SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
jrtrent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
sensor size seems a minor factor in image quality
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 27, 2013

dinoSnake wrote:

DigiMatt wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

News flash: EVERYONE who bought into their systems KNOWS that their chosen format - CX, FT, mFT, APS-C and yes, even FF - will simply not give the same results as the next format size up.  It was a WILLFUL decision: a cost vs benefit ratio in terms of advantages versus disadvantages for exact and every camera format.

LOL, this so wrong its comical. I have a NEWSFLASH for you: The overwhelming majority of photographers DO NOT understand that their chosen format is an image quality compromise. There are hoards of m4/3, APS-C, and FF users here on DPReview who will go to the grave not understanding equivalence and the impact of sensor size on image quality. It's like Galileo Galilei  defending Nicolaus Copernicus ideas on heliocentrism to the Catholic church. It's not going over well.

So, is this true?  Using FT / mFT users as a test, do you understand "the impact of sensor size on image quality"?  What was your knowledge of this topic at the time you made your purchase decision of the cameras you are now using?  How did your purchase decision go in regards to this?

When I bought an E-300, and more recently an E-450, it was not because of sensor size issues.  I know that for many, sensor size is a major factor in image quality; in fact, Mason Resnick, long-time editor at Modern Photography and Popular Photography, has written that there are three factors that work together to determine image quality: resolution, sensor size, and ISO.  I don't see it that way.  Because I've gotten fully adequate image quality from tiny-sensored compacts as well as four thirds and APS-C DSLR's, I just don't see sensor size as having a major impact.  Sensor size impacts the focal lengths I'll want to shoot at and the aperture settings I'll need to get the depth of field I want, but I don't see it as having a major impact on image quality.

Perhaps it depends on what "image quality" means to different people.  For me, image quality means I have detail in both highlights and shadows, the image appears sharp, there is pleasing color and tonal gradations, there is an absence of annoyances like geometric distortion, chromatic aberrations, vignetting, and sensor dust issues.  Noise is an aspect of image quality that can be related to sensor size, but noise hasn't been a problem even for the smallest sensors I've used, provided I use them at or near their lowest ISO setting (after decades of shooting slide film with speeds from 25 to 100 ISO, keeping a digital camera at 80 or 100 ISO doesn't seem a great hardship).

It's the dust-control features and processing engines of a camera that are the biggest determinants of image quality for me, and Olympus long been regarded as among the leaders in those two areas.  The E-300 had an effective dust removal system, and, though not all aspects were built into the camera's processing at the time, the lenses would communicate data to the camera body for the automatic correction of things like geometric distortion and vignetting.  Their software also included an implementation of Apical's tone-mapping technology to get more detail in highlights and shadows.  Newer cameras put more of these image enhancing technologies right into the camera body for better out-of-camera image quality.  Image processing technologies, far more than sensor size, determine the image quality I'll get from my cameras.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,284Gear list
Like?
Compare your explanation to DPR's
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 27, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Did you, or did you not, say that my explanations were too long and incomprehensible?

An earlier bit from my response to the 'disappeared' post:

Compare the careful and clear wording that DPR used to explain what they meant with respect to the utility of the fast Sigma lens on APS-C with your rambling and incoherent website.

Here's what it says on my "rambling and incoherent website":

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

A 50mm f/1.4 lens is a 50mm f/1.4 lens regardless of the sensor that sits behind it.  However, the effect of 50mm f/1.4, in terms of the visual properties of the recorded photo, depend very much on the sensor that sits behind the lens:

25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) is equivalent to 31mm f/1.8 on 1.6x (Canon APS-C), 33mm f/1.9 on 1.5x (APS-C for everyone else), and 50mm f/2.8 on FF (FX), where "equivalent to" means:

  • The photos all have the same AOV (diagonal angle of view) and aperture (entrance pupil) diameter: 25mm / 1.4 = 31mm / 1.8 = 33mm / 1.9 = 50mm / 2.8 = 18mm.

  • The photos all have the same DOF (as well as diffraction softening) when they have same perspective (subject-camera distance), AOV, aperture diameter, and display size.

  • The photos all have the same motion blur and the same total amount of light falls on the sensor when the aperture diameter and shutter speed are the same. which means the larger the sensor, the lower the exposure (same total light over a larger area) and thus a higher ISO setting for a given brightness).

  • The photos all have the same same noise when the same total amount of light falls on the sensor 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".

Now we have a context for what you consider "rambling" and "incoherent".  I must say, this seems to support what I've been saying about your "perspective" all along.

That appears to be just a small part of the 'introduction' to your rambling and incoherent website.  (This part is fairly coherent now, though.)

Once more, compare this to DPR's explanation:

Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame. What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image. This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality. Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

You could split that paragraph up into the two points like this:

Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture yields the same results as an F2.8 zoom on 135.

  • This lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on 135.
  • It will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on 135.  This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality due to producing similar levels of image noise(It will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image.)  Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

It is the effect covered by the second bullet point that is your particular obsession.  Notice that they didn't have to even mention 'perspective' or 'framing', and 'DOF' has been relegated to a separate note.

Now really, is your explanation easier to understand?

Funny how I was permanently banned for posting that, don't you think?  'Course, that was back in the day when Phil Askey was running the show, and, well, he had problems with not only Equivalence, but understanding pixel density as well.

You were more likely banned for immediately opening a new account after getting banned for misbehaving when using the former.

Quite the coincidence that I was found out while "misbehaving" by responding to your post by explaining that Equivalence was not just about DOF, but the total amount of light projected on the sensor.

I did notice that when you relented and started using a complete explanation for what you mean by 'equivalence' there were suddenly no arguments in the offing.

What you say, and what happened, are two different things, boggis.  Unless you can link and quote an example, I'll just have to say it's another example of someone intentionally misrepresenting me.

If I spend the time hunting down an example you'll simply dispute it.

We'll never know until you post an example.  Would you like me to post one?

Check your database for when you started posting your clarified 'equivalence statement' (recall that rather long thread where I convinced you to amend your usual 'short form' statement?), and look at the responses (and lack of arguments) from that point.

If people understand what you are saying, you'll find that most will have no objections to it, and no objections around the simple ratios involved.  In fact, most people simply understand that larger sensor systems have an advantage based on their light gathering capability, and if you tell them that this is 'two stops' between FT and 135 they will not be particularly surprised.

People are not stupid, and they will acknowledge facts quite readily when they are clearly explained.

Boggis, in the deleted posts, I linked you acting exactly opposite that.  Would you like me to link it again?

Go ahead.  I won't respond though, because it appears that the moderators must be a reincarnation of 'Phil Askey'.

Note to mods:  he did say, "Go ahead."  My, my -- so many to choose from.  Well, let's go with the same from last time.  Here's my OP:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39612858

Dynamic Range -- what it is, what it's good for, and how much you 'need'

Click on it.  It's a technical thread.  Here's your entry into that thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39616072

What Joe's good for, and how much we don't need him

Hmm.  What does this tell us?

I expect it will 'tell you' something different from me.  Let others trawl through your selected example and see what they make of it, should they so desire.

The OP here is testing your claim that, for some reason, users of small sensor systems are ignorant of the advantages of larger sensors.  I suggest that you let him gather his evidence then you can debate him with your evidence to the contrary.

Honestly, I have no special knowledge of what mFT users know or don't know.  But I do know what I've said, and I do know what you've said.  And let's just say that the evidence clearly supports my side.

However, if you disagree, please, post a link and quote of me making Equivalence "too complicated" or "unclear".

Refer to my reinstated reply above, where I explain why your 'explanation' is both poor (for choosing secondary factors -- "perspective", "framing", "DOF"; when referring to light?)... and misleading (due to those secondary factors causing the reader to focus on them, and missing the actual point: which is about the differing practical effect of exposure on different size sensors).

Classic!  Absolutely classic!  Equivalent photos are photos with the same perspective, framing, DOF, shutter speed, and display size.  A consequence of Equivalent photos is that the same total amount of light will fall on the sensor.  A consequence of the same total amount of light falling on the sensor is that the noise will be the same for equally efficient sensors.

This is where you seem to take a backward view, starting at an 'equivalent photograph' then working back toward the actual point.  (Notice how DPR don't need to do so.)

It makes a lot more sense to simply understand that twice the sensor area ('all else being equal') yields a 'one stop' advantage -- and you get 'one stop' for each extra doubling in area, and proportionately less for a smaller increase, such as from FT to an APS-C variant (two-thirds to three-quarters of a 'stop', essentially).  You can choose to use that advantage by raising the ISO setting, closing down the aperture, reducing the exposure time, or any combination thereof.

Starting from 'same perspective, framing, DOF' while omitting that the comparative advantage in IQ comes from the exposure is daft.

Let's recall your entry into this thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51360288

If they are explained correctly, then nobody disputes facts

Huh.  How about that?

I understand that you disagree, but there is a good reason why 'your genius is not being recognised' -- this seems to be your actual beef.  You'd be better served working on your explanatory methods instead of attempting to start arguments.

Quoting again from your entry into this thread:

The problem is not that most people are ignorant fools, the problem is that some people tend to make simple things convoluted and indecipherable (then resist fiercely when you try to get them to explain what they are on about in comprehensible terms).

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Well, if the "pattern" is that only a select few can decipher what you are talking about, perhaps take a lesson from DPR's approach to explaining how a brighter lens on a smaller sensor system 'closes the advantage' with a larger sensor system.

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Msnap
Regular MemberPosts: 106
Like?
Re: No you don't understand
In reply to forpetessake, Apr 27, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

Msnap wrote:

I understand that for technologically identical sensors, larger sizes give larger pixels which gives better pictures. But the sensors in different formats aren't technologically identical. Some mFT sensors will be better than some FF sensors and vice versa.

Seems like an overrated topic given how simple things really are.

Let me suggest you didn't understand equivalency at all. It really has nothing to with the sensor technology, only with its size. It's all about the optics and quantum properties of light. It's the lens aperture that collects the light, it's the sensor and electronics that converts the photons to electrons. Equivalence is about lenses, QE is about sensors. Lenses are equivalent, not the sensors. Trying to confuse the two creates all sorts of nonsense, e.g. try to calculate the equivalence between m4/3 EPL1 and OMD.

Oh right diffraction. There is that, if you have a billion mega-pixel camera I suppose.

Trying to make things sound advanced by saying "quantum properties of light" doesn't make you sound clever or knowledgeable. Kids learn that stuff at age 13.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Msnap
Regular MemberPosts: 106
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 27, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

Those things are HUGE!"

what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

No, what he saw were most likely Full Frame. Do you know what "HUGE" and "most likely" mean? How could you possible conclude that cameras described as HUGE would be reduced-size APS-C models?

People see DSLRs in the streets of every city. No-one's going to be surprised at seeing them again somewhere else, are they?

At least I'm collecting a decent number of people for my ignore list on this thread. A quick look at your recent posts is enough to decie where you should be.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,573Gear list
Like?
Re: No you don't understand
In reply to forpetessake, Apr 27, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

Msnap wrote:

I understand that for technologically identical sensors, larger sizes give larger pixels which gives better pictures. But the sensors in different formats aren't technologically identical. Some mFT sensors will be better than some FF sensors and vice versa.

Seems like an overrated topic given how simple things really are.

Let me suggest you didn't understand equivalency at all. It really has nothing to with the sensor technology, only with its size. It's all about the optics and quantum properties of light. It's the lens aperture that collects the light, it's the sensor and electronics that converts the photons to electrons. Equivalence is about lenses, QE is about sensors. Lenses are equivalent, not the sensors. Trying to confuse the two creates all sorts of nonsense, e.g. try to calculate the equivalence between m4/3 EPL1 and OMD.

Of course sensors can be equivalent, just make up an equivalence relation based on number of pixels, ratio, QE and/or anything else you like. The word equivalence without a relation says nothing.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Msnap
Regular MemberPosts: 106
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to forpetessake, Apr 27, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

It was fine until this line.

Admittedly, I wound up spending a pretty fair amount on the kit I've assembled, but the equivalent in "full frame" would have cost even more.

And that where you are wrong. The equivalent lenses for small format are actually a lot more expensive.

Just ignore him. He seems incapable of thinking outside of his own tiny world. It won't have even occurred to him that you might not intend to buy at least a half dozen lenses. He'll probably have to read this twice to understand that concept, and then he'll be angry. You know just like a fairy tale Troll.

We call them trolls for good reason. They go around stomping on everything, causing trouble, and become enraged when they eventually have to look around. But they always go away in the end.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,407
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 27, 2013

Yes.

Don't care about it though. FF is too much of a compromise for my style of photography.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to Msnap, Apr 27, 2013

Msnap wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

Those things are HUGE!"

what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

No, what he saw were most likely Full Frame. Do you know what "HUGE" and "most likely" mean? How could you possible conclude that cameras described as HUGE would be reduced-size APS-C models?

first of all size difference between APs-C and FF isnt much to begin with, compare 7D to 5D2, and D7000 to D600. secondly man people have been traveling and have seen an army of SLr weilding tourists, whose know are familiar with model specs can see that you pretty much never get an army of FF shooters - unless it is a serious photography hobbyist tour .

People see DSLRs in the streets of every city. No-one's going to be surprised at seeing them again somewhere else, are they?

Real Pancho appears to be surprised. by the look of his post he know very little about gear. Nothing wrong with that, just do not hold out to be an expert.

At least I'm collecting a decent number of people for my ignore list on this thread. A quick look at your recent posts is enough to decie where you should be.

You are welcome

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
alpha90290
Regular MemberPosts: 255
Like?
Sensor size is not the only factor when choosing a camera.
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 27, 2013

dinoSnake wrote:

DigiMatt wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

News flash: EVERYONE who bought into their systems KNOWS that their chosen format - CX, FT, mFT, APS-C and yes, even FF - will simply not give the same results as the next format size up.  It was a WILLFUL decision: a cost vs benefit ratio in terms of advantages versus disadvantages for exact and every camera format.

LOL, this so wrong its comical. I have a NEWSFLASH for you: The overwhelming majority of photographers DO NOT understand that their chosen format is an image quality compromise. There are hoards of m4/3, APS-C, and FF users here on DPReview who will go to the grave not understanding equivalence and the impact of sensor size on image quality. It's like Galileo Galilei  defending Nicolaus Copernicus ideas on heliocentrism to the Catholic church. It's not going over well.

So, is this true?  Using FT / mFT users as a test, do you understand "the impact of sensor size on image quality"?  What was your knowledge of this topic at the time you made your purchase decision of the cameras you are now using?  How did your purchase decision go in regards to this?

Please post your replies and thoughts on this topic, I could use feedback urgently.

Thank you!

If sensor size is the only factor use to choose a camera, everyone should be buying medium format camera like Pentax 645D.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AndyGM
Contributing MemberPosts: 695Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 27, 2013

dinoSnake wrote:

So, is this true?  Using FT / mFT users as a test, do you understand "the impact of sensor size on image quality"?  What was your knowledge of this topic at the time you made your purchase decision of the cameras you are now using?  How did your purchase decision go in regards to this?

Please post your replies and thoughts on this topic, I could use feedback urgently.

Thank you!

I would not agree with your original post - I dont think EVERYONE knows. But I certainly knew when I was buying that, assuming we are talking about the same or similar generation of sensor technology, each format is a subset of the format above. That you can take 2 cameras, stick them in Aperture Priority, set them to focal lengths that give the same angle of view, then set the f stop on their lenses so they have the same actual aperture diameter, and finally on the larger sensor camera, raise the ISO so that its exposure system reports the same shutter speed as the other camera. Taking a shot with each you will get the same depth of field, and as long as we are sticking to the earlier assumption, the same amount of noise in the image.

Now there may still be differences, like sharpness (one lens has been stopped down, so it might have sharpened up, and who knows if the 2 cameras have the same megapixel rating or similar antialiasing filters). The other difference is that you can set the lens on the larger format camera to its widest aperture, drop the ISO setting, and get a shot that has DOF and noise character that is just not possible on the smaller format camera. So the larger format camera can, photographically, do everything the smaller format camera can do, and more.

But, and this was important to me, you cannot put a 40mm prime on a "full frame" DSLR and stick the whole thing in your inside coat pocket My PEN + 20mm fit no problem. There is a reason why, even after film SLRs had been on the market for 25 years, photojournalists going to warzones and such were still using rangefinder cameras - they needed to travel light.

 AndyGM's gear list:AndyGM's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN E-PL3 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bluephotons
Senior MemberPosts: 2,581Gear list
Like?
Re: And people over exaggerate the weight of FF (nt)
In reply to AllMankind, Apr 27, 2013

AllMankind wrote:

Here I have 5 lenses (none of them pancake) one camera body, a flash, extra batteries, a mini tripod,  charger with cables, USB and HDMI cables, lens caps, ND & CPL filters, a compass, mini lantern, a portable sound recorder and a remote-time lapse trigger.  But you might be right, I can be exaggerating, since I don't lift heavy stuff; after a while even the mule get use to weight  

Warning to FF users: don't try this at home, we are professional packers!

-- hide signature --

Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan

 Bluephotons's gear list:Bluephotons's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dinoSnake
Contributing MemberPosts: 924
Like?
Re: Replies wanted !!
In reply to Greynerd, Apr 27, 2013

Greynerd wrote:

The only point I can see is that there was never any point to this thread.

"A learning experience".  I now know other people's thought, and I have already started acting on that new knowledge.

So thank everyone for posting!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,348
Like?
Re: Compare your explanation to DPR's
In reply to boggis the cat, Apr 27, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Did you, or did you not, say that my explanations were too long and incomprehensible?

An earlier bit from my response to the 'disappeared' post:

Compare the careful and clear wording that DPR used to explain what they meant with respect to the utility of the fast Sigma lens on APS-C with your rambling and incoherent website.

Here's what it says on my "rambling and incoherent website":

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

A 50mm f/1.4 lens is a 50mm f/1.4 lens regardless of the sensor that sits behind it.  However, the effect of 50mm f/1.4, in terms of the visual properties of the recorded photo, depend very much on the sensor that sits behind the lens:

25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) is equivalent to 31mm f/1.8 on 1.6x (Canon APS-C), 33mm f/1.9 on 1.5x (APS-C for everyone else), and 50mm f/2.8 on FF (FX), where "equivalent to" means:

  • The photos all have the same AOV (diagonal angle of view) and aperture (entrance pupil) diameter: 25mm / 1.4 = 31mm / 1.8 = 33mm / 1.9 = 50mm / 2.8 = 18mm.

  • The photos all have the same DOF (as well as diffraction softening) when they have same perspective (subject-camera distance), AOV, aperture diameter, and display size.

  • The photos all have the same motion blur and the same total amount of light falls on the sensor when the aperture diameter and shutter speed are the same. which means the larger the sensor, the lower the exposure (same total light over a larger area) and thus a higher ISO setting for a given brightness).

  • The photos all have the same same noise when the same total amount of light falls on the sensor 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".

Now we have a context for what you consider "rambling" and "incoherent".  I must say, this seems to support what I've been saying about your "perspective" all along.

That appears to be just a small part of the 'introduction' to your rambling and incoherent website.  (This part is fairly coherent now, though.)

I forget how many times I've asked you to link and quote a "confusing" and "incoherent" part from the Essay.  I'll take that as a "no can do" from your end.

Once more, compare this to DPR's explanation:

Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame. What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image. This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality. Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

You could split that paragraph up into the two points like this:

Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture yields the same results as an F2.8 zoom on 135.

  • This lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on 135.
  • It will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on 135.  This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality due to producing similar levels of image noise(It will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image.)  Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

It is the effect covered by the second bullet point that is your particular obsession.  Notice that they didn't have to even mention 'perspective' or 'framing', and 'DOF' has been relegated to a separate note.

DPR's blurb is excellent.  I even started a thread to praise them on that point:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51348608

Well done, DPR!  Nicely phrased, indeed!  Simple, clear, and to the point.

However, the fact that you consider that silly photographic terms like "perspective" and "framing" don't deserve a mention when talking about Equivalent photos, well, you're only proving my point.

Check your database for when you started posting your clarified 'equivalence statement' (recall that rather long thread where I convinced you to amend your usual 'short form' statement?), and look at the responses (and lack of arguments) from that point.

I don't recall.  Given your track record of misrepreenting me, even claiming I said the opposite of what I've said (let me know if you'd like an example), I'm gonna have to ask for a link and quote.

If people understand what you are saying, you'll find that most will have no objections to it, and no objections around the simple ratios involved.

It's funny you say that, 'cause I can link and quote an example where I explain to you in simple and direct terms that the units of exposure are photons / mm², you up and call me a "fraud" (among other things, proceed to give me the wrong units of exposure, only to quite sometime later admit to your error.  I have more examples of different topics, too.  Would you like links?

People are not stupid, and they will acknowledge facts quite readily when they are clearly explained.

Boggis, in the deleted posts, I linked you acting exactly opposite that.  Would you like me to link it again?

Go ahead.  I won't respond though, because it appears that the moderators must be a reincarnation of 'Phil Askey'.

Note to mods:  he did say, "Go ahead."  My, my -- so many to choose from.  Well, let's go with the same from last time.  Here's my OP:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39612858

Dynamic Range -- what it is, what it's good for, and how much you 'need'

Click on it.  It's a technical thread.  Here's your entry into that thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39616072

What Joe's good for, and how much we don't need him

Hmm.  What does this tell us?

I expect it will 'tell you' something different from me.  Let others trawl through your selected example and see what they make of it, should they so desire.

It will tell us who understands DR, who can explain it simply, and who entered the thread with an ad-hominem attack for no purpose other than "entertainment".  And it's not the only example.

The OP here is testing your claim that, for some reason, users of small sensor systems are ignorant of the advantages of larger sensors.  I suggest that you let him gather his evidence then you can debate him with your evidence to the contrary.

Honestly, I have no special knowledge of what mFT users know or don't know.  But I do know what I've said, and I do know what you've said.  And let's just say that the evidence clearly supports my side.

However, if you disagree, please, post a link and quote of me making Equivalence "too complicated" or "unclear".

Refer to my reinstated reply above, where I explain why your 'explanation' is both poor (for choosing secondary factors -- "perspective", "framing", "DOF"; when referring to light?)... and misleading (due to those secondary factors causing the reader to focus on them, and missing the actual point: which is about the differing practical effect of exposure on different size sensors).

Classic!  Absolutely classic!  Equivalent photos are photos with the same perspective, framing, DOF, shutter speed, and display size.  A consequence of Equivalent photos is that the same total amount of light will fall on the sensor.  A consequence of the same total amount of light falling on the sensor is that the noise will be the same for equally efficient sensors.

This is where you seem to take a backward view, starting at an 'equivalent photograph' then working back toward the actual point.  (Notice how DPR don't need to do so.)

Yeah, I guess it's confusing to make sure the conditions are clearly stated.

It makes a lot more sense to simply understand that twice the sensor area ('all else being equal') yields a 'one stop' advantage -- and you get 'one stop' for each extra doubling in area, and proportionately less for a smaller increase, such as from FT to an APS-C variant (two-thirds to three-quarters of a 'stop', essentially).  You can choose to use that advantage by raising the ISO setting, closing down the aperture, reducing the exposure time, or any combination thereof.

Remember when you called me a "fraud", among other things, for saying "2 stops more light falls on a FF sensor than a 4/3 sensor for a given exposure"?

Starting from 'same perspective, framing, DOF' while omitting that the comparative advantage in IQ comes from the exposure is daft.

Another epic fail on your part.  Equivalent photos do not necessarily have the same IQ (they merely have the same perspective, framing, DOF, shutter speed, and display size), but it we make additional assumptions (sensor efficiency, pixel count, lens sharpness, etc.) then we can say more about about the IQ, and the Equivalence Essay discusses all that in detail -- just not in the definition of "Equivalence".

Let's recall your entry into this thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51360288

If they are explained correctly, then nobody disputes facts

Huh.  How about that?

I understand that you disagree, but there is a good reason why 'your genius is not being recognised' -- this seems to be your actual beef.  You'd be better served working on your explanatory methods instead of attempting to start arguments.

Quoting again from your entry into this thread:

The problem is not that most people are ignorant fools, the problem is that some people tend to make simple things convoluted and indecipherable (then resist fiercely when you try to get them to explain what they are on about in comprehensible terms).

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Well, if the "pattern" is that only a select few can decipher what you are talking about...

Funny you say that, 'cause from this very thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51360677

Yes, but not as much I now understand, largely to the contribution of THIS FELLOW. , for which I am very grateful.

Not for lack of so many other examples.  Question:  is he part of the "select few", or merely not one of the "entertainers" who *actively* resists understanding?

, perhaps take a lesson from DPR's approach to explaining how a brighter lens on a smaller sensor system 'closes the advantage' with a larger sensor system.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SirSeth
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,858Gear list
Like?
Re: examples vs examples
In reply to forpetessake, Apr 27, 2013

I chose the OM-D to compare to FF because it's popular, not because it's the least expensive mirrorless. Compare the Nex6 to FF and the contrast is even more stark. There are cheaper and smaller mirrorless cameras to be sure.

There is only one thing I strongly disagree with you on. Quantifying IQ as DxO does is about as revealing as quantifying relational intimacy by the pitch and intensity of groans during intercourse.  "Well this couple just hit 23db with a pitch differential of 243hz. over the span of 4 minutes; they must really love each other."  Ok, thanks DxO. That proves it. Have a nice day.

Cheers,

Seth

-- hide signature --

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 SirSeth's gear list:SirSeth's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RealPancho
Senior MemberPosts: 1,013Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 27, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

Msnap wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

Those things are HUGE!"

what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

I don't really give a tinker's dam what they were: they were monstrosities.

No, what he saw were most likely Full Frame. Do you know what "HUGE" and "most likely" mean? How could you possible conclude that cameras described as HUGE would be reduced-size APS-C models?

first of all size difference between APs-C and FF isnt much to begin with, compare 7D to 5D2, and D7000 to D600. secondly man people have been traveling and have seen an army of SLr weilding tourists, whose know are familiar with model specs can see that you pretty much never get an army of FF shooters - unless it is a serious photography hobbyist tour .

People see DSLRs in the streets of every city. No-one's going to be surprised at seeing them again somewhere else, are they?

Real Pancho appears to be surprised.

Real Pancho appears to have been surprised, past tense. What surprised me was that people were carrying cameras that were significantly bigger than I would have wanted to lug around on somewhat arduous hiking trails.

by the look of his post he know very little about gear.

I knew less at the time than I do now, but I'd bet that a fair number of the people I saw didn't know much about gear either, or they probably wouldn't have been hiking with those monstrosities, when extremely nice IQ could have been had for much less hassle.

Nothing wrong with that, just do not hold out to be an expert.

I don't think there was much in post that even hinted at a claim of expertise.

At least I'm collecting a decent number of people for my ignore list on this thread. A quick look at your recent posts is enough to decie where you should be.

You are welcome

-- hide signature --

Frank

 RealPancho's gear list:RealPancho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RealPancho
Senior MemberPosts: 1,013Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to forpetessake, Apr 27, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

It was fine until this line.

Admittedly, I wound up spending a pretty fair amount on the kit I've assembled, but the equivalent in "full frame" would have cost even more.

And that where you are wrong. The equivalent lenses for small format are actually a lot more expensive. How much does the 25mm f/1.4 cost?

Yes.

Now compare it with an excellent tiny Nikon 50mm f/1.8, sold at $125 new.

Why? I don't want this tiny lens if I'm going to affix it to a bloated monstrosity.

What is equivalence in practice? -- Add a speedboster to it and you'll end up with 25mm f/0.9 equivalent lens. Such is the huge advantage of FF. The only actual deterrent for FF to become once again the most common format is the price of the sensors (estimated at $300-500 now), but the prices will inevitably go down, the processing power of on-board processors will go up.

-- hide signature --

Frank

 RealPancho's gear list:RealPancho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RealPancho
Senior MemberPosts: 1,013Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 27, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

When we were in Yosemite NP last summer, I noticed an army of vacationers carrying these gargantuan Canon and Nikon monstrosities around. I thought, "good god, is there some benefit here that I'm unaware of? Those things are HUGE!"

what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs. they are bigger than OMD but nowhere near your exaggeration

Okay, I was exaggerating: none were the size of a phone booth; they were they size of a pay phone. And put that 70-200 on a Canon 6D and you've got a pay phone with a bazooka attached to it!

and the generally cost less than OMD too.

As for advantage you are not aware of, based on your post I think the answer is every single one.

You're making a logical inference where none exists.

So no, I didn't know specifics, but I did know that there were higher MP counts and better cameras in the world (Hasselblad, anyone?),

More MP is often rated pretty low in the "why upgrade to FF" rationale list for most people.

I didn't say that was a reason to "upgrade." I simply said that I knew cameras with higher MP counts existed, and that better cameras existed as well. I didn't imply that those conditions necessarily coexisted, even though I did offer one such example.

That is also why hasselblad and Leica S2 and 645D remain a very small niche market despite there are so many rich people who can easily afford 100K on a hobby in this world.

but I knew after a few days with my E-M5 that the cost in dollars, size, and weight were not worth even considering.

Of course since you have no idea what the difference is.

Again, you are assuming. And insulting too, I might add.

Admittedly, I wound up spending a pretty fair amount on the kit I've assembled, but the equivalent in "full frame" would have cost even more.

I bet all it takes to match every lens you have in full frame world is a 24-85 (&400 with D600) and a 70-300 ($ 600 ).

