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

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,246
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to RealPancho, Apr 27, 2013

RealPancho wrote:

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

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't

You did.

The context of this thread is m43 vs FF.

RealPancho wrote: Those things are HUGE! - implying they are FF.

ultimitsu wrote:  what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

Msnap wrote: 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?

So you see Mr Pancho, you proved my point nicely. And proved the point OP tried to disapprove - you have no clue what FF cameras are like, you simply dismiss anything size of APs-C SLr as "monstrosities".

That is because they wanted pictures that you could not have taken.

Ridiculous.

I happen to walked a 3 hour one way trail in Rob Roy Glacier (Wanaka, New Zealand) a year ago with 60D and 70-200.

I took pictures like this which I do not think would have been possible, or certainly nowhere as easier, with a m43.

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

You are wrong.

Why dont you tell us the difference between m43 and FFDSLR and prove me wrong then?

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.

Real Pancho:  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!

So are they or are they not using 6D and 70-200? if they are not, why bring it up?

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.

Because...?

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.

For the first claim, see the top of this post.

For the second claim, I am glad you have come to your senses and acknowledge what you do not know.  It is not that hard, is it?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mr.NoFlash
Senior MemberPosts: 2,016Gear list
Like?
If you would rename your equivalence to DOF-equivalence
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 27, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Jon Stock wrote:

It was beaten to death before Joemama was banned the first time.

The only reason to post in the daily equivalence threads is to push them toward 150 sooner.

Name one famous professional photographer from any time period who specialized in really shallow DOF.

The endless pictures posted of a closeup of a meaningless object (for example - a rusty nail in a plank of wood) with really shallow of field is as gimmicky as neon colored HDR.

-- hide signature --

Jon

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

  • Equivalence says nothing about shallow DOF being superior to deep DOF, as this is entirely subjective.
  • Equivalence makes no claims whatsoever about which system is superior to another system, especially given that there are so many aspects about systems that Equivalence does not address.

Seems like you missed those parts of the "discussions".

If you would rename your equivalence URL, title and headline to DOF-equivalence, i would less critisize it.

As it stands your equivalence theory name implies aperture and sensor size are the only two parameters which defiine that two cameras with lens are equivalent ( plus perhaps focal length ), despite you agreed to my post above that there are much more parameters.

 Mr.NoFlash's gear list:Mr.NoFlash's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W1 Leica Digilux 3 Samsung NX300
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,859
Like?
Re: If you would rename your equivalence to DOF-equivalence
In reply to Mr.NoFlash, Apr 27, 2013

Mr.NoFlash wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Jon Stock wrote:

It was beaten to death before Joemama was banned the first time.

The only reason to post in the daily equivalence threads is to push them toward 150 sooner.

Name one famous professional photographer from any time period who specialized in really shallow DOF.

The endless pictures posted of a closeup of a meaningless object (for example - a rusty nail in a plank of wood) with really shallow of field is as gimmicky as neon colored HDR.

-- hide signature --

Jon

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

  • Equivalence says nothing about shallow DOF being superior to deep DOF, as this is entirely subjective.
  • Equivalence makes no claims whatsoever about which system is superior to another system, especially given that there are so many aspects about systems that Equivalence does not address.

Seems like you missed those parts of the "discussions".

If you would rename your equivalence URL, title and headline to DOF-equivalence, i would less critisize it.

But it's not just DOF.  The same total amount of light will fall on the sensor for Equivalent photos, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

As it stands your equivalence theory name implies aperture and sensor size are the only two parameters which defiine that two cameras with lens are equivalent ( plus perhaps focal length ), despite you agreed to my post above that there are much more parameters.

In fact, Equivalence is based on 5 parameters, but additional assumptions, such as noise and detail, can also be figured in:

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

Equivalent photos are photos of a given scene that share the following five parameters:

As a corollary, "equivalent lenses" are lenses that produce equivalent images on their respective formats, which means they will have the same AOV and the same aperture diameter.  For example, 25mm on mFT (4/3) and 31mm on 1.6x areequivalent to 50mm on FF since these focal lengths result in the same AOV on their respective formats.  Furthermore, f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) and f/1.8 on 1.6x areequivalent to f/2.8 on FF since those f-ratios result in the same aperture diameter for the same AOV on their respective formats (25mm / 1.4 = 31mm / 1.8 = 50mm / 2.8 = 18mm).

Thus, 25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) and 31mm f/1.8 on 1.6x result in the same AOV and DOF for a given perspective (subject-camera distance).  If we also include the same shutter speed, the same total amount of light will be projected on the sensor for each system.  If the sensors are equally efficient, this will result in the same total noise.  If the mFT (4/3) lens is twice as sharp as the FF lens, and the 1.6x lens is 1.6x as sharp as the FF lens, the sensors have the same pixel count and AA filter, then all will capture the same detail.

Of course, sensors are not equally efficient (although often, but not always, close for a given generation).  However, that doesn't stop us from saying that a 50 / 1.4 on a Canon 5D is not equivalent to a 50 / 1.4 on a Nikon D600.  Nor are lenses equally sharp, have the same color, bokeh, or flare characteristics, but this does not stop us from saying that the Canon 50 / 1.4 is equivalent to the Nikon 50 / 1.4G which is equivalent to the Sigma 50 / 1.4.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mr.NoFlash
Senior MemberPosts: 2,016Gear list
Like?
Please rethink the effect of IBIS or rename your equivalence to DOF-equivalence
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 27, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

.......

As a corollary, "equivalent lenses" are lenses that produce equivalent images on their respective formats, which means they will have the same AOV and the same aperture diameter.  ........

Thus, 25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) and 31mm f/1.8 on 1.6x result in the same AOV and DOF for a given perspective (subject-camera distance).  If we also include the same shutter speed, the same total amount of light will be projected on the sensor for each system.  If the sensors are equally efficient, this will result in the same total noise.  If the mFT (4/3) lens is twice as sharp as the FF lens, and the 1.6x lens is 1.6x as sharp as the FF lens, the sensors have the same pixel count and AA filter, then all will capture the same detail.

Please rethink the effect of IBIS ( in body  image stabilisation ) on the shutter speed if the camera is held by the same hands.  assume a factor of perhaps 2 on average ( if the target does not move, its a factor of ca 3, if the target moves or a tripod is used, perhaps a factor of ca 1 - 1.5, i assume both cases happen roughly equally often ). Please include  in body  image stabilisation  into your theory or rename your theory to Dof-equivalence. Remember that no canon 50mm lens has image stabilisation.

 Mr.NoFlash's gear list:Mr.NoFlash's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W1 Leica Digilux 3 Samsung NX300
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RealPancho
Contributing MemberPosts: 985Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 27, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

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

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't

You did.

The context of this thread is m43 vs FF.

RealPancho wrote: Those things are HUGE! - implying they are FF.

That does not imply that they were FF. I simply said that I saw a lot of Canons and Nikons. Whether they were FF or APS-C (or APS-H) is immaterial to the story I was telling.

ultimitsu wrote:  what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

Msnap wrote: 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?

So you see Mr Pancho, you proved my point nicely. And proved the point OP tried to disapprove - you have no clue what FF cameras are like, you simply dismiss anything size of APs-C SLr as "monstrosities".

That is because they wanted pictures that you could not have taken.

Ridiculous.

I happen to walked a 3 hour one way trail in Rob Roy Glacier (Wanaka, New Zealand) a year ago with 60D and 70-200.

Wow - you must be really strong. I'll bet your mom is really proud of you.

I took pictures like this which I do not think would have been possible, or certainly nowhere as easier, with a m43.

This has more to do with the focus system than the size of the sensor. Furthermore, I see such photographs as novelties, with only marginal artistic merit. They're not worthless, but they don't especially interest me. It's a cool photo, except for your cutting the bird's wing off, but it isn't extraordinary by any means.

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

You are wrong.

Why dont you tell us the difference between m43 and FFDSLR and prove me wrong then?

I have no need to prove anything to you.

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.

Real Pancho:  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!

So are they or are they not using 6D and 70-200? if they are not, why bring it up?

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.

Because...?

Because if you don't acknowledge the exceptionally fine image quality that many mft cameras are capable of, you are demonstrating yourself to be a fool.

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.

For the first claim, see the top of this post.

For the second claim, I am glad you have come to your senses and acknowledge what you do not know.  It is not that hard, is it?

It's apparently a bit too difficult for you. Pray for strength.

-- 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
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,859
Like?
I'm...
In reply to Mr.NoFlash, Apr 28, 2013

Mr.NoFlash wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

.......

As a corollary, "equivalent lenses" are lenses that produce equivalent images on their respective formats, which means they will have the same AOV and the same aperture diameter.  ........

Thus, 25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) and 31mm f/1.8 on 1.6x result in the same AOV and DOF for a given perspective (subject-camera distance).  If we also include the same shutter speed, the same total amount of light will be projected on the sensor for each system.  If the sensors are equally efficient, this will result in the same total noise.  If the mFT (4/3) lens is twice as sharp as the FF lens, and the 1.6x lens is 1.6x as sharp as the FF lens, the sensors have the same pixel count and AA filter, then all will capture the same detail.

Please rethink the effect of IBIS ( in body  image stabilisation ) on the shutter speed if the camera is held by the same hands.  assume a factor of perhaps 2 on average ( if the target does not move, its a factor of ca 3, if the target moves or a tripod is used, perhaps a factor of ca 1 - 1.5, i assume both cases happen roughly equally often ). Please include  in body  image stabilisation  into your theory or rename your theory to Dof-equivalence. Remember that no canon 50mm lens has image stabilisation.

...a huge fan of IS, but it's only relevant for static scenes, or scenes where motin blur is desireable.  That said:

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

Note the "danger" in comparing partially equivalent situations -- the lower shutter speed used to maintain the lower ISO will not always be feasible due to motion blur and/or camera shake, and is especially important to consider in lower light situations.  Regardless, being able to "safely" use a lower shutter speed with a larger sensor system is still a common scenario.  Of course, this can go in the opposite direction when one system has in-camera IS and/or in-lens IS that the other system does not, and motion blur is not a factor:

  • 5DII at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/50, ISO 1600
  • D300 at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/50, ISO 640
  • 7D at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/50, ISO 640
  • E30 at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/13, ISO 100

In this scenario, we are assuming a static scene and that the 5DII, D300, and 50D are not using IS lenses, whereas the E30 has sensor IS, and can thus use a much lower shutter speed and ISO to obtain a cleaner image at the desired DOF / sharpness.

In short, maybe you should read what I've written before telling me what to "rethink".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,246
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to RealPancho, Apr 28, 2013

RealPancho wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

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

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't

You did.

The context of this thread is m43 vs FF.

RealPancho wrote: Those things are HUGE! - implying they are FF.

That does not imply that they were FF. I simply said that I saw a lot of Canons and Nikons. Whether they were FF or APS-C (or APS-H) is immaterial to the story I was telling.

So it does prove my point -  that they are not FF.

ultimitsu wrote:  what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

Msnap wrote: 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?

So you see Mr Pancho, you proved my point nicely. And proved the point OP tried to disapprove - you have no clue what FF cameras are like, you simply dismiss anything size of APs-C SLr as "monstrosities".

That is because they wanted pictures that you could not have taken.

Ridiculous.

I happen to walked a 3 hour one way trail in Rob Roy Glacier (Wanaka, New Zealand) a year ago with 60D and 70-200.

Wow - you must be really strong. I'll bet your mom is really proud of you.

60D and 70-200 weighs about 1500 grams, my normal back pack for a 6 hour hike would include water food extra cloth etc. 1500 grams nothing for a grown man. for girls I guess it could be difficult.

Generally speaking , carrying photography gear is peanuts compared to carrying hunting gear or fishing gear. Sometimes we walk for a hour or more to a good fishing spot, carrying chilli bin, ice, rods, baits, life jacket, chair etc. Hunting trips is a whole different class altogether.  I honestly do not understand men who complain about the weight of SLR and one short telephoto lens.

I took pictures like this which I do not think would have been possible, or certainly nowhere as easier, with a m43.

This has more to do with the focus system than the size of the sensor.

Correct, and the topic here is about m43 mirrorless vs FFSLR (or larger sensor SLR in general). the bulk of SLr you do not understand is what makes this type of shots possible.

Furthermore, I see such photographs as novelties, with only marginal artistic merit. They're not worthless, but they don't especially interest me. It's a cool photo, except for your cutting the bird's wing off, but it isn't extraordinary by any means.

It doesnt have to be extraordinary or perfect - that was not the point. and I did not post it for you to evaluate it artistically.

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

You are wrong.

Why dont you tell us the difference between m43 and FFDSLR and prove me wrong then?

I have no need to prove anything to you.

you are right, there is no need, and I continue to correct assume you do not know them and OP's point is left disproven.

Because...?

Because if you don't acknowledge the exceptionally fine image quality that many mft cameras are capable of, you are demonstrating yourself to be a fool.

The only fool is being demonstrated is you who do not understand that people use bigger cameras because there are pictures m43 cannot capture well - thus they do not provide "exceptionally fine image quality" where some people might want them. the BIF picture is such an example.

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.

For the first claim, see the top of this post.

For the second claim, I am glad you have come to your senses and acknowledge what you do not know.  It is not that hard, is it?

It's apparently a bit too difficult for you. Pray for strength.

The difference between you and me is that I do not participate in discussions that I have no clue about.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,713
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 28, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

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

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't

You did.

The context of this thread is m43 vs FF.

RealPancho wrote: Those things are HUGE! - implying they are FF.

That does not imply that they were FF. I simply said that I saw a lot of Canons and Nikons. Whether they were FF or APS-C (or APS-H) is immaterial to the story I was telling.

So it does prove my point -  that they are not FF.

ultimitsu wrote:  what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs.

Msnap wrote: 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?

So you see Mr Pancho, you proved my point nicely. And proved the point OP tried to disapprove - you have no clue what FF cameras are like, you simply dismiss anything size of APs-C SLr as "monstrosities".

That is because they wanted pictures that you could not have taken.

Ridiculous.

I happen to walked a 3 hour one way trail in Rob Roy Glacier (Wanaka, New Zealand) a year ago with 60D and 70-200.

Wow - you must be really strong. I'll bet your mom is really proud of you.

60D and 70-200 weighs about 1500 grams, my normal back pack for a 6 hour hike would include water food extra cloth etc. 1500 grams nothing for a grown man. for girls I guess it could be difficult.

Generally speaking , carrying photography gear is peanuts compared to carrying hunting gear or fishing gear. Sometimes we walk for a hour or more to a good fishing spot, carrying chilli bin, ice, rods, baits, life jacket, chair etc. Hunting trips is a whole different class altogether.  I honestly do not understand men who complain about the weight of SLR and one short telephoto lens.

I took pictures like this which I do not think would have been possible, or certainly nowhere as easier, with a m43.

This has more to do with the focus system than the size of the sensor.

Correct, and the topic here is about m43 mirrorless vs FFSLR (or larger sensor SLR in general). the bulk of SLr you do not understand is what makes this type of shots possible.

Furthermore, I see such photographs as novelties, with only marginal artistic merit. They're not worthless, but they don't especially interest me. It's a cool photo, except for your cutting the bird's wing off, but it isn't extraordinary by any means.

It doesnt have to be extraordinary or perfect - that was not the point. and I did not post it for you to evaluate it artistically.

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

You are wrong.

Why dont you tell us the difference between m43 and FFDSLR and prove me wrong then?

I have no need to prove anything to you.

you are right, there is no need, and I continue to correct assume you do not know them and OP's point is left disproven.

Because...?

Because if you don't acknowledge the exceptionally fine image quality that many mft cameras are capable of, you are demonstrating yourself to be a fool.

The only fool is being demonstrated is you who do not understand that people use bigger cameras because there are pictures m43 cannot capture well - thus they do not provide "exceptionally fine image quality" where some people might want them. the BIF picture is such an example.

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.

For the first claim, see the top of this post.

For the second claim, I am glad you have come to your senses and acknowledge what you do not know.  It is not that hard, is it?

It's apparently a bit too difficult for you. Pray for strength.

The difference between you and me is that I do not participate in discussions that I have no clue about.

You don't appear to have any idea about the OM-D's focussing speed and capability.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,246
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to Martin.au, Apr 28, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

You don't appear to have any idea about the OM-D's focussing speed and capability.

I know it cannot do this

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,713
Like?
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 28, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

You don't appear to have any idea about the OM-D's focussing speed and capability.

I know it cannot do this

You know how?

You assume, perhaps.

I've heard regularly from various m4/3s haters that m4/3s can't focus adequately for sports, action, etc. Yet, when various members of the forum go and try these things, they don't seem to have any such issue.

Let's not forget

"Olympus claims that the E-M5 offers the fastest autofocus in the world when paired with the 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 lens (at least for for single focus acquisition), and we have little reason to doubt that. The focus is near-instant in good light and only drops off in very low light." - DPReview.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads