OK ALL YOU full frame camera fanatics

I own a E5 and 50mm macro, 14-35 and 35-100 and have great success in low light conditions with my SMALL sensor.  The full frame fanatics scream out that my 2.0 is really around 4.0 on their fabulous cameras(a whole 1.5 of badness).  I am thinking on buying a Lieca D Summilux f1.4. for my sub par (according to DPREVIEW) E5 but what does it mean--will the f1.4 finally be the same or one half stop away from the full frame 2.8 HOLY GRAIL.  Oh my God I can't take it. AMEN

Given the roughly two-stop difference between 4/3 and fullframe in high ISO noise and depth of field, a f/2 Four Thirds lens will give basically the same capability to shoot in low light and achieve narrow depth of field as a f/4 FX lens; a f/1.4 Four Thirds lens will give the same capability as a f/2.8 FX lens. That is, if you want to shoot a scene at f/2 on Four Thirds and need ISO 800 to get a sufficiently-fast shutter speed, shooting at f/4 ISO 3200 will give you the same shutter speed on FX ... but, since FX has a two-stop advantage at high ISO (roughly, depending on model), its ISO 3200 will be about as noisy as ISO 800 on 4/3.

But you don't need to worry about any of that. If you shoot 4/3 only, it doesn't matter what settings on someone else's camera produce the same picture -- if f/2 or f/1.4 on Four Thirds does what you want it to do, then why should you worry (other than academic interest) about someone else's system? Set your lens to f/2 or f/1.4 and go take the pictures you want to take, and let your FX-shooting friends worry about how to get the same pictures with their equipment.

This is totally nonsense, a lens is f/2.0 or not, on other systems its also f/2.0. The FF fanatics just trying to say that their systems are better because more light is falling on the pixel. If this is true, why is the cap between FF, APC and 4/3 so small? At a certain point in a FF lens the ray of light is spread out over a bigger surface  while the ray of light almost goes unchanged to a 4/3 sensor. This is why you can say that FF has to double the focus length in order to get the same image circle, but that does not mean that you have to double everything.

It's unfortunate that not everyone can understand when and why a particular format can have a particular advantage in a particular situation.

This goes for both sides, 4/3 and 35mmFF.

Many people are book smart, i.e. they can read forums, do research, and understand​ why​ the numbers add up the way they do.  There is also a subset who don't understand the technicalities and numbers, and therefore truly don't understand why the numbers add up the way they do.  And that's fine.  Both people in both categories spit out random facts and random experiences and try to justify their use of a particular format in a way that conveniently ties their system together.

And then there are people who don't care about the numbers, but care about the photos, and those people come in two flavors as well.  Those that produce photos and never look at the grass on the other side (and that's ok), and those that produce photos and realize the way they're doing it just isn't efficient.  The latter subset have a justified cause and argument, but there are still those from the other categories that are too stubborn to accept it.  And by stubborn I mean refusing to acknowledge a truth, and continuing in their way simply because it's their way.

Anyway, there's benefits to both 4/3 and 35mmFF systems, and while the gap is drastically closing in some areas, the gap is drastically widening in others.  And there's also a gap that doesn't change simply because it's physics.

Cheers,

--
Tim
www.developemotion.com
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/7-14/12-60/35-100/150/EC20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

>Anyway, there's benefits to both 4/3 and 35mmFF systems, and while the gap is drastically closing in some areas, the gap is drastically widening in others. And there's also a gap that doesn't change simply because it's physics.<

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

Not testing you or challenging your opinion, just genuinely interested and curious about your opinions as to where gaps are closing and widening.

Nobody is disagreeing with this point. That's a simple geometric fact. What people are saying is that a f/4 lens on FX creates an image that is 25% as bright but four times the area compared to a f/2 lens on Four Thirds. The 4/3 image is four times as bright, but the FX image is four times as large, so both deliver the same number of photons per second to the sensor taken as a whole; the fact that the image on FX is four times as dim means that you have to use four times the ISO, but the noise levels are about the same as you might expect since it's the same total amount of light used to make the image.

It depends on your definition of "small". It's about what you'd expect from the scaling of sensor area in the latest-generation sensors: FX is about two stops ahead of 4/3 in sensitivity, and DX is about 2/3 of a stop. Is that small? I dunno -- it also depends on what lenses you have available, since faster lenses of the same angle of view tend to be cheaper on the smaller format. (You can get a 150 f/2 on Four Thirds for less than a 300/2.8 on FX; you can't get a 300/2 on FX at all.)

That doesn't really make sense. Are you talking about telecentricity? That's a subtle and unrelated thing.

I guess I can try to answer this, as a 4/3 shooter and a physicist.

The thing that's closing is sensor performance per area. Until the EM-5 4/3 sensors were bad even once the sensor size is taken into account; the E-30 sensor has crazy amounts of noise in the shadows. The EM-5 sensor is excellent for its size, putting it about 2/3 of a stop behind APS-C sensors that also use modern sensors. When you combine that with the great performance of some of the new fast lenses (compare the 45/1.8 wide open to the Nikon 50/1.8 wide open), m4/3 looks pretty good. And if you're comparing size for size there's little contest.

Getting back to my wonderful E5 and the 4/3 system--- has anybody used the Leica D 25mm Summilux F1.4 with their E5 and how does it compare with the other 2.0 Olympus lenses esp in low light capabilities.  By the way thanks for all the great info.

The point of your thread is what?  That full frame users are constantly baiting and screaming at you, and you are tired of reading about equivalence, so you are forced to remedy the situation by:

- baiting full frame users (inflammatory thread title)

- screaming at them (all caps)

- calling them names ("fanatics")

- starting a conversation about equivalence

???

Julie

No I'm sorry I hurt your full frame feelings--- Sorry

And then the predictable fifth move:

- when someone calls you on your hypocrisy, offer a snarky retort which makes THEM out to be the bad guy

Julie

One would hope -- that setup costs a pretty penny!

Not "is really" but "is equivalent to":

• 50mm f/2 on 4/3 (mFT) is equivalent to 100mm f/4 on FF.
• By "equivalent to", I mean that it results in the same AOV (diagonal angle-of-view) and aperture (entrance pupil) diameter:  50mm / 2 = 100mm / 4 = 25mm.
• The same perspective (subject-camera distance), AOV, aperture diameter, and display size results in the same DOF (and diffraction softening).
• The same aperture diameter and shutter speed (usually attained by upping the ISO two stops on FF) results in the same motion blur as well as total light falling on the sensor.
• The same total light falling on the sensor results in the same noise if the sensors are equally efficient (less noise if the sensor is more efficient, more noise if the sensor is less efficient).
• Other elements of IQ, such as resolution, bokeh, flare resistance, etc., as well as elements of operation, such as AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, etc., are not covered in this use of the term "equivalent".
  

Did DPR really call the E5 "subpar"?  Tsk, tsk.  It's an excellent camera, from what I've seen and read.  In any case, the 25 / 1.4 is a nice lens to add to your collection for sure.  It will produce photos very similar to (but not exactly the same as) 50mm f/2.8 on FF when used wide open, and you may find the extra stop, not to mention the smaller size and weight, over the 14-35 / 2 at 25mm f/2 to be worth the trade of the ability to zoom, on many occasions.

Enjoy your gear!

But what does f/2 mean in terms of the visual properties of the final photo?  No more or less than saying the lens is 50mm.

The fact of the matter is that 50mm f/2 on 4/3 is equivalent to 100mm f/4 on FF:

• 50mm f/2 on 4/3 (mFT) is equivalent to 100mm f/4 on FF.
• By "equivalent to", I mean that it results in the same AOV (diagonal angle-of-view) and aperture (entrance pupil) diameter:  50mm / 2 = 100mm / 4 = 25mm.
• The same perspective (subject-camera distance), AOV, aperture diameter, and display size results in the same DOF (and diffraction softening).
• The same aperture diameter and shutter speed (usually attained by upping the ISO two stops on FF) results in the same motion blur as well as total light falling on the sensor.
• The same total light falling on the sensor results in the same noise if the sensors are equally efficient (less noise if the sensor is more efficient, more noise if the sensor is less efficient).
• Other elements of IQ, such as resolution, bokeh, flare resistance, etc., as well as elements of operation, such as AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, etc., are not covered in this use of the term "equivalent".

After all, as photographers, aren't we interested in what the photo looks like, as opposed to the camera settings that get that photo?

Now, "equivalent to" does not mean "equal to".  Indeed, a 50 / 2 macro on an E1 at 50mm f/2 will produce a different photo than a 35-100 / 2 at 50mm f/2 on an E5.  But we still say "50mm f/2" for both scenarios, as they are equivalent.

Likewise, 50mm f/2 on 4/3 is not equal to 100mm f/4 on FF, but it is equivalent.

Not the pixel, but more light (two stops more) falls on the sensor for a given exposure.

???

Neither here nor there.  It doesn't matter how spread out the light is, just the total amount of light collected.

Again, neither the focal length nor the f-ratio are meaninful measures when comparing between formats.  What are meaningful measures are the AOV (angle-of-view), the aperture (entrance pupil) diameter, and the shutter speed.

I'm curious what these gaps are.  In my opinion, the gap between larger formats and smaller formats is closing all the way around, since people are still printing the same size (thus the IQ differential between systems is becoming less important), smaller formats are getting more fast lenses while FF lenses are the same speed as always, and, in terms of operation, smaller formats are getting better faster than larger formats.

The question in this thread is really hard to answer. Not because the advantage of the lens is ambiguous but because the question was framed so negatively that it invites argument from FF users and annoys anyone who has the E-5, 14-35, 35-100 and the Pan/Leica 25/1.4. But I will try to answer the question anyway.

The Panasonic Leica is a wonderful lens. The clarity, contrast and color rendition is superb. It's the only normal prime lens for Olympus 4/3 cameras. Except for the zooms it is the only way to get the 50 mm equivalent. And the only zoom that has compareable IQ at 25 mm is the 14-35. The 25/1.4 is one stop faster than the 14-35 f/2 at 25 mm (or any focal length). It offers shorter DOF when you want it, isolating subjects better. It's more capable of low light photography than any of the other 4/3 lenses. It focuses faster than the 14-35 in low light. The 14-35 can be very slow to AF in low light - there's no comparison. The 25 mm focal length also allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds than the 50 mm f/2 and/or any of the longer lenses.

Only the UWA 7-14 mm f/4 at 7 mm can shoot as slow as the 25/1.4 at f/1.4, because the 7-14 may be 3 stops slower but the allowable shutter speed for hand held at 7 mm is almost 3 times slower.

Comparing 4/3 to FF is pointless. You have the 4/3 format E-5. Unless you're willing to plunk down two to four times the price for a FF body and more money again for the best FF format zoom lenses than what you've spent on the lenses you have, you can only consider 4/3 lenses.

Before anyone starts to argue about lens prices and high ISO equivalence, please don't compare an f/4 or f/5.6 lens to an Olympus SHG f/2 or f/2.8 tele lens. Only compare equivalent focal lengths in the fastest f-stop available for FF, the f/2.8 VR and OIS lenses.

As for all the other discussion of FF vs 4/3, I have to agree with GB. The 50 mm f/2 lens on 4/3 is equivalent to a 100 mm f/4 on FF in angle of view and physical aperture opening diameter. It offers similar exposures with the conditions he listed. (Read those conditions carefully) But the f/2 lens is faster than f/4, allowing faster shutter speeds. GB says f/4 on FF can be just as fast if you bump up the ISO by two stops. Then you get the same noise as using 4/3 at the native ISO on Olympus' new EM-5 sensor. But given those conditions, those limitations, I would rather use my FF camera at it's native ISO and have more DR and less noise. I'd want the best fast f/2.8 lenses available for FF. Why pay so much more for FF only to get the same shutter speed and the same noise as 4/3?

--
Dave
No thought exists without an image. Socrates
http://whaleshark.smugmug.com

Why do people care about focal length? Answer -- the focal length, in combination with the sensor size, gives us the AOV (angle-of-view).

Why do people care about the f-ratio? Answer -- the f-ratio, in combination with the sensor size for a given perspective and AOV, tells us the DOF, and, in combination with the shutter speed, tells us how much light will fall on the sensor, which, in combination with the sensor efficiency, will tell us the image noise.

In other words, saying "f/2 = f/2" is no more meaningful than saying "50mm = 50mm". When comparing different formats, we must consider the numbers in terms of the effect they have on the visual properties of the final photo.

In short, 50mm f/2 on 4/3 looks nothing like 50mm f/2 on FF, nor does it look much like 100mm f/2 on FF. But it looks very similar to 100mm f/4 on FF.

Of course, 50mm f/2 on 4/3 does not look exactly like 100mm f/4 on FF, but, then again, a photo from an E1 + 50 / 2 macro at f/2 does not look exactly like a photo of the same scene from an E5 + 35-100 / 2 at 50mm f/2.

Actually, 1/4 (two stops less) the exposure, but the same total amount of light falling on the sensor:

Total Light = Exposure x Sensor Area

In other words, total light, not exposure, is the meaningful measure, just like aperture (entrance pupil) diameter, not f-ratio, is the meaningful measure for cross-system comparisons.

Absolutely.

"Fast" needs a context:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/37226397

GB says that 100mm f/4 1/200 ISO 1600 on FF has the same shutter speed as 50mm f/2 1/200 ISO 400 on 4/3, has the same DOF, and puts the same total amount of light on the sensor, which will result in the same amount of noise if the sensors are equally efficient (less noise for the more efficient sensor, more noise for the less efficient sensor).

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#purpose

So while no two photos from two different systems will ever be equal, Equivalent photos from different systems will be as similar as photos from different systems will get. Clearly, however, the point of choosing one system over another is not simply to get photos as close as possible to other systems (equivalent photos), but to get photos that look "better" (in each photographer's opinion) to what other systems can deliver (non-equivalent photos), or for the differences in operation (AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, frame rate, build, price, etc.).

We can compare systems in many different ways. The five parameters of Equivalence are simply guidelines to comparing systems on the basis of the most similar visual properties of the final photo, and are certainly not a mandate that systems must be compared in such a fashion. Therefore, it is important to specify thepurposeof the comparison, and then not artificially handicap one or the other system with the conditions of the comparison. In addition, it is important to interpret the results of the comparison in the context of the circumstances where the conditions of the comparison are valid.

The point of photography is making photos. As such, one doesn't choose the particular system to get images which are equivalent to another system. A person chooses a particular system for the best balance of the factors that matter to the them, such as price, size, weight, IQ, DOF range, available lenses, and/or operation. By understanding which settings on which system create equivalent images, the difference in their capabilities is more easily understood.

Except .. , you sell FF lenses just as easy as you buy them. The same can not be said, unfortunately, about most of Zuikos, especially the high-priced ones.

Compare to what produces equivalent image. There is absolutely no point in comparing say 70-200/2.8 wide open on FF to what can not be done on FT.

--
-sergey

Geez you write a  load of BS and claptrap, Green.

--
-

Why do you respond then?

--
-sergey

Surely if the light intensity is low on a full frame it would increase noise as you have a larger area of sensor to produce it. Would the signal to noise ratio be poorer on a dimly lit large pixel as opposed to a brightly lit small sensor even if the total illuminance is the same? Surely the larger the piece of silicon the more propensity there is to create random electronic noise?