Compact DSLR vs. OM-D

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Lost in Time
Regular MemberPosts: 207
Like?
Re: Compact DSLR vs. OM-D
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Apr 1, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Appears you really are lost in time a 2.8 is a 2.8, I`m hardly going to replace a broken f2.8 with a 5.6 am I, a spades a spade yet some of you just like to argue for the sake of it.

You might want to read some more about how lenses and the camera as a system work...

Take a FF f2.8 lens and two cameras with the same pixel count, one FF and one u4/3.

Fit the lens to the FF camera and take a picture. The lens illuminates the entire FF sensor. You get an image.

Fit the same lens to the u4/3 camera and take a picture. It is still an f2.8 lens and the exposure and ISO will be reported as the same as the FF camera. However, the sensor now only captures 1/4 of the light as the image is cropped. As a result, the u4/3 sensor actually operates at 4x the gain *for the same ISO setting* as the FF sensor - and hence it has two stops more noise than the FF version. This is simply due to the amount of light collected (and it is the reason why the FF lens is so much larger).

For focal length and DOF equivalence see seeĀ http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

If you still do not believe this, you could actually try using both formats. FWIW, I have both u4/3 and FF systems, each with focal lengths covering 16mm to 300mm+ (35mm equivalent). After a while, you get a feel for how the systems perform. You see equivalence in action, (even if in my case it is blunted somewhat by the ageing FF sensor technology compared to the OM-D and hence by far the most obvious difference is DOF).

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