Of course not. If a pixel is a quarter the size of another pixel, the light the pixel sees is a quarter the amount.
Oh boy. So, lets see. How do you deal with a 8mp Olympus E-300, and a 16mp MFT camera? Explain how things work there. Your whole nonsense "theory" becomes even more problematic. What do you do now, crank up the ISO with the 16mp, as the pixels are smaller?
The "same ISO" means different amplification of the signal, ISO is meaningless in the digital age.
In film times, ISO had to do with the sensitivity of film, and the film grain size determined the sensitivity. ISO does not mean that anymore in the digital age.
I could be a weirdo here. SImply put, I bought cheap mirrorless bodies for adaptation. Before getting Sony bodies, I bought a Canon Rebel XTi, then a Pentax K100 Super followed by a Pentax to be used with my M42 lenses. None of these bodies provided me with good results. Then, I switched to Nikon V1, followed by V2 and V3 with a Nikon FT1 adapter so that I could use nearly every Nikon SLR/DSLR lens on them. Well, the V-series cameras are not very friendly to manual focus. At about the same time, I bought a used NEX5 and found its magnification and peaking rather useful, and decided to keep it. So far, I have two NEX5, three NEX6, and one A7II. I liked them all and used them all very frequently because most if not all lenses I have had for decades can be resurrected . Tom also got me to look at Olympus and hence I bough a OM-D EM-10 and a E-P5 with external EVF, all used. I normally used the A7II with adapted normal and wide angle lenses, and NEX5 and NEX6 for long telephoto lenses. It is fun in using adapted lenses. On the other hand, for my serious work, I still prefer a real and good/excellent DSLR body.
Stop your brain dead nonsense already.
Only stupid photographers will use the same f-stop, f/1.4 means focal length divided by 1.4 = aperture size. Aperture size determines the DOF (and the amount of light let through). A real photographer will choose a similar aperture, not the same f-stop.
Similar FOV, similar DOF, similar amounts of light, so basically it nets everything.
Ironically, it's very fast lenses that FF makers concentrate on, in some cases to where things like shallow DOF become extreme to the point of being absurd. Only the surface of eyes in a portrait being in focus, things like that. They are missing the boat. If a FF can perform the same as m4/3rds and do it with a narrower lens aperture, a whole line of small, light-weight but slow lenses could be developed. Whole lens kits could be carried in one bag, the only big thing being the camera. Not only that, if people are satisfied with current m4/3rd image rendering, that means an 80mp FF would be a reasonable prospect. Same pixel density as current m4/3rds, plus much higher resolution than is available now.
As a matter of fact, I do not care how many lenses can be attached to a particular mirror less body because I do not have ALL lenses. If this is the criterion, then the Pentax Q is a better choice. One major issue with smaller sensor bodies is that those good wide angle SLR/RF lenses instantly become normal lenses rather than keeping their wide angle characteristics. IN my experience, I am still waiting to see a CCTV lens with good to excellent image quality when it is mounted on a high resolution micro 4/3 body. In terms of "non-traditional" lenses, I have some large format or even wet-plate camera lenses. Using them on a micro 4/3 body would make them all useless. This does not make any sense to me. Thus, APS-C bodies are good middle ground cameras for adaptaton.
Only silly people would say that. I knew this had to be about your platform being mft.
And you miss creative imagination.
Yeah, wonderful sharpness you would get with 50mp or 80mp MFT and those smaller aperture lenses.
Schneider's 25mm f/0.95 CCTV lens is a good one but expensive, Zeiss's 25mm f/1.4 Tevidon, Fuji's 25mm f/1.4. But honestly, even a Nikon or Olympus standard wide angle FF lens from year's past can't match a cheap lens of the same focal length today, too many innovations in optics have taken place.
I don't care about lenses being expensive, I do care about usability and joy in using them. A 25mm lens on a m4/3 body becomes a 50mm lens in terms of angle of view. If I want to use a 50mm kens, I just pick up a 50mm lens, mount it on a FF body, and shoot. By the way, why must always adapt legacy lenses when I have modern lenses to use or adapt? When I adapt lenses to be used on a mirrorless body, I want to enjoy the glory of that lens in the good old days and to understand the characteristics of that particular lens. A cr@p-like lens is just good for fun and won't stay on any camera body for long. As I said, I could be a weirdo here. So, do not take my option seriously.
Oddly enough you skipped one thing: the choice of DOF.
You will get a similar result with the same scene A, with the same perspective B1, with a similar FOV due to an equivalent focal length choice resulting in a similar framing way B. When you choose a DOF look G you are after, you get that by choosing the same aperture, which results in equivalent f-stops.
You have the correct issue right there: very few legacy lenses really resolve well enough for 16MP micro 4/3 pixel density to get anything a 42MP FF sensor wouldn't -- and even fewer out-resolve a 24MP APS-C sensor in the m4/3-crop center. BTW, by area, 16MP m4/3 is less than 9% denser pixels than 24MP APS-C and 46% denser than 42MP FF, so we're not even talking a 1.5X difference in density, while we are talking a 1.6X or 3.8X crop in terms of total area... and that's not even counting the extra loss from having the 4x3 aspect ratio. (The 2X crop factor quoted for m4/3 is a diagonal measure, which would yield 4X area crop if the aspect ratio was the same, but making m4/3 be 3:2 would be about a 4.2X area crop.)
I have taken the attitude that the GXR-M was specifically made for use with manual focus lenses. I think I might be the one on the forum that leads the small charge in favour of adapted AF lenses - so this comment surprises me. The GXR-M is suitably hopeless with AF lenses as it was not made with that type of lens in mind.
Quite a few RF lenses will not fit on other mount cameras. The Jupiter-12 just scrapes in on the FE mount (only) but so close to the sensor as to not be able to show its best off that huge rear lens bulb. However the unique feature of the Ricoh GXR-M is that the inside of the amount is made to film camera specifications and uses a focal plane shutter that actually defaults shut to protect the sensor during lens changes.
Tell the Leica fiends this
There is more to the digital camera world than FF sensors. Consider that aps-c dslr bodies were the backbone of the mirrorless system for years and still account for a good proportion of the dslr body sales made. To some extent the FF sensor has run away with the senses. I tried it but have moved back to the tiny sliver sensors and somehow I am managing. I have decided that I can afford more lenses but not more FF sensor camera bodies (but that is my own particular problem - I can live with it
)Good - the GXR-M system was evolved many years before the AR7ii and only has a 12mp aps-c Sony sensor. Ricoh should have known better ....
The GXR-M is capable of some fine images despite all its handicaps.
Now you are talking rubbish. The Sony, like all other digital camera bodies (except the GXR-M, Epson RD and the MF Leica bodies) is optimised for oem AF electronic lenses and any MF capability is only by the way.
I cannot argue as I have not experienced this. I presume that you have tried both.
Well I would not consider the displays on the GXR-M as "awful".
Oh, so you have not tried the GXR-M which you have comprehensively set out to rubbish?
I might be "older" but it will never be obsolete as there is no equivalent made today.
