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

Started Feb 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
PhotoHawk
Contributing MemberPosts: 617
Like?
Re: “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter
In reply to DanielBme, Feb 5, 2013

He is missing things a bit IMHO.  In offering up the DXO picture on SNR he is stating that the 4/3 is 1 and 2/3rd stops behind the FF.  While that is true more significantly is the fact that 3 db is a half power point.  So 3 db at base ISO is a big deal - in fact it is a big deal anywhere on the curve. But lets at least compare something current - try a 5DMkIII and the OMD - both roughly introduced at the same time.  Know what?  At base ISO the 5DMkIII has a SNR of 44.4 and the OMD has 39.  Wow!  I'll bet most of us would find that noticeable.

The article while true is yet another somewhat thinly veiled attempt to say that someone is alright with a smaller sensor and physics don't really matter.  The physics do matter, whether its noise, DR, Tonality, full well capacity or weight of the machine.  That is why some of us choose something other than a P&S with a small sensor in the first place.

Lastly I'll leave you with this thought - don't you think its funny that the equivalence argument generally surfaces good bad or indifferent between FF and 4/3?  While interestingly enough it doesn't extend DOWN between 4/3rds and a 2/3"" (half of the area of a 4/3rds)?

Really all you need is a 2/3" because it has better depth of field than the 4/3's and equivalence doesn't matter and its Light by Gwad and I can hike forever and its all you really need and gee its almost a 4/3rds?

That's humour.

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