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

Started Feb 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
macjonny1 Regular Member • Posts: 147
Re: He was more-or-less okay, until he went off the rails

ljfinger wrote:

macjonny1 wrote:

mattr wrote:

macjonny1 wrote:

I think what's funny is that often I hear folks that are so pro-m43 they refuse to accept that there is a meaningful difference in the types of images that you can produce with different sensor formats.

I agree, but I would replace "different sensor formats" with "different camera systems" in your statement.

The only reason that cameras with different sensor formats sometimes can produce different types of images are the existing lenses. For example, a mFT camera with a 150/1.4 lens could produce the same types of images as a full frame camera with a 300/2.8 lens.

This simple fact is often lost in these discussions. It is meaningless to be a "full frame sensor size snob". If there is any room for snobbery, it should be for camera/lens systems!

Good point. And maybe there will be someday if the market demands! I'd love a 200mm f/1 in m43 format to replace my 200mm f/2 Nikon!

I assume you meant a 100/1.

The problem is, a 100/1 will be bigger and more expensive than a 200/2, and you'll need to deal with the steep incident rays from such a fast lens being less than fully-transmitted by the sensor's microlenses.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Yes that's what I meant thanks.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow