Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
KenBalbari
Regular MemberPosts: 275Gear list
Like?
Re: Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field
In reply to RoelHendrickx, Apr 12, 2013

RoelHendrickx wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Have a read at this.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

I had seen that before. But did not know anymore where I had.

Thanks for bringing it up again.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

An interesting point there:

"Lower Noise. Full frame cameras of similar sensor technology to their smaller counterparts will yield lower noise images at its baseline, and continuing throughout the range. Generally, it’s about half to one stop advantage over APS-C and about 1-2/3 stop advantage over 4/3."

For "full frame euivalence" to really work well, you need the diffence to equal more like 2 stops.  I think it seemed to be close to that when we had Panasonic sensors, but maybe Panasonic just never was good at making low noise sensors.

Recently, with the OM-D compared to cameras like the 5DMIII or D800, the difference looks more like 1 stop.  I wonder if there isn't a technical reason why it's difficult for larger sensors to be as efficient as smaller ones. I guess we'll see how this relationship holds going forward.

 KenBalbari's gear list:KenBalbari's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Olympus E-330 Olympus PEN E-PL2
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