Why do people still argue about equivalence?

Started May 22, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Mirrorless Crusader
Regular MemberPosts: 285Gear list
Re: I would appear that you don't quite get it.
In reply to Lee Jay, May 22, 2014

Lee Jay wrote:

Mirrorless Crusader wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Mirrorless Crusader wrote:

You'd have to be an idiot to read these forums and not understand what it means by now.

Oh boy.

In order for 50mm f/2.8 on FF to be truly equivalent to 25mm f/1.4 on MFT you'd have to shoot FF at quadruple the ISO value, which essentially negates FF's advantage in image quality.

You don't have to shoot it that way, however. If light is available, you can shoot it at ISO 200, or 100, and get better IQ than is available on 4/3.

If you want keep the two stops of IQ and keep the same exposure then you need to pay (in size and money) for f/1.4 on FF.

Would you rather pay for an f/0.7 lens on 4/3?

The fact that you can get to the 35mm-equivalent of f/1.4 is a HUGE advantage of full-frame. And it's much more affordable than the alternative on 4/3. Same with f/2.8 zooms. Where are the f/1.4 zooms on 4/3, and could you afford one even it they did exist?

LOL you're still playing that game? FF is never more affordable because the huge difference in price between camera bodies, and wow I can't imagine the me3ntaly gymnastics it took you to rtionalize calling the f/2.8 zooms "more affordable."

How much does a 35-100/1.4 cost for 4/3?

If you're like me and don't want 95% of the image to be out of focus most of the time, then the ability to shoot f/1.4 on FF is pretty much irrelevant and in order to keep the same exposure, you will have to lose your advantage in IQ by shooting at ISO 800 instead of ISO 200.

I've shot at f/1.4-f/1.8 on full-frame and not had enough subject isolation. If you are shooting larger subjects, even f/1.4 on full-frame is often insufficient, much less on 4/3.

Then you are one of those rare people who only want 5-10% of the image to be in focus, that is a highly specialized style that is in stark contrast with the typical consumer's interests, for which M/43 is much better-suited.

That's wrong.

This was shot at f/1.6 on full-frame. I wanted much shallower DOF than this, but couldn't get it (I could have shot at f/1.4, but even that wouldn't have been enough).

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

That is not the original image, it's significantly downsized and/or very tightly cropped (meaning you were focusing on a distant subject. You also used a camera with fairly low resolution - on a modern 18-24MP camera, at native resolution, that image would exhibit much shallower focus than in your post-processed, cropped, downsampled version.

And by the way, the Canon 35mm f/1.4 is currently listed for $1479 on Amazon, while the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is $469, even the Nokton 17mm f/0.95 is cheaper at $1149, and both are substantially smaller than that Canikon behemoth as well.

 Mirrorless Crusader's gear list:Mirrorless Crusader's gear list
Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8.0
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow