“Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Started Feb 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
Hen3ry Forum Pro • Posts: 18,218
Re: “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

RicksAstro wrote:

baxters wrote:

Jordan's article does a good job of discussing the only-in-a-perfect-world argument about sensor noise scaling with the area.

By selecting cameras to compete against (on the graph) that were released 7 years ago and 4 years ago? Why on earth would you do that if you are trying to write a balanced article (which he wasn't). Sure, he mentions that the latest generations are 1 2/3 stop better for the same aperture. That's a heck of a large difference!

But that was the point -- he is arguing:

A) You must look at equivalent generation cameras, you can’t just say FF has "X" advantage, because the vast majority of FF cams out rthere do not -- they are older generation. That's a major point he was making.

B) The 1 2/3 advantage is there -- but it is not there for every FF cam. But most importantly, the relationship is not linear -- it is not 2x or 4xz or whatever.

I thought it was a very balanced piece; I particularly liked how he pointed out when the light equivalence argument became prominent.

Cheers, geoff

 Hen3ry's gear list:Hen3ry's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic G85 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm F4.0-5.6 ASPH OIS +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow