Some shots with E-M1+40-150 & D810+70-200

Tony8232 wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

JohnLock wrote:

The photos I like best here are those comparing the size of the two systems-- it really is pretty striking and the Nikon only gets to 200mm in FF, though on an APS-C body the focal lengths would be comparable. This is exactly why I left the big Canons-- and have no regrets.

JL

That only works if you ignore the true equivalents same DOF same AOV ,same total light gathered and at the same MP count. It would be wonderful if smaller formats could deliver the same results as larger formats { with similar gen sensors} but alas it isn't so. Here is an example of 100% crops from the Phase ONE IQ180 {TOP } then the Pentax 645z , D810 and finally the EM1. Larger sensors need larger lenses to cover the larger image circle .

Not the same

The wider the size gap between sensors the wider the difference becomes. mFT's natural rival is APS not FF and it would fair better in the comparisons . Here is a final comparison just for fun this is how the EM1 @ 100% compares to the Phase One .

100%

Actual focal length doesn't change just the crop the sensor behind it results in. Mounted on an mFT sensor the Nikon { thanks to the crop factor } would give you the same effective AOV as a 140-400mm on FF. Or go even further when mounted on the Nikon 1" system { the F-T1 focuses FF lenses very well} thanks to the even smaller sensor you can get the same AOV as 189-540mm on FF. A native 37-111mm F/2.8 lens for Nikon CX would give you the same AOV as the Olympus 50-150mm. Sure it would not have as good image quality as the mFT camera but apparently that doesn't matter as long as its smaller

Total amount of light gathered is a bit of a red herring. It is important in order to overcome the floor noise of the electronic circuits. After a certain point it doesn't matter. The difference between the M43 sensor regarding equivalent noise levels as far as I can tell from reading tests on the internet is about 1 f/stop not 2. Equivalence doesn't apply as a strict mathematical formula when it comes to noise levels. There are too many other factors.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter

I wouldn't take that blog at all seriously it is literally filled with nonsense and was obviously posted with a "get hits" goal. Dpreview posted a far better article:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

The only time equivalence doesn't matter is when you are looking and talking about one format. In the endless comparisons between formats that plague this forum it certainly does matter. The 1f/stop claim is also very misleading and very much depends on what and where you are measuring as it requires very specific cherry picking and fails to take into account factors such as increases in effective DR when downsizing files, the availability of much higher resolution options in FF { though I hope the 40mp trick works at least for landscape my only interest } .The advantage of higher MP sensors with higher resolution is a significant and one of my major hopes for mFT in the future. The extra detail allows for far more flexible RAW processing. I have little interest in technical hypotheticals only the final images, when compared at the same output size and detail level I can comfortably get 2 clear stops advantage from my D810 compared to my GH4. Both systems excel at somethings while not being so good at others for video I do not even bother with the D810 the GH4 is excellent and with the FZ1000 now I have a wonderful 4k shooting duo.

This is the D800 at 1600 ISO opened at ACR defaults with default NR { imagenomic} added and output to the same maximum size as the GH4 which has been opened at ACR defaults . You can sharpen the GH4 image more strongly to try and gain more detail but this will be at the expense of noise . At higher ISO you could add NR to the GH4 file for cleaner output but it is already well behind on detail and this will only make it worse. I have explained exactly what I have done and you can easily repeat it { imagenomic has a free trial if you have no NR software} the RAW files are available from DPreview

ps : I used fringe correction on both cameras part of my defaults everything else at standard ACR settings for both cameras.

All 100% crops same output size :

sample 01

sample 02

sample 03