Reading mode: Light Dark

mFT to FF and/or potentially back to mFT? (or 2 systems 2 jobs?)

Go to last post
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
Yes but do YOU want to carry 2 bodies and 2 different set of lenses?

There are members here that have 2 or even 3 systems and use whatever is best for the job at hand.

Whether this is because they simply can or actually need this "flexibility" only they (or you) will know.

For me and my requirements m43 suits my pocket, storage space and back. But if I became a full timer earning my sole living from photography I would probably have a FF system as well (and hopefully be able to employ an assistant).
 
Steven Ar said:
nick779 said:
Steven Ar said:
nick779 said:
• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to claim these would provide the same IQ?

The difference is 2 stops for IQ.

But this is only "theoretical" and at many ISOs the difference in DR is less than what we would see with a 2 stop difference.

Also, the same AoV is overrated. I could post images taken at 50mm, 75mm and 100mm that look virtually identical. Don't be a bone head and fall in that trap. Use what you want and have available, not what someone else tells you.

"Equivalence" kills often creativity, and too many here get boxed in and restrict what they would normally do because of what they are told. It can be helpful and is simply a tool. Often you can get better results ignoring it and being...CREATIVE.
Click to expand...
I dont quite know what youre getting at with AoV. I was just trying to compare similar AoV ranges between formats.
Click to expand...
Here is an extreme example someone posted a while back. I think it shows pretty well that focal length in many cases does not noticeably affect the outcome.
Click to expand...
This is one image tinkered with on photoshop and does not show what it claims to . Any minor differences between the presented images is down to post processing not using different focal lengths , take a close look at them to confirm this. Which was pointed out at the time. Try it yourself with a range of focal lengths

[ATTACH]1998495[/ATTACH] And so if focal length doesn't make a difference said:
One is 3:2 and one is 4:3 so they will never look the same anyway.
Click to expand...
It is diagonal AOV, that is compared not horizontal

Steven Ar said:
A nice benefit is the DoF will look similar even though a 50/1.4 acts like a 100/2.8.

I guess my point is, with some creativity you can get results that look near identical even without worrying about "equivalence". It is not necessary for good photography.
Steven Ar said:
Im leaning towards holding fast with mFT, since I really cant complain about my results. I think im just mentally stuck in the "mirrorless FF has less noise, is faster, can use higher ISO, better IQ" trap even though I dont really need it.
Robert111, post: 61143518, member: 1862027"]
EM-1 mk2 with PL 100-400 for birding (and wildflowers almost macro). Sony A9 & A7r2 for people etc. I wish I could have just one system but the size, weight, and expense of long reach telephotos for full frame are significant disadvantages for hiking/birding.

I will take a look at a Sony 200-600 if/when it becomes available but I’m getting good birding shots with my Oly rig and I don’t need more weight when traveling/birding.
Click to expand...
I suppose if I outgrow my mFT gear this would be the approach I would take.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
[/QUOTE]
 
nick779 said:
I suppose that the 12-100 vs 24-105 comparison was just on general size. My most used FL is between 12-60 so it was a good compromise.

I think the main thing that was eating at me was that I want an EM1.2, maybe even the EM1.3 when it debuts, that plus the 12-100 and the 40-150 or 100-400 is a significant chunk of money. I was just internally debating on what makes more sense.

but getting a new sensor mFT down the road might be perfect balance of what I want and im just jumping the gun as usual.
Click to expand...
The way I see it is M43 is always playing catch up to Full Frame. While Panasonic and Fuji are making their organic sensor, Sony is also doing theirs. If Panasonic and Fuji sensor is a good enough leap and rival FF, what stopping Full Frame companies ordering organic full frame sensors from Panasonic and Fuji? When will Full Frame get good enough to directly rival Fuji GFX?
 
NowHearThis said:
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, The A7 kit you mention is 25% heavier and only has 47% of the Focal Length.
Click to expand...
I like the 24-105mm F/4 g on the A7rII , at 42mp you get the equivalent of a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 , by using the APS mode at 18mp you get an effective FF 157.5mm equivalent to a m43 18-78.75mm F/3 . So not too shabby at all . And it is heavier because it is not equivalent a 24-200mm F/8 would be equivalent to the 12-100mm F4 . The closet real life option would be shooting the not very stellar Sony 24-240mm at F/8, the difference in length between these two lenses is just 2.5mm .

On an A7III the 24-105mm gives you the equivalent of a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 , what size , weight and cost do you think such a lens would come in at ?

NowHearThis said:
NowHearThis said:
Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600

• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.
Click to expand...
For what I do this is not beneficial, why do I want to stop down a lens to get the same larger DOF, hence lowering my shutter speed, only then to jack up my ISO to get the faster shutter speeds again. I prefer to just keep my ISO as close to Base ISO as possible. Now I know everyone has their own preferences for what they shoot, and for some this is fine. I however, won't do this.

I like the A7 III (generally), and as soon as they can fix all those nasty green lines running through their images (I shoot a fair bit of backlight, so this is a deal breaker issue for me), I might look at it a little more seriously. I am also glad that Sony finally released a decent standard zoom lens (24-105/4), that is somewhat affordable. I'm also looking forward to see how the Tamron 28-75 performs - it's a bit short on both ends for me, but it's priced good, maybe that'll finally get Sony to redo their 28-70 kit lens, but I won't hold my breath on that.
NowHearThis said:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
Nope, I can get wide, standard, and telephoto lenses that will suit all my landscape, travel, portrait, street, telephoto need on mFT. If I ever choose to pick up anything else, (1", Action Cam, Underwater, Drone, FF, MF, Film....) it'll because I have a need (or want) for something to add to what I have already.
Click to expand...
 
Here it is in a nutshell.

FF's advantages are in available wider apertures (f1.4 primes for example, and f2.8 zooms) and lower available ISOs (some with 64 and some with 100).

The lower available ISOs will only work if you have more light, so is dependent on either the shutterspeed being longer or the aperture being wider. What I mean by this is to use the lower ISOs you need more light, so do you find yourself constantly wanting to open to a wider apeture, or having very fasts shutterspeeds you can eat into?

The wider apertures only work if you can live with the more shallow DoF that comes with it. So as I regularly shoot candids of groups in my family extremely shallow DoF just will not work for me, I would end up stopping down more often than not, losing much/most/all of the larger format advantage.

So the real value currently of larger formats is the wider apertures, or lowers ISOs. There is a third advantage (which is body dependent), Megapixels. A growing number of FF bodies have 30-50mp. Do you need that resolution (remembering that this puts more demands on the lenses, focussing accuracy and even DoF when you enlarge).

So, do I think you should move to a larger format? No, a superb lens will remain a superb lens, but we upgrade our camera bodies more frequently. The cost in my market of a Sony A73 is currently $2600 with the Pen F at $1200, a simple look at the A73 vs PEN F shows me there are no miracles on display, the A73 has a 2 stop advantage and a minor MP advantage. So I can replace the PEN F twice and have a little money for a lens for the same price as the A73.

Those are my 2 cents.
 
James Stirling said:
Steven Ar said:
nick779 said:
Steven Ar said:
nick779 said:
• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to claim these would provide the same IQ?

The difference is 2 stops for IQ.

But this is only "theoretical" and at many ISOs the difference in DR is less than what we would see with a 2 stop difference.

Also, the same AoV is overrated. I could post images taken at 50mm, 75mm and 100mm that look virtually identical. Don't be a bone head and fall in that trap. Use what you want and have available, not what someone else tells you.

"Equivalence" kills often creativity, and too many here get boxed in and restrict what they would normally do because of what they are told. It can be helpful and is simply a tool. Often you can get better results ignoring it and being...CREATIVE.
Click to expand...
I dont quite know what youre getting at with AoV. I was just trying to compare similar AoV ranges between formats.
Click to expand...
Here is an extreme example someone posted a while back. I think it shows pretty well that focal length in many cases does not noticeably affect the outcome.
Click to expand...
This is one image tinkered with on photoshop and does not show what it claims to
Click to expand...
I copied this from someone else so I don't know what you are talking about. And are you saying never PP with photoshop? No softening, no fixing corners? No fixing distortion? That is kind of stupid.

I did a quick Google search and saw similar examples, so again, I don't know what you are talking about. And it is easily achievable.

And finally even by what you say, it shows that it is easy to get the same results with different focal lengths. I doubt you would tell anyone PP is wrong. :D
James Stirling said:
James Stirling said:
821bc6e57d44406980361d72dfd0ad3e.jpg

And so if focal length doesn't make a difference, then there is no reason to obsess over equivalence. GO ahead and use that 50mm Canon F/1.4 lens on your M43 camera and take a step back to make the framing look similar.
Click to expand...
Equivalence is takes the same framing into consideration, otherwise the images would not be equivelnt .
Click to expand...
That is WRONG. Same AoV which is different (you get it right below). M43 uses a different AR so the framing would always be different. Images will NEVER look the same without cropping.
It is as simple as it gets said:
same DOF . same total light gathered . In every forum on DPreview this is a simple fact
Click to expand...
But there are other ways and often better ways to accomplish virtually identical results.

Anyone who limits themselves by only considering "equivalence" is not going to get the best results, and limits their creativity. Equivalence is a mathematical framework, and should NOT be a self imposed restriction.
James Stirling said:
James Stirling said:
One is 3:2 and one is 4:3 so they will never look the same anyway.
Click to expand...
It is diagonal AOV, that is compared not horizontal
Click to expand...
LOL! above you said "framing". But you did get it right here. It is obvious you won't get the same image qith different AR.

Anyone expecting (and trying to achieve) the same image is a buffoon who know little about photography and how cameras work. Just get the other camera! LOL!!!

Everyone needs to understand that limiting one's self with an arbitrary restriction for no reason is NOT what "equivalence" is about. It is a tool and nothing more.

There are MANY other ways to achieve a similar or virtually identical image, but why would anyone limit themselves like that? Limiting creativity is the sign of a buffoon.
James Stirling said:
James Stirling said:
A nice benefit is the DoF will look similar even though a 50/1.4 acts like a 100/2.8.

I guess my point is, with some creativity you can get results that look near identical even without worrying about "equivalence". It is not necessary for good photography.
James Stirling said:
Im leaning towards holding fast with mFT, since I really cant complain about my results. I think im just mentally stuck in the "mirrorless FF has less noise, is faster, can use higher ISO, better IQ" trap even though I dont really need it.
Robert111, post: 61144116, member: 1860513"]
EM-1 mk2 with PL 100-400 for birding (and wildflowers almost macro). Sony A9 & A7r2 for people etc. I wish I could have just one system but the size, weight, and expense of long reach telephotos for full frame are significant disadvantages for hiking/birding.

I will take a look at a Sony 200-600 if/when it becomes available but I’m getting good birding shots with my Oly rig and I don’t need more weight when traveling/birding.
Click to expand...
I suppose if I outgrow my mFT gear this would be the approach I would take.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
nick779 said:
I suppose that the 12-100 vs 24-105 comparison was just on general size. My most used FL is between 12-60 so it was a good compromise.
Click to expand...
Actually you could have compared t to the PL12-60 the difference would then have been 789g vs 1313g the MFT option being about 60% lighter. And the PL lens is great optically - a little more so (overall within its range) than the great 12-100 even.
nick779 said:
I think the main thing that was eating at me was that I want an EM1.2, maybe even the EM1.3 when it debuts, that plus the 12-100 and the 40-150 or 100-400 is a significant chunk of money.
Click to expand...
True but there is no lens option on the Sony that will get you from 24-200mm with great image quality in 1 lens. I’ve tested out the FE24-240 and it’s IQ is disappointing especially given its price point.
nick779 said:
I was just internally debating on what makes more sense.

but getting a new sensor mFT down the road might be perfect balance of what I want and im just jumping the gun as usual.
Click to expand...
 
the disposable income that neither you or your family will miss, then why not buy whatever you fancy? You only live once and its a relatively short and uncertain one at that.

Whatever you do, avoid buying anything like this if it stretches your finances. It's not worth that much. Don't go selling your current equipment to buy it either. Only sell that after you know you can do without it.
 
Last edited:
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.
Click to expand...
A bit of quibble but I think you mean 2 aperture stops or 2 ISO stops...

Also, if you view 4/3rd image as 4x6 prints size, it would have the same IQ as FF printed as 8x12.

Printed at the same size, the image from a larger sensor would look better even at same aperture and ISO.

Just additional thoughts...

If deeper DOF is desired at the same shutter speed, FF may not have much advantage.

Luckily most of us can have FF and 4/3rd camera. What a great time to be a photographer...

nick779 said:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
 
I still have a bunch of EF lenses Janet. It is about my luck that Canon will bring their ML (mirrorless) FF 15 years late to the party and in EF-M mount form. The alternative thought of a long flange focal distance EF mount ML body does not really impress (size wise) and it is likely to be priced like a Sony A9 which I will also not find particualrly amusing.

The question for Canon FF sensors is of the “to be or not to be” one. To be ML with the EF longer flange focal distance or to be ML with the EF-M mount and a complete new range of FF capable short flange focal distance lenses (eventually).

If Canon cannot even subscribe to a focal reduction adapter EF->EF-M for their present EF-M bodies then I am sure that they are going to cling to their dslr format right until the death no matter what the rumours say.

I have also done the sensor and mount format circuit and the M/3 mount seems to be the happy long term investment. I can even use my EF lenses on it (also focal reduced).

Sony? Well they will update their FF ML bodies every few years with monotonous regularity and they will all look like clones of the very first A7 model. Not necessarily a bad thing but then we must consider the wide variety of camera body types that M4/3 offers and realise that we all have different camera body size/style needs.

But I think that we often look at objective technical statistics and forget “good enough for purpose” and “pleasure to use” subjective factors.
 
James Stirling said:
NowHearThis said:
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, The A7 kit you mention is 25% heavier and only has 47% of the Focal Length.
Click to expand...
I like the 24-105mm F/4 g on the A7rII , at 42mp you get the equivalent of a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 , by using the APS mode at 18mp you get an effective FF 157.5mm equivalent to a m43 18-78.75mm F/3 . So not too shabby at all . And it is heavier because it is not equivalent a 24-200mm F/8 would be equivalent to the 12-100mm F4 . The closet real life option would be shooting the not very stellar Sony 24-240mm at F/8, the difference in length between these two lenses is just 2.5mm .

On an A7III the 24-105mm gives you the equivalent of a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 , what size , weight and cost do you think such a lens would come in at ?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. But it's a tougher one to answer accurately. Granted I think you know I'm not an optics engineer, nor is anyone else here, so I'm assuming you are asking for an opinion with some qualified rationale behind my opinion to your question... so I will try and do my best on that front.

Problems. Wide variety of sizes between somewhat similar lenses. I could list a few, but I'll stick with just one. O12-40/2.8, P12-35/2.8. Just doing some simple scaling on what a 12-52.5/2.8 might look like, I get "estimated" weight ranges between 450g and 500g. Wondering what the weight will be like adding another stop will depend on a lots of other factors too. Think of the P12-60 vs PL12-60/2.8-4. 210g vs 320g (both lightweights), one with much better IQ, glass, build, etc...both are weather sealed, so are we looking to save on weight in other areas or do we want something you could take a 10lb sledge to and survive (sarcasm)?.

The other things I looked at were 1) the 12-100/4 (double the FL, but two stops slower) this a very long "all-in-one" lens weighting in at 560g, and 2) something like a Sigma 18-35/1.8 weighing in at 810g - I can see this fast F2 zoom maybe getting closer to a long all-in-one, but I can't see it getting anywhere close to a APS-C lens with an even faster aperture.

So to be brief (too late), I would think a high quality 12-52.5/2 might be between 500 - 550g. It would likely have a 72mm filter like the 12-100. I would guess it might be around 90-100mm long and about 77mm wide. Given the performance I've observed in the O12-40, PL12-60, O12-100 the lens is likely to be pretty dang sharp from edge to edge. (It would also balance nicely on something like an EM1.2, GH5, G9.) So all in all, I think it'll be smaller, lighter, with a slightly smaller filter size than the 24-105. This is of course all hypothetical of course, I could be wrong. I've love to hear the thoughts from a credentialed optics engineer to see if I'm close. I guess pretty accurately with regards to the PL50-200, but I am far from infallible.

James Stirling said:
James Stirling said:
James Stirling said:
Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600

• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.
Click to expand...
For what I do this is not beneficial, why do I want to stop down a lens to get the same larger DOF, hence lowering my shutter speed, only then to jack up my ISO to get the faster shutter speeds again. I prefer to just keep my ISO as close to Base ISO as possible. Now I know everyone has their own preferences for what they shoot, and for some this is fine. I however, won't do this.

I like the A7 III (generally), and as soon as they can fix all those nasty green lines running through their images (I shoot a fair bit of backlight, so this is a deal breaker issue for me), I might look at it a little more seriously. I am also glad that Sony finally released a decent standard zoom lens (24-105/4), that is somewhat affordable. I'm also looking forward to see how the Tamron 28-75 performs - it's a bit short on both ends for me, but it's priced good, maybe that'll finally get Sony to redo their 28-70 kit lens, but I won't hold my breath on that.
James Stirling said:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
Nope, I can get wide, standard, and telephoto lenses that will suit all my landscape, travel, portrait, street, telephoto need on mFT. If I ever choose to pick up anything else, (1", Action Cam, Underwater, Drone, FF, MF, Film....) it'll because I have a need (or want) for something to add to what I have already.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
yanisha said:
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.
Click to expand...
945c0f13cc9a425e9b41fe05111367f9.jpg.png
Click to expand...
Other things you can do with a dead horse.
  1. Buying a stronger whip.
  2. Changing riders.
  3. Say things like, "This is the way we have always ridden this horse."
  4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
  5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
  6. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.
  7. Appointing a tiger team to revive the dead horse.
  8. Creating a training session to increase our riding ability.
  9. Comparing the state of dead horses in today's environment.
  10. Change the requirements declaring that "This horse is not dead."
  11. Hire contractors to ride the dead horse.
  12. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
  13. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
  14. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
  15. Do a Cost Analysis study to see if contractors can ride it cheaper.
  16. Purchase a product to make dead horses run faster.
  17. Declare the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.
  18. Form a focus group to find uses for dead horses.
  19. Revisit the performance requirements for horses.
  20. Say this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.
  21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.
--
NHT
 
Steven Ar said:
James Stirling said:
Steven Ar said:
nick779 said:
Steven Ar said:
nick779 said:
• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to claim these would provide the same IQ?

The difference is 2 stops for IQ.

But this is only "theoretical" and at many ISOs the difference in DR is less than what we would see with a 2 stop difference.

Also, the same AoV is overrated. I could post images taken at 50mm, 75mm and 100mm that look virtually identical. Don't be a bone head and fall in that trap. Use what you want and have available, not what someone else tells you.

"Equivalence" kills often creativity, and too many here get boxed in and restrict what they would normally do because of what they are told. It can be helpful and is simply a tool. Often you can get better results ignoring it and being...CREATIVE.
Click to expand...
I dont quite know what youre getting at with AoV. I was just trying to compare similar AoV ranges between formats.
Click to expand...
Here is an extreme example someone posted a while back. I think it shows pretty well that focal length in many cases does not noticeably affect the outcome.
Click to expand...
This is one image tinkered with on photoshop and does not show what it claims to
Click to expand...
I copied this from someone else so I don't know what you are talking about. And are you saying never PP with photoshop? No softening, no fixing corners? No fixing distortion? That is kind of stupid.
Click to expand...
No you are not bothering to read what I wrote the images you posted below are not three different images taken with different focal lengths at different distances, It is one image that has been cropped resized whatever in Photoshop or some other program so does not show what you think it does
Steven Ar said:
Steven Ar said:
Steven Ar said:
821bc6e57d44406980361d72dfd0ad3e.jpg

And so if focal length doesn't make a difference, then there is no reason to obsess over equivalence. GO ahead and use that 50mm Canon F/1.4 lens on your M43 camera and take a step back to make the framing look similar.
Click to expand...
Equivalence is takes the same framing into consideration, otherwise the images would not be equivelnt .
Click to expand...
That is WRONG. Same AoV which is different (you get it right below). M43 uses a different AR so the framing would always be different. Images will NEVER look the same without cropping.
Click to expand...
Same diagonal AOV is what is compared in equivalence and used to compare lenses the 12mm m43 having the same diagonal AOV as a 24mm on FF
Steven Ar said:
Steven Ar said:
It is as simple as it gets , same diagonal AOV,
Click to expand...
OK there you got it right.
same DOF . same total light gathered . In every forum on DPreview this is a simple fact[/QUOTE] But there are other ways and often [B]better ways[/B] to accomplish virtually identical results. So if you do not have the same DOF said:
Anyone who limits themselves by only considering "equivalence" is not going to get the best results, and limits their creativity. Equivalence is a mathematical framework, and should NOT be a self imposed restriction.
Steven Ar said:
Steven Ar said:
One is 3:2 and one is 4:3 so they will never look the same anyway.
Click to expand...
It is diagonal AOV, that is compared not horizontal
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And as for what follows blah, blah same old nonsesne by the same old folk only change is the name your using ;-) But thank you for ID'ing yourself it is handy for the old ignore list :-)
Steven Ar said:
LOL! above you said "framing". But you did get it right here. It is obvious you won't get the same image qith different AR.

