
Panasonic developing two full-frame mirrorless cameras with Leica L-mount - petepete
https://www.dpreview.com/news/9159684748/panasonic-developing-two-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras-with-leica-l-mount
======
eropple
Wow.

My video kit is a GH4, GH3, and G7 for live or recorded-to-external events, so
I am plenty deep in hock to Panasonic. But I did not expect that they would
have a way to get even more of my money. I've been considering a Sony full-
frame as a photo camera with some backup video usage but Panasonic has so much
goodwill with me that I will probably hold off until I can play with an S1 or
S1R and make a decision.

I don't get excited about cameras much anymore, but...dang.

~~~
sjwright
Don't overestimate the value of full frame. Unless you're trying to get a
shallower depth of field than you can achieve with your MFT lenses, a full
frame camera doesn't offer much inherent advantage.

For example, the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 lens is _visually equivalent_ to a
hypothetical 85mm f/3.4 lens on a full frame (35mm) sensor. When I say
equivalent, I mean these combinations would have the same practical field of
view, the same depth of field, and—this is the part which trips people up—the
_same overall quantity of photons falling on the sensor area._

Historically, larger sensors have been _more efficient_ at converting said
photons into data, but the difference has narrowed greatly to the point where
it doesn't matter so much, particularly at the relatively modest resolution of
4K video (approximately 8.3—8.9 megapixels) where the limits of lens
diffraction don't tend to come into play.

Of course on full frame systems you can easily find inexpensive 85mm f/1.8 and
very high quality f/1.4 lenses. But if you don't use the extra depth of field
and you shoot FF at f/3.4 or greater, there was no fundamental benefit. (Of
course you should never discount the glass advantage, as the mid-range FF
glass tends to be optically superior to high-end MFT glass... but does that
benefit apply to a new lens mount? Will these cameras do a good job focusing
EF and/or F mount glass?)

~~~
reneherse
Lower noise levels at high ISO are an advantage of FF. Very useful for
shooting action in low light (e.g. sports and dance), where you need high
shutter speeds to freeze motion.

~~~
romed
I think what you meant is that low noise and high ISO are advantages of large
pixels. Larger sensors just happen to have more such pixels. If you where
willing to eat the reduction in resolution, you'd get the same noise and
sensitivity from any size sensor. For example, a 10MP APS-C sensor has the
same sensitivity as a 25MP full frame sensor, all other things held equal.

~~~
NikolaNovak
Per pixel. Not overall.

25MP (or any resolution) full frame sensor with a (say) 1.8 lens will gather
more photos than 10MP (or any resolution) APC sensor with a 1.8 lens.

~~~
romed
The amount of light falling on each sensor pixel is the only thing that
matters in digital photography. The roof of my house also gathers a lot of
light but it's not a good camera.

~~~
sjwright
The quantity of photons captured and usefully turned into data by the total
area of the sensor is what matters in digital photography. The physical size
of each sensor pixel is irrelevant, except insofar as current technologies
favour physically larger pixels in order to capture larger quantities of
photons before the pixel is fully saturated.

------
jseliger
There are a _lot_ of interesting camera products being released right now—the
Fuji X-T3 is another: [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t3-first-
impress...](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t3-first-impressions-
review).

I personally think most of these full-frame cameras are overly pricey,
especially for the marginal gains over APS-C-sized cameras, but someone must
be buying them.

~~~
aczerepinski
I bought one (the Sony A73). For me, low-light performance was the big draw vs
sticking with a cheaper crop sensor. I'm just a hobbyist photographer, but I
kept getting disappointed by things like an indoor family gathering where if I
didn't want to use a flash, I had to bump the ISO up to super-grainy and drop
the shutter speed lower than what my kid can keep still for.

With the A73 and a nice prime lens, I can go all the way to ISO 6400 with
perfectly acceptable noise levels, and thanks to the great dynamic range,
bring the shadows up further at my computer. It allows me to capture certain
scenes that would be hard to get a "keeper" from at all on a crop.

For well-lit outdoor photography, including sports & wildlife, I agree that
the gains over a high-end APS-C are marginal. Even for portraits, the bokeh on
a full-frame is going to be better, but it'd probably be fair to call it
marginally better.

~~~
igouy
> … disappointed by things like an indoor family gathering where if I didn't
> want to use a flash…

I didn't want to use flash at family gatherings because 1) I didn't want the
disruption of flash spill in people's eyes 2) the aesthetics of hard flash
shadow.

Now I use bounce-flash close onto a wall and a half-snoot made from $1 artshop
foam + elastic hair band, at base ISO.

If they're too dark I'll make tifs across a range of EV and blend with
[https://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse](https://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse)

------
Glyptodon
Happy to see Panasonic competing with Sony in the full frame space, and glad
to see they realize m4/3ds isn't really competing with full frame 90% of the
time.

Ergonomically speaking my m4/3ds camera is just too convenient for traveling
and hiking and such to ever seriously consider a full frame option solely
because of lens size differences: small lenses that perform pretty decently
are the bee's knees, especially if you're lucky enough to have one of the
models with a huge and decent viewfinder. Not interesting if massively
increasing the size and weight I'd be carrying for full frame images.

------
romed
Interesting. “Full” is a weird way of saying 35mm. Aside from that I’ve come
to think that software beats hardware in photography. My m43 body can drive
the sensor around using the IS actuators to take a high-resolution image with
no color filter artifacts. With a speed booster and an old Nikkor lens there’s
a stupefying amount of light hitting the sensor. Best pictures I’ve taken in
my life and I’ve used all kinds of cameras. So what’s magic about “full” frame
digital?

~~~
aequitas
I'm in the market for m43 and have been reading into some of this. One of the
things I get told is that full frame produces 'better looking' images due to
differences in focal length. Things like certain bokeh effects that aps-c/m43
cannot achieve, even with wider apertures and zoom lenses.

Also the sensor resolution trick only works on stationary subjects, so
probably a no-go for sports photographers.

But I'd love to hear otherwise, as m43 seems a lot more appealing to me,
considering cost, weight and size.

~~~
alistairSH
My hobbyist opinion... m4/3 has it's limits, but they are well beyond my
limits as a once-a-month photographer.

I'm currently shooting an Olympus OMD EM5ii (standard-sized body) and a PEN
EP5 (smaller rangefinder-sized body). I primarily use the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro
lens on the big body and either the 17mm f1.8 or 25mm f1.8 on the small body.

All three lenses will produce pleasing bokeh. Sometimes, I have to run them
wide-open to do so. But, at laptop-screen size, any CA or distortion isn't
noticeable to the people looking at my photos (family and friends).

Anyway, for me, m4/3 hit the sweet spot of price, size, and photo quality. I
used to shoot a Canon DSLR (older Rebel crop-senor) and it was just too bulky
to haul around on active vacations. I stopped carrying it, preferring a
compact Canon S90. But, it wasn't flexible enough, especially indoors. So, I
moved to an Olympus PEN EPL7 to try out m4/3\. Loved the size of the complete
kit, and traded it for the EM5ii after a year of use. Added the EP5 a bit
later just to have a second body on hand (was used and cheap, so I'll carry it
places I won't take the more expensive EM5ii).

------
onemoresoop
I wonder if this will increase the dynamic range? Anyone can answer this?

~~~
petepete
It's the size of the pixel that matters, rather than the size of the sensor.
Sensors with fewer pixels will perform better than the same sized sensors with
more pixels simply because they each have a larger surface area and can
capture more light.

