Question from HMC150 guy trying to get it in my head...

[ProAmateur]

I need to pick up another camera and am trying to figure if the AF100 will fit the bill...at least for "some" of the things I need a second camera for.

There are going to be some times that I would have to use the 14-140 (gasp, I know) due to its video style auto focus and OIS. And I know that lens is really really slow. And I am wondering how the AF100 with the 14-140 would compare to the HMC150 in terms of needed light. I intentionally avoided the term "low light" because I am not interested in "low light" per se...but more in available light...if that makes any sense.

I know (according to Barry's book) that the HMC150 comes in at around a 500 iso camera, and I am wondering if the ability in the AF100 to push the iso further would allow the AF100 to compensate for the slow f-stop on the 14-140 and come in somewhere close to the HMC150. Can any of you guys give me some idea how those two would compare?

I am painfully aware that the AF100 may not be the "exact" right choice for what I need a second camera for. But if I could get it to fill some of that role, it would an awesome choice because of all the other magic it can do at other times.

Regards,

G.

 

[Jim Simon]

Along the same lines as this question, I came across a piece of info that seemed very interesting. The basic idea was that there is a factor applied to different sized sensors for various things. For example, if you have a 1/3" CCD that needs an F2 for proper exposure under specific lighting conditions, a 2/3" CCD will actually need only an F4 for proper exposure under the same lighting conditions. There is a factor of 2 between the 1/3" and the 2/3".

That factor should be even higher going from 1/3" to 4/3", say 4? So a 1/3" sensor needing an F2 will be an F8 requirement on the 4/3".

I've been frustrated over the fact that the lenses for this camera don't go down to the 2.8 that I currently enjoy on my 1/3" camera, but now I'm wondering if they'd really need to, considering the much greater light gathering capabilities of the much larger sensor.

Any thoughts or corrections here?

 

[ProAmateur]

Along the same lines as this question, I came across a piece of info that seemed very interesting. The basic idea was that there is a factor applied to different sized sensors for various things. For example, if you have a 1/3" CCD that needs an F2 for proper exposure under specific lighting conditions, a 2/3" CCD will actually need only an F4 for proper exposure under the same lighting conditions. There is a factor of 2 between the 1/3" and the 2/3".

That factor should be even higher going from 1/3" to 4/3", say 4? So a 1/3" sensor needing an F2 will be an F8 requirement on the 4/3".

I've been frustrated over the fact that the lenses for this camera don't go down to the 2.8 that I currently enjoy on my 1/3" camera, but now I'm wondering if they'd really need to, considering the much greater light gathering capabilities of the much larger sensor.

Any thoughts or corrections here?

Well you asked the question in a much better way than I did. Glad of that. I too would like to know any "thoughts or corrections".

Regards,

G.