Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,708
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to SDPharm, Mar 31, 2013

SDPharm wrote:

But when equivalent lenses do exist in both systems, such as the 35-100 / 2 on 4/3 vs the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF, the lenses for the larger sensor systems are  usually lighter <

I'm not sure what world you live in, but here's a real world example of the 'equivalent lens' comparison:

Panasonic 35-100/2.8: 360 g

Canon 70-200/2.8 II: 1490 g

Both are expensive, excellent lenses.  The FF lens is more than 4x the weight.

Not quite. Forpetessake is an equivalence troll. This means that he's using a very specific meaning of equivalence, to browbeat anyone he can. Not sure why, as he also uses small sensor mirrorless (APS-C Sony).

Anyway, true equivalence requires that the image taken by both systems is equivalent, with same amount of light captured, same depth of field, etc.

So, if a shot was taken on 35mm, 1/100, f4, ISO100 on m4/3s, on FF the equivalent image would be  70mm, 1/100, f8, ISO 400. Theoretically these images should end up being the same with similar noise levels, etc. In practice, it's not quite so clear cut.

So, the "equivalent lens" would be a 70-200 f5.6.

His argument only works if:

1) You consider equivalence theory to be important, rather than what it really is - a useful comparison tool across camera systems.

2) You are happy to compare m4/3s lenses with FF lenses that don't exist.

Best thing to do is just ignore him. I think he's just compensating (look at his gallery :D).

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