Full-framer logic

golfhov wrote:

karlreed wrote:

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.

There is no reason for it to be an "argument"

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!

? Well if the focal length where the same they wouldn't even look close. 25mm on 1" is fairly tight, 25mm on m4/3 is "normal", 25mm on APSC is a little wide, and 25mm on full frame is just short of ultrawide territory. Or are you using "equivelance". 18, 25, 35, 50?

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

Makes sense. Although if you metered them the same way they actually should expose the same way. F4 is f4

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.

Correct. It is more important than "equivelant" aperture. BUT.......if someone is concerned about other factors like DOF or noise. "Equivelant" aperture will also give you similar results with each format. The "contreversial" DPR article "what is equivelance and why should I care" shows that if you run equivelance by focal length and aperture you can shoot at lower ISO with smaller formats and the results are fairly similar within a few generations of each other.

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

Sorry I got ahead of myself there. That is discussed in the second part above

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!

If you think the those all look the same than you may need your eyes checked. That really isn't an insult but I like being able to use a little bit of subject isolation when I want to. I could use the fastest m4/3 lenses or the slowest ff lenses. They are actually similarly sized and less expensive on FF. I have a Sigma art 35 1.4 that I love to shoot wide open from time to time. There isn't even a 17mm 1.4. If there was the same exposures would look vastly different. The flip side would be if you hated shallow DOF and only wanted maximum DOF ALL the time then what would be the point in a larger setup with fast lenses.

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

Only Fuji fudge ISO as far as I know it isn't rediculously fudged. 1/2 to 1 stop?

My "argument" has nothing to do with which is "better" or preffered. I am only highlighting the differences. It is up to the user to decide what their priorit is are. You started this thread with the misplace notion that all ff users are zealots. Hogwash. Same as all m4/3 users are not fact ignoring trolls. Both of those two do tend to be the loudest on here. Most of the rest of us understand the differences.

It seems that in some ways we are in violent agreement. I know quite well that they will have visual differences, but, for me, I start with my exposures, and, work from there. While issues such as DOF are important, they come in the category of my third set of factors, and, I think for most people, the first two dominate.

And, as it happens, it provides a good basis for seeing whether or not noise at specific iso's is going to be acceptable.

However, it's a good idea to read a whole post before commenting..