An enjoyable challenge.
. . . David
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom