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

Started Jan 25, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Re: Bzzt.

Tiger1 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Art_P wrote:

all that paint on the smaller surface- it will just run and drip.

Looking at it another way: someone has a 1000sf house, someone else has a 4000sf house.

The guy w the 1000sf house wants to be just as warm as the guy w the 4000sf home, so he puts in the same size furnace, and sets it to run just as long as the one in the 4000sf house... then he can't understand why his friend's house is a comfortable 70F, while his house is pushing 120F

Say you buy a bag of balloons which can be blown up to eight feet tall. You blow up one to a height of two feet and draw a picture on the balloon using a stencil and some magic markers. I blow up another balloon to a height of four feet and stencil on the same picture, but it's proportionately larger to fill up the same percentage of the surface area as on your two-foot balloon. The density of marker ink is the same on your balloon and mine, but I use four times as much ink, right?

Now somebody comes along and thinks the balloons are beautiful, and they want to blow them up to eight feet tall and display them. Which balloon will now have the higher density of ink per unit of surface area, yours or mine? Which balloon is likely to look better?

This is what people keep missing. Yes, f/2 is f/2, and it puts the same density of light on the sensor. For the ten thousandth time, nobody denies that. However, you have to blow up the image from the smaller sensor a lot more than you do the image from the larger sensor in order to get the same display size. What matters is the density of protons used to form the final image, not the density used to form the image on the sensor.

Edit: All this is not to say that the smaller sensor is inferior, and anybody who thinks this is the natural conclusion is missing the whole point of the discussion. I don't have time to explain why, but a little thinking ought to reveal the answer.

Julie

I know what you are saying but you are not accurate.
Protons are subatomic particles that have little to do with image capture. Maybe you meant photons!

Sure.

Sensor size has little to do with enlargement.

It has *everything* to do with enlargement!

The first Canon D30 had an aps sensor of 3MP. The sony digicam has a tiny sensor comparatively but has 20MP. You can enlarge the sony pictures far more than the canons. A sigma merrill camera has an aps-c sized sensor but you can enlarge the images from it far more than a Nikon D3 which has a FF sensor, despite the texta balloon example you gave us.
Enlargement in the digital era is all about numbers of pixels coupled with cleanliness/sharpness per pixel. It has little to do with sensor size (although I have been arguing that the larger sensors can have larger photosites which trap more photons and you can have more of them to boot!).

Wow, just wow. It has everything to do with sensor size. Well, more accurately, it has everything to do with aperture diameter and saturation capacity.

By the way, were you ever going to get around to answering Bob's question? If not, is there any particular reason you don't want to answer?

I'm on my phone which limits what I can see image wise.
I have a social function after work so I won't get to my computer for another 24hrs.
That's why I can't answer Uncle Bob's question....yet.

You didn't answer Uncle Bob's other question either (maybe it wasn't directed at you) - you seem very concerned about 'correct' exposure at some ISO. If two cameras have 'equal' ISO, what is it that is 'equal'?

-- hide signature --

Bob

Complain
Post ()
Keyboard shortcuts: