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

Started Feb 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
MatsP
Senior MemberPosts: 1,025Gear list
Like?
Re: “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter
In reply to noirdesir, Feb 5, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

sean000 wrote:

If the thread is about m4/3 only, then leave other formats out of it unless there is a point to bringing up a comparison (and sometimes there is). But what I find frustrating is that we can't seem to have a thread discussing the differences between a two m4/3 lenses of different maximum apertures without someone saying, "Well the 25mm f/1.4 isn't really an f/1.4 you know." Yes, I'm afraid that is exactly what it is. That's a physical lens property. Same goes for using a legacy lens like a 50mm f/1.4. It's still a 50mm f/1.4, but it will just yield different results when used on different sensor sizes.

If the m43 users could only honour this advice and not describe a 25 mm f/1.4 lens as a 50 mm f/1.4 lens.

Of course a 25/1,4 on a m4/3 isn't the same as a 50/1,4 on a FF but they act the same way regarding light and field of view. They differ in DoF but that´s not always critical, and when it is, in some situations like isolating a subject a FF is better, in others like architecture and landscape when you want a deep field of focus the smaller sensor is better. Then the FF sensor is theoretically two stops better regarding noise, but that's another story.

 MatsP's gear list:MatsP's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Canon Pixma MG8150 DxO Optics Pro Standard +1 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