FX, DX or MFT?

Combining the very small pocket camera like Lumix GM5 with an additional semi-professional body like Olympus OM-D is a strong argument for Micro-Four-Thirds compared to the big Nikon D750.


Yesterdays visit at our local camera store and a very helpful consultancy finished this option for me. As I like taking low-light pictures with fast lenses and without flash the small CCD sensors have major disadvantages according to measurement made by DxOLab:

  • ISO 495: 1″ The Sony RX100 III
  • ISO 896: MFT best Low-Light ISO rating is given to the excellent Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II
  • ISO 1347: APS size like Sony A6000 and I assume also for Fuji X-T1 which I used to do nice shorts up to ISO 1600 with visible loss of quality.
  • ISO 2956: Nikon FX family or even remarkable ISO 3279 for Nikon Df

The benefit of MFT vs. 1″ of one stop is compensated by the Sony with the bright lens of 1.8 vs. 3.5 at the Lumix.

There is one stop differences between MFT vs. APS and even more compared to FX. Why is this? It is simply the size of the sensor pixel which make the differences.

So overall, MFT is not small enough for a real pocket camera and not good enough for the semi-pro cameras. That’s why I will choose the Sony RX 100 for the pocket and either Fuji or Nikon for APS or even FX camera body.

 

 

 

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.