I'm finding the D600 for about $2000, and the kit for $2500. That would come close to matching my E-M5 + Panasonic 12-35 at a total of $2100, but then I'd have to carry around a gargantuan beast, which I really have no interest in. The modest gains I would realize simply don't benefit me.

-- hide signature --

Frank

 RealPancho's gear list:RealPancho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to RealPancho, Apr 27, 2013

RealPancho wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Msnap wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

Those things are HUGE!"

what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

I don't really give a tinker's dam what they were: they were monstrosities.

Thank you for proving my point.

No, what he saw were most likely Full Frame. Do you know what "HUGE" and "most likely" mean? How could you possible conclude that cameras described as HUGE would be reduced-size APS-C models?

first of all size difference between APs-C and FF isnt much to begin with, compare 7D to 5D2, and D7000 to D600. secondly man people have been traveling and have seen an army of SLr weilding tourists, whose know are familiar with model specs can see that you pretty much never get an army of FF shooters - unless it is a serious photography hobbyist tour .

People see DSLRs in the streets of every city. No-one's going to be surprised at seeing them again somewhere else, are they?

Real Pancho appears to be surprised.

Real Pancho appears to have been surprised, past tense. What surprised me was that people were carrying cameras that were significantly bigger than I would have wanted to lug around on somewhat arduous hiking trails.

That is because they wanted pictures that you could nto have taken.

by the look of his post he know very little about gear.

I knew less at the time than I do now,

I dont get the impression that you know that much now either.

but I'd bet that a fair number of the people I saw didn't know much about gear either,

probably, but then again you incorrectly assume they all use 6D + 70-200

or they probably wouldn't have been hiking with those monstrosities, when extremely nice IQ could have been had for much less hassle.

Depending on what you call extremely nice IQ.

Nothing wrong with that, just do not hold out to be an expert.

I don't think there was much in post that even hinted at a claim of expertise.

The claim of everyone else were carrying FF and that you now know all there is to know about the difference between OMD to these "FF".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cuegeee
Regular MemberPosts: 124Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 27, 2013

I went E500, E3 & a bunch of ED lenses.  Sold all that for the EPL2, EP2 & current mFT lenses...reasons?  I dont care what anyone else uses.  I just want to shoot images I like.  Hire me if you want, dont hire me, it doesnt matter, I'll still shoot when I'm moved to shoot.  Carrying around 7-30lb's of gear no longer seemed enjoyable nor spontaneous.

What does FF mean again?

-- hide signature --

'All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for
an inability to notice.' - Elliot Erwitt~~~~~~

 Cuegeee's gear list:Cuegeee's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RealPancho
Senior MemberPosts: 1,013Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 27, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Msnap wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

Those things are HUGE!"

what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

I don't really give a tinker's dam what they were: they were monstrosities.

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't

No, what he saw were most likely Full Frame. Do you know what "HUGE" and "most likely" mean? How could you possible conclude that cameras described as HUGE would be reduced-size APS-C models?

first of all size difference between APs-C and FF isnt much to begin with, compare 7D to 5D2, and D7000 to D600. secondly man people have been traveling and have seen an army of SLr weilding tourists, whose know are familiar with model specs can see that you pretty much never get an army of FF shooters - unless it is a serious photography hobbyist tour .

People see DSLRs in the streets of every city. No-one's going to be surprised at seeing them again somewhere else, are they?

Real Pancho appears to be surprised.

Real Pancho appears to have been surprised, past tense. What surprised me was that people were carrying cameras that were significantly bigger than I would have wanted to lug around on somewhat arduous hiking trails.

That is because they wanted pictures that you could nto have taken.

Ridiculous.

by the look of his post he know very little about gear.

I knew less at the time than I do now,

I dont get the impression that you know that much now either.

You are wrong.

but I'd bet that a fair number of the people I saw didn't know much about gear either,

probably, but then again you incorrectly assume they all use 6D + 70-200

I did not, it is you who are making the assumptions.

or they probably wouldn't have been hiking with those monstrosities, when extremely nice IQ could have been had for much less hassle.

Depending on what you call extremely nice IQ.

More absurdity here. You're making a fool of yourself.

Nothing wrong with that, just do not hold out to be an expert.

I don't think there was much in post that even hinted at a claim of expertise.

The claim of everyone else were carrying FF and that you now know all there is to know about the difference between OMD to these "FF".

I made neither claim.

-- hide signature --

Frank

 RealPancho's gear list:RealPancho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads