Depth of Field on the M43 is in fact better not worse.....

Started May 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
ChrisDM
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,095
Like?
Re: You didn't equivalate(?) properly
In reply to boggis the cat, May 27, 2012

Yes, I understand and agree with your proper "equivalat'n". But once again as a full time working photographer I think of these factors in practical field terms. For example, in longer lenses shutter speed really counts, so the 2,8 "equivalent" in light gathering ability is particularly relavent. Conversely, equivalence in terms of dof at longer apertures is less relavent. At the typical working distance of 200mm, your backgrounds are going to be out of focus either way.

Wide lenses are the opposite for me. I shoot my nikon 35 1.4 on my d800 for its relatively unique ability to blur backgrounds at relatively wide angles. This is one of the key advantages of ff for me. There is no equivalent to this lens in the m43 world. We are currently dreaming of an Olympus 17 1.2 in another thread here, but I don't think it will happen. I love my om-d setup but for those dreamy shallow wide angles I have to shoot my nikon.

boggis the cat wrote:

ChrisDM wrote:

I agree with that. Its why I have a D7000 with a Tokina 50-135 2.8 as my second camera to compliment my D800. A 70-200 2.8 equivalent

Nope. They'll argue that it is "equivalent" to a 75-200 f/4.8.

at a fraction of the weight and cost.

Yes, but it is "really f/4.8", according to the equivalators.

So equivalence DOES matter, its just that smaller sensors have their advantages also of course!

You need to learn your proper equivalatin'.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
:-)New
:-)New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow