Crop Factor, Low Light and Aperture with m4/3 lenses? Part 2

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,438
Like?
Re: Crop Factor, Low Light and Aperture with m4/3 lenses? Part 2
In reply to Truthiness, 6 months ago

Truthiness wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Truthiness wrote:

Although we don't have any perfect physical speedboosters, we have some pretty good ones, and I think it's clear that the difference in resolution between two 20cm X 30cm prints generated with the same FF lens on an FF camera and on an m43 camera (with a sensor having the same resolution as the FF camera) using a good speedbooster will be much smaller than the difference suggested by the 69 and 267 times required enlargement factors you mentioned, or do you disagree?

You're right for most cases of course - I never claimed anything else.

However the problem is that this thought experiment has no relevancy for this issue: when you use the booster you downsize the image from 43mm diagonal to 21.6mm, thus you use the original lens as intended, all of it's lens area including all of the original image circle. The situation is quite different when you only use the center part of the image circle and enlarge that.

So, in other words, all we need to do is design all m4/3 lenses with FF image circles and speedboosters built in and your "inherent" advantage for FF magnification disappears. Hmmmm...

I don't think you've thought this through at all.

Judge not, lest ye be judged...

Let's say L1 = lens we're using, SB = ideal, perfect speedbooster, and L2 = L1 + SB. Now, does L1 have the same optics as L2, ie. is L1=L2 true or false?

If you're thinking you need to walk me through some kind of logical syllogism, you're barking up the wrong tree. Let's skip to the chase (see next response below)...

What you're doing is improving the optical configuration of L1 to suit better the smaller format by using the SB, using the whole optics of L1 and compress signal it provides with SB to the smaller format, ie. you're comparing lens L1 to lens L2, different lenses with different properties when you should be comparing the one same lens of L1 to itself on different formats.

Now, that is in no way contradicting what I said.

I don't care what's contradicting what. I care only about the assertion you made that the smaller format is inherently handicapped because it requires more magnification (or now what you're referring to as "enlargement"). Texinwein probed the basis of your assertion by posing a thought experiment with a speedbooster. You see,ed tp acknowledge his point, but now you're dismissing that solution as somehow cheating. Please clarify: is the problem you claim for smaller formats caused by the supposedly "inherent" limitation due to "enlargement" or merely because adapting larger format lens designs to the smaller format is suboptimal? These are two completely different assertions.

As Bob already pointed out in his response, "enlargement" is not meaningful factor and focal reduction is something that can and has been done with considerable success (albeit at the "cost" of size).

Stake a claim and stick with it and we can have a useful discussion. Moving the target and then accusing me of contradicting myself or not thinking things through is not productive.

[snip]

A more valid though experiment is this:

Take a lens - measure the lp/mm of the image on the sensor plane.

Then use a perfect 2x teleconverter to crop just the center of the image and then measure the lp/mm of the image on the sensor plane. In this experiement you enlarge everything from the center part of the image circle and the resulting image. Essentiall this is the same as if you were comparing different fromats on the same lens.

(This time the TC is not being used to improve the image quality by using all of L1 instead of part of it, but to crop the image, just like a smaller format would do, thus the L1+TC vs L1 is not relevant.)

Wrong experiment. We're talking about focal reduction not teleconversion. We're talking about cropped sensors, not cropped images.

Since magnification is the root of an inherent and unavoidable evil according to your original posting in the other thread, what do you make of the greater magnification required to project the larger image circle onto a FF sensor compared to the lesser magnification required to project an image circle on a m4/3 sensor?

It is hard to follow what you mean, but if you think that there is "more work" to turn 10 meter tall subject into 24mm height of FF than there is to turn it into 13mm of m43, then I am puzzled on why that would be the case.

If that is not what you meant, could you please rephrase what you mean as I'm struggling to follow your logic.

But it's your own logic. YOU were the one who started this discussion by noting that greater magnification comes with an unavoidable resolution penalty. The problem is that you only applied that penalty from an interim point in the magnification (i.e. the sensor plane) to the output display plane. You didn't account for the "penalty" incurred between the lens and the sensor (i.e., the focal length).

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