Any mft's shooters thinking of jumping ship for FF nex

Started Jul 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
EEmu Forum Member • Posts: 69
Re: The sensor comparison is transient - lenses are forever

dougjgreen1 wrote:

EEmu wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

You claim FF users accept bulkier systems for some benefit, but how does that explain all the APS-C users of the Canon/Nikon systems who use the same lenses in similar bodies? Or heck, how about Four Thirds, with it's, say, 35-100mm f/2.0 lens. It's more than double the weight of Canon's FF equivalent (70-200mm f/4) and 25% heavier than the f/2.8 version. And that's not cherry-picked: Aside from the 3 kit versions, every zoom for Four Thirds was over 400g, and often nearly 1000g.

Lenses like that are primarily used for shooting fast moving action at high shutter speeds. A two full f-stop difference means that the shutter must be open for 4 times as long at the same ISO - meaning, it will be much tougher to freeze action in all but very bright daylight, or very high ISOs.

Technically accurate, but not actually true because neglect the most important thing here: the sensor. Do you think that a 16Mpx fullframe sensor performs the identically to a 16Mpx FT or 16Mpx digicam when they are set to "ISO400"?

The fact that one camera's sensor is 2 stops more sensitive than one other camera's sensor is only of interest for those two cameras at the moment in time that both are sold as current products. That changes all the time, but one will use their lenses consistently across generations of cameras. The fact is, right now, The most sensitive Micro 4/3 sensors happen to be about equal in sensitivity to Canon's frame cameras. (Nikon's and Sony's happen to be better at the moment). But that simply exemplifies the transitory nature of this comparison - 5 years ago, Canon's Full Frame sensors were the leaders, and Nikon didn't have a full frame offering, and Micro 4/3 was not even in the ballpark - but then they hit a technology limit with their particular semiconductor process at the time - something that they will surely overcome in the future. The fact is, people buy lenses as a long term investment in a family of products that they expect to significantly outlive one or two generation of camera bodies. Who is to say when Sony's technology will hit a similar discontinuity as Canon's did?

And yes, for all intents and purposes, the noise performance at ISO 400 is equivalent for all of these interchangeable lens camera architectures as it is for all intents and purposes nonexistent. Differences start to be barely visible somewhere around 1600 or so, and get more significant as the ISO gets higher from there. So, for any speed from 1600 or below, the fact of the slower lenses remains that they are slower lenses.

The sensitivity of the 5DIII and E-M5 are very similar. You could have found that easily enough, but you seem to want to just assume that I was wrong and launched into some irrelevant discussion from there. Heck, you just decided to ignore my question about whether a digicam (i.e. small sensor cam like the LX7) is at ISO 400. Or are you honestly trying to say that some magic tech is going to happen that overcomes two stops of physics for m43 but doesn't work for FF?

I thought about talking about how noise works, but as you are content to ignore what I have to say and tell me I'm wrong without even the slightest justification beyond some vague handwaving it's clear that would be a waste of time. I already pointed out why f/2 on FT and f/4 on FF are equivalent, so the only thing I can do is repeat myself unless you actually come up with some scientific argument.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow