Full-framer logic

golfhov wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

golfhov wrote:

That is it quite simply.

The only thing missing is there ARE certain areas where they do kind of overlap. Some of the fastest m43 lenses and slowest ff lenses are for lack of a better word "equivelant" they produce similar results.

The big differences that you pointed out are stuff like the small primes and slower zooms for which ff has no "equivelant". There are no 24-70 f 7-11 lenses or 50mm 3.4 lenses (edit: almost none)

You would think FF manufacturers would have caught on to that by now. Imagine how easy it would be to make a high quality 24-200 f8 zoom. Now if they could sell it for $1299 they would make a fortune!

Actually back in the film days there where considerably more "slow" lenses available

Problem for FF camera makers is that apparently some people still think the Oly 12-100/4 is equivalent to a FF 24-200/4. They really need to educate the masses.

If you want to be rude and sarcastic I will point out that if you want be technical it IS a 12-100 not a 24-200. FL AND aperture are finite measurements. EQUIVELANCE does matter for comparison discussions.

I linked anot her thread where a newbie was looking for advice because he wasnt happy with his results. He gave an example of what results he wanted with a different format. All you had to do was use equivelancy and A\B and you could tell him what lens he should actually be looking at

Seriously .......shoot any "equivelant " setting with that lens and a ff lens. Put the results side by side and and they will look visibly different even on a cellphone. If you want them to look "equivelant" you need to do aperture AND fl.

The logical conclusion to your point would be that everyone should go out and buy a 1" camera of some sort because it has a "fast" 1.8/2.8 lens.

Notice I am not talking the entire package (af, ergonomics, operational speed, etc, etc, etc) nor an I even discussing the details of noise, dr, etc. I am not advocating any technology over the other. I really think that is up to each user to decide what is more important to them. Denying basic principles like "equivelancy" just confuses newcomers who trip all over themselves to rave about a $1200 25 1.2 while dismissing 50 1.8/1.4 lenses...........sheesh.........

Never quite understood the argument about lens equivalence.

A. I pocked up three cameras, all with difference lenses, and, sensor sizes, and took the same pic at the same effective FF focal length and aperture and iso, and, guess what!

The shutter speeds were within 1 stop, between a RX100III, EM1.2 and a D750, actually they were closer than that.

B. For me, a 12-100mf4 m4/3 is equivalent to a 16-140mm DX and (roughly) a 28-300mm VR (when restricted to 200mm). They allow me to stand in the same place and get the same field of view. That is another kind of equivalence, and, for most of us, that is what really matters.

C. Then, we can discuss how important DOF and rendition are etc.

But, the basics remain. If I get the same exposure with the same iso, and, the same composition with the same effective FL standing in the same place with my RX100mmMIII at a physical FL of 8.8mm, and on my Em1.2 with a physical FL of 12 and on my D750 with a physical FL of 24mm, then, for most of us, its the same!

And, before someone argues "Oh, X's iso ratings are wrong", look at the lighting as it seems to the eye in each case.