Anyone expecting (and trying to achieve) the same image is a buffoon who know little about photography and how cameras work. Just get the other camera! LOL!!!

Everyone needs to understand that limiting one's self with an arbitrary restriction for no reason is NOT what "equivalence" is about. It is a tool and nothing more.

There are MANY other ways to achieve a similar or virtually identical image, but why would anyone limit themselves like that? Limiting creativity is the sign of a buffoon.
Steven Ar said:
Steven Ar said:
A nice benefit is the DoF will look similar even though a 50/1.4 acts like a 100/2.8.

I guess my point is, with some creativity you can get results that look near identical even without worrying about "equivalence". It is not necessary for good photography.
Steven Ar said:
Im leaning towards holding fast with mFT, since I really cant complain about my results. I think im just mentally stuck in the "mirrorless FF has less noise, is faster, can use higher ISO, better IQ" trap even though I dont really need it.
Robert111, post: 61144311, member: 1862027"]
EM-1 mk2 with PL 100-400 for birding (and wildflowers almost macro). Sony A9 & A7r2 for people etc. I wish I could have just one system but the size, weight, and expense of long reach telephotos for full frame are significant disadvantages for hiking/birding.

I will take a look at a Sony 200-600 if/when it becomes available but I’m getting good birding shots with my Oly rig and I don’t need more weight when traveling/birding.
Click to expand...
I suppose if I outgrow my mFT gear this would be the approach I would take.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NowHearThis said:
James Stirling said:
NowHearThis said:
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, The A7 kit you mention is 25% heavier and only has 47% of the Focal Length.
Click to expand...
I like the 24-105mm F/4 g on the A7rII , at 42mp you get the equivalent of a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 , by using the APS mode at 18mp you get an effective FF 157.5mm equivalent to a m43 18-78.75mm F/3 . So not too shabby at all . And it is heavier because it is not equivalent a 24-200mm F/8 would be equivalent to the 12-100mm F4 . The closet real life option would be shooting the not very stellar Sony 24-240mm at F/8, the difference in length between these two lenses is just 2.5mm .

On an A7III the 24-105mm gives you the equivalent of a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 , what size , weight and cost do you think such a lens would come in at ?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. But it's a tougher one to answer accurately. Granted I think you know I'm not an optics engineer, nor is anyone else here, so I'm assuming you are asking for an opinion with some qualified rationale behind my opinion to your question... so I will try and do my best on that front.
Click to expand...
I am certainly not an optical engineer or even close :-)
NowHearThis said:
Problems. Wide variety of sizes between somewhat similar lenses. I could list a few, but I'll stick with just one. O12-40/2.8, P12-35/2.8. Just doing some simple scaling on what a 12-52.5/2.8 might look like, I get "estimated" weight ranges between 450g and 500g. Wondering what the weight will be like adding another stop will depend on a lots of other factors too. Think of the P12-60 vs PL12-60/2.8-4. 210g vs 320g (both lightweights), one with much better IQ, glass, build, etc...both are weather sealed, so are we looking to save on weight in other areas or do we want something you could take a 10lb sledge to and survive (sarcasm)?.
Click to expand...
An extra stop in a zoom in any format makes for a significant jump in size and sadly cost :-) particularity for high end lenses which a m43 12-52.5mm would surely be . My mythical zoom the 12-52.5mm F/2.0 along with being a full stop faster than the Oly 12-40mm also has a 30% longer focal range. The Panasonic 12-60mm F/2.8-4 has a 15% longer focal length but now it is F/4 at the long end so to match the speed of my mythical it now needs to find two stops

FF F/4 - F/2.8

4d7df309587f4b989abf931588f2efea.jpg
NowHearThis said:
The other things I looked at were 1) the 12-100/4 (double the FL, but two stops slower) this a very long "all-in-one" lens weighting in at 560g, and 2) something like a Sigma 18-35/1.8 weighing in at 810g - I can see this fast F2 zoom maybe getting closer to a long all-in-one, but I can't see it getting anywhere close to a APS-C lens with an even faster aperture.
Click to expand...
However that Sigma has a very short focal range m43 9-17.5mm not quite a 2x range whilst a m43 12-52.5mm F/2 has a 4.3x focal range . And the equivalent m43 lens to the Sigma would be an 9-17.5mm F/1.35 which is far faster than my mythical F/2 lens :-)
NowHearThis said:
So to be brief (too late), I would think a high quality 12-52.5/2 might be between 500 - 550g. It would likely have a 72mm filter like the 12-100. I would guess it might be around 90-100mm long and about 77mm wide. Given the performance I've observed in the O12-40, PL12-60, O12-100 the lens is likely to be pretty dang sharp from edge to edge. (It would also balance nicely on something like an EM1.2, GH5, G9.) So all in all, I think it'll be smaller, lighter, with a slightly smaller filter size than the 24-105. This is of course all hypothetical of course, I could be wrong. I've love to hear the thoughts from a credentialed optics engineer to see if I'm close. I guess pretty accurately with regards to the PL50-200, but I am far from infallible.
Click to expand...
Here is the Panasonic 12-60mm F/2.8-4 lens compared to the 24-105mm F/4g which is a stop faster at the wide end but a full two stops at the long end

3d484d496c0a4ca8b66e7d8ccb29c2af.jpg

And here is what a two stop difference means within m43 same focal length 40-150mm with the 40-150mm F/4-5.6 { only one stop slower at the wide end} vs the 40-150mm F/2.8 PRO

61b7feef7f4f4412b22ae377adfb5268.jpg
NowHearThis said:
NowHearThis said:
NowHearThis said:
NowHearThis said:
Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600

• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.
Click to expand...
For what I do this is not beneficial, why do I want to stop down a lens to get the same larger DOF, hence lowering my shutter speed, only then to jack up my ISO to get the faster shutter speeds again. I prefer to just keep my ISO as close to Base ISO as possible. Now I know everyone has their own preferences for what they shoot, and for some this is fine. I however, won't do this.

I like the A7 III (generally), and as soon as they can fix all those nasty green lines running through their images (I shoot a fair bit of backlight, so this is a deal breaker issue for me), I might look at it a little more seriously. I am also glad that Sony finally released a decent standard zoom lens (24-105/4), that is somewhat affordable. I'm also looking forward to see how the Tamron 28-75 performs - it's a bit short on both ends for me, but it's priced good, maybe that'll finally get Sony to redo their 28-70 kit lens, but I won't hold my breath on that.
NowHearThis said:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
Nope, I can get wide, standard, and telephoto lenses that will suit all my landscape, travel, portrait, street, telephoto need on mFT. If I ever choose to pick up anything else, (1", Action Cam, Underwater, Drone, FF, MF, Film....) it'll because I have a need (or want) for something to add to what I have already.

--
NHT
Click to expand...
--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
Click to expand...
--
NHT
Click to expand...
--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
 
Last edited:
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.

Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
Oddly enough i am in the middle of this thought process, and have been back and forth twice now. I owned apsc DSLR, then MFT, then back to DSLRs, including FF (D800) as well as a few other DSLRs. Owned a GX7 and GX8 after that, and im back to DSLRs now, including a D700. Thing is, i may be coming back to MFT :-D

So my reasoning has been all over the place depending on which change i was in. I had some AF accuracy issues with older DSLRs which prompted me to go ML. Then battery life and poor C-AF pushed me back to DSLRs.

Now that there are some ML with a little better tracking, and now that i can solve the poor battery life issue, i may be able to have my cake and eat it too. One last reason i had went FF recently was DOF control, but after testing some things out and checking numbers, it's not as bad as it seems for crop sensors.

For me, i care more about BG blur than actual thin DOF on the subject. I used to just look at DOF as all there was, as if it also determined BG blur too. But that's not the case. Entrance pupil size determines maximum BG blur, so as long as there is enough distance from the BG, a 50mm f/2 on FF looks the same as a 50mm f/2 on MFT.

I didn't really think of it that way before, but i tested it recently and indeed it's true. So assuming you have the space to deal with the crop factor, you don't really lose BG blur with the smaller sensor, and since MFT has such a good feature offering, it's quite a good choice.

I don't know if i will even keep my FF and apsc DSLRs, it depends on how a ML performs when i get it in hand. Im debating the Canon M5 and Oly EM1 but leaning towards the Olympus now. If the C-AF is good enough, i will probably sell the others. I could imagine an EM1 and Oly 75 1.8 being a beast for portraits which i shoot most.

I don't think you are crazy at all, and you might be able to ditch FF altogether.
 
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.
Click to expand...
You're comparing the size and weight of a 200mm EFL lens to a 105mm EFL lens. The Oly has almost twice the reach. How big is the Sony lens that can match it?
nick779 said:
Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
I switched from 35mm- and APS-format to MFT four years ago. I'm not going back. Here's how I got there.

How to Get Small - Part Four - Why I Switched to Micro Four Thirds Cameras

FWIW, I shoot corporate events and portraits professionally and have done a lot of personal travel and scenic photography in recent years. Increase travel, lots of hiking, and a case of bursitis in my right shoulder were the main reasons for switching, but I found lots of other reasons to stay with MFT.
 
Jacques Cornell said:
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.
Click to expand...
You're comparing the size and weight of a 200mm EFL lens to a 105mm EFL lens. The Oly has almost twice the reach. How big is the Sony lens that can match it?
Click to expand...
The Sony 24-240mm is only 2.5mm longer :-) Though I would much rather have the Oly :-) As I mentioned above you can shoot the 24-105mm in APS mode on my A7Rii and get an 18mp file at a FF effective 157.5mm
Jacques Cornell said:
Jacques Cornell said:
Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
I switched from 35mm- and APS-format to MFT four years ago. I'm not going back. Here's how I got there.

How to Get Small - Part Four - Why I Switched to Micro Four Thirds Cameras

FWIW, I shoot corporate events and portraits professionally and have done a lot of personal travel and scenic photography in recent years. Increase travel, lots of hiking, and a case of bursitis in my right shoulder were the main reasons for switching, but I found lots of other reasons to stay with MFT.

--
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
Click to expand...
--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
 
Last edited:
James Stirling said:
Jacques Cornell said:
nick779 said:
Im sure this has been beaten to death, im curious if anyone has already been down this path already.

Ive had this nagging thought, partially GAS, partially thinking about the future that I shouldnt be investing in mFT glass and should be trying to move towards another format.

After spending a ton of time reading about equivalence, mFT has its merits, at least for tele and the corresponding glass when it comes to size and weight, but I was just looking at the A7 II/III a few days ago and for $3300, you can pick up a A7III + 24-105 F4. you get all the benefits of full frame, but its basically the size of an EM5.2+12-100 F4 and slightly heavier.
Click to expand...
You're comparing the size and weight of a 200mm EFL lens to a 105mm EFL lens. The Oly has almost twice the reach. How big is the Sony lens that can match it?
Click to expand...
The Sony 24-240mm is only 2.5mm longer :-)
Click to expand...
Is it a constant f4? If not, apples to oranges.
James Stirling said:
Though I would much rather have the Oly :-) As I mentioned above you can shoot the 24-105mm in APS mode on my A7Rii and get an 18mp file at a FF effective 157.5mm
Click to expand...
The Oly gives you 200mm EFL, so apples to oranges again.
James Stirling said:
James Stirling said:
James Stirling said:
Maybe im misinterpreting things, but based on this equivalence comparison, FF has a big advantage

• 6D (FF) at 50mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 1600
• D500 (1.5x) at 33mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• 80D (1.6x) at 31mm, f/3.5, 1/200, ISO 640
• EM5II (mFT) at 25mm, f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 400

2 aperture stops and 2 ISO stops for the same area of view.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence

Do any of you have a FF for shorter FL and mFT for more telephoto options?
Click to expand...
I switched from 35mm- and APS-format to MFT four years ago. I'm not going back. Here's how I got there.

How to Get Small - Part Four - Why I Switched to Micro Four Thirds Cameras

FWIW, I shoot corporate events and portraits professionally and have done a lot of personal travel and scenic photography in recent years. Increase travel, lots of hiking, and a case of bursitis in my right shoulder were the main reasons for switching, but I found lots of other reasons to stay with MFT.

--
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
Click to expand...
--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
Click to expand...
--
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top