Comparing Olympus 4/3lenses to FX "Full Frame" offerings

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Forgottenbutnotgone
Regular MemberPosts: 190
Like?
Re: I thoiught we were talking light
In reply to JiminDenver, 9 months ago

JiminDenver wrote:

I was speaking to the effect of aperture in relation to ISO and shutter speed, not DOF or noise.

I was speaking in regards to Lecter's statements. There is not one full frame "fanboy" I know that thinks that you use a different F-stop to get the same exposure so that's a no brainer. Kind of like the crew that uses the argument that it's not the camera but the photographer. I don't know anyone that actually thinks that buying a better camera makes them a better photographer.

You are right that DOF is a relationship between aperture and sensor size but noise is as much about sensor size as it is about tech and processing. Otherwise 10 years ago Kodak full frames would have been ISO leaders and we know that wasn't the case.

That's why the caveat is given, "for the same sensor technology".

Full frame can produce slimmer DOF for a given aperture and that's great when you need it but as a macro shooter, the benefits are not there for me.

As with anything else, what suits one's needs may not suit the next person's, which should also be a given. Discussing equivalence was never meant to say which camera is better for a particular person, but only to give basis for a logical comparison.

Robert

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Oh?New
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow