“Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Started Feb 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
Hen3ry
Forum ProPosts: 10,968Gear list
Like?
Re: “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter
In reply to RicksAstro, Feb 5, 2013

RicksAstro wrote:

baxters wrote:

Jordan's article does a good job of discussing the only-in-a-perfect-world argument about sensor noise scaling with the area.

By selecting cameras to compete against (on the graph) that were released 7 years ago and 4 years ago? Why on earth would you do that if you are trying to write a balanced article (which he wasn't). Sure, he mentions that the latest generations are 1 2/3 stop better for the same aperture. That's a heck of a large difference!

But that was the point -- he is arguing:

A) You must look at equivalent generation cameras, you can’t just say FF has "X" advantage, because the vast majority of FF cams out rthere do not -- they are older generation. That's a major point he was making.

B) The 1 2/3 advantage is there -- but it is not there for every FF cam. But most importantly, the relationship is not linear -- it is not 2x or 4xz or whatever.

I thought it was a very balanced piece; I particularly liked how he pointed out when the light equivalence argument became prominent.

Cheers, geoff

 Hen3ry's gear list:Hen3ry's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow