Reading mode: Light Dark

How do photographers get FF equivalent pictures in M43?

Go to last post
bobn2 said:
To get an equivalent picture between two formats is simple. Take the crop ratio. Set the f-numbers according to the crop ratio, that is, if you use f/8 on FF, use f/4 on mFT. Set the ISO according to the square of the crop ratio, or thereabouts. So, if you use 400 ISO on FF, use 100 on mFT. Set the shutter the same. That photos like that, you will find it very difficult to tell the difference. What this also tells you is that there are photos that you can take on FF which you can't take on mFT. If you were using f/1.4 or 100 ISO on FF, you'd need to use f/0.7 or 25 ISO on mFT....
Click to expand...
This really tells you everything you need to know, if you understand it clearly and apply it correctly. It doesn't tell you what equipment you need, but it does define the optical limitations of the cameras.

This being the internet, there is some wisdom in the other posts, but there is also a lot of confusion and obfuscation. Some of the posts are just plain wrong.

That being said, you do seem uncertain about your needs, and the uses you named do seem to require different kinds of cameras. The truth is, some serious (even professional) photographers use MFT because it's small and light, especially for long focal lengths. Most professionals probably use FF because it's quite versatile, but it's also big, heavy, and conspicuous. For some the best compromise is APS-C.
 
Klaus dk said:
Believing that very shallow DoF is the ultimate goal for portrait photographers is a common fallacy among beginners. I shoot most of my portraits with studio flash between f/5.6 and f/11 on APS-C. In the studio, I have perfect control of the background (or should have, depending on my skills).
Click to expand...
Yes. It is quite possible to get one eye in focus but not the other. Or an eye in focus but not the ear. Or nothing in focus unless everything is perfect. If that is your aim, then you need FF, but it might not be what clients want.
 
JamesWillis said:
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.

When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
I am honestly curious to see an example of this. More expensive is certainly a possibility, but please show me a pair of m43 and 35mm lenses that give an equivalent field of view where the m43 option is larger.
 
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.

When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
I am honestly curious to see an example of this. More expensive is certainly a possibility, but please show me a pair of m43 and 35mm lenses that give an equivalent field of view where the m43 option is larger.
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to satisfy your curiosity, but can you please satisfy mine first - did you deliberately rephrase "equivalent lenses" from my post to "lenses with equivalent field of view"? And if you did, does that imply that they should have equal, not equivalent, fstops?
 
Last edited:
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.

When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
I am honestly curious to see an example of this. More expensive is certainly a possibility, but please show me a pair of m43 and 35mm lenses that give an equivalent field of view where the m43 option is larger.
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to satisfy your curiosity, but can you please satisfy mine first - did you deliberately rephrase "equivalent lenses" from my post to "lenses with equivalent field of view"? And if you did, does that imply that they should have equal, not equivalent, fstops?
Click to expand...
I think we are talking about different things. Since you didn't say equivalent dof, I assumed equal fields of view since this is the standard comparison when nothing else is specified. If you are talking about trying to match up dof from different formats, I rescind my question.
 
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.

When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
I am honestly curious to see an example of this. More expensive is certainly a possibility, but please show me a pair of m43 and 35mm lenses that give an equivalent field of view where the m43 option is larger.
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to satisfy your curiosity, but can you please satisfy mine first - did you deliberately rephrase "equivalent lenses" from my post to "lenses with equivalent field of view"? And if you did, does that imply that they should have equal, not equivalent, fstops?
Click to expand...
I think we are talking about different things. Since you didn't say equivalent dof, I assumed equal fields of view since this is the standard comparison when nothing else is specified. If you are talking about trying to match up dof from different formats, I rescind my question.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you possibly could have assumed that given the context of my post and this entire thread. It seems to me that your "honest curiosity" was anything but.
 
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.

When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
I am honestly curious to see an example of this. More expensive is certainly a possibility, but please show me a pair of m43 and 35mm lenses that give an equivalent field of view where the m43 option is larger.
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to satisfy your curiosity, but can you please satisfy mine first - did you deliberately rephrase "equivalent lenses" from my post to "lenses with equivalent field of view"? And if you did, does that imply that they should have equal, not equivalent, fstops?
Click to expand...
I think we are talking about different things. Since you didn't say equivalent dof, I assumed equal fields of view since this is the standard comparison when nothing else is specified. If you are talking about trying to match up dof from different formats, I rescind my question.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you possibly could have assumed that given the context of my post and this entire thread. It seems to me that your "honest curiosity" was anything but.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you didn't make your intent clear and I misread it. It's as simple as that, no harm done. Cheers m8 :)
 
JamesWillis said:
tedolf said:
JamesWillis said:
PhotoTeach2 said:
You seem to be assuming that FF is the ultimate (GOLD) standard. But why not asking the opposite and how FF can get images equivalent to m4/3 ???
Click to expand...
By stopping the lens down.
JamesWillis said:
Smaller sensors have an advantage when you want/need WIDER/DEEPER DOF, (and especially when you want/need LONGER TELE.
Click to expand...
Does Olympus 25mm f1.8 have deeper DOF advantage over Olympus 25mm f/1.2? Of course not. Claiming that smaller sensors have deeper DOF advantage is just as ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Only in one small way-they can do so with much smaller and cheaper lenses.
Click to expand...
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.
Click to expand...
Except that in the real world small, slow inexpensive prime lenses for FF don't exist.
JamesWillis said:
When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
Not always true with respect to cost. The care some reasonably fast, inexpensive prime lenses in the 4/3 and m4/3 ecology.

Tedolph
 
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.

When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
I am honestly curious to see an example of this. More expensive is certainly a possibility, but please show me a pair of m43 and 35mm lenses that give an equivalent field of view where the m43 option is larger.
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to satisfy your curiosity, but can you please satisfy mine first - did you deliberately rephrase "equivalent lenses" from my post to "lenses with equivalent field of view"? And if you did, does that imply that they should have equal, not equivalent, fstops?
Click to expand...
I think we are talking about different things. Since you didn't say equivalent dof, I assumed equal fields of view since this is the standard comparison when nothing else is specified. If you are talking about trying to match up dof from different formats, I rescind my question.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you possibly could have assumed that given the context of my post and this entire thread. It seems to me that your "honest curiosity" was anything but.
Click to expand...
You know, you are really becoming tiresome and unnecessarily argumentative. He is asking about equivalent field of view comparisons because that is how normal people think when they are coming from a format they are familiar with to an unfamiliar format.

We know that you love FF, think everything else is inferior (even MF) and have your personal sense of self worth wrapped up in a camera format.

Nevertheless, it has become tiresome and boorish.

Tedolph
 
ThrillaMozilla said:
Klaus dk said:
Believing that very shallow DoF is the ultimate goal for portrait photographers is a common fallacy among beginners. I shoot most of my portraits with studio flash between f/5.6 and f/11 on APS-C. In the studio, I have perfect control of the background (or should have, depending on my skills).
Click to expand...
Yes. It is quite possible to get one eye in focus but not the other. Or an eye in focus but not the ear. Or nothing in focus unless everything is perfect. If that is your aim, then you need FF, but it might not be what clients want.
Click to expand...
It usually isn't.

Tedolph
 
tedolf said:
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.

When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
I am honestly curious to see an example of this. More expensive is certainly a possibility, but please show me a pair of m43 and 35mm lenses that give an equivalent field of view where the m43 option is larger.
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to satisfy your curiosity, but can you please satisfy mine first - did you deliberately rephrase "equivalent lenses" from my post to "lenses with equivalent field of view"? And if you did, does that imply that they should have equal, not equivalent, fstops?
Click to expand...
I think we are talking about different things. Since you didn't say equivalent dof, I assumed equal fields of view since this is the standard comparison when nothing else is specified. If you are talking about trying to match up dof from different formats, I rescind my question.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you possibly could have assumed that given the context of my post and this entire thread. It seems to me that your "honest curiosity" was anything but.
Click to expand...
You know, you are really becoming tiresome and unnecessarily argumentative. He is asking about equivalent field of view comparisons because that is how normal people think when they are coming from a format they are familiar with to an unfamiliar format.

We know that you love FF, think everything else is inferior (even MF) and have your personal sense of self worth wrapped up in a camera format.

Nevertheless, it has become tiresome and boorish.
Click to expand...
Um, let me point out that OP correctly accounted for both equivalent field of view and equivalent aperture in his original question. So he was already ahead of those who try to avoid all the implications of comparing sensor sizes, and properly that should be accounted for any responses to him.

I'm not going to cast aspersions, but one does need to be careful of being hoist by one's own petard.

Dave
 
tedolf said:
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
tamaraw35 said:
JamesWillis said:
That isn't an inherent M43 advantage, you can get exactly the same trade off by creating a slower FF lens.

When comparing equivalent lenses it isn't uncommon that M43 lens is bigger and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
I am honestly curious to see an example of this. More expensive is certainly a possibility, but please show me a pair of m43 and 35mm lenses that give an equivalent field of view where the m43 option is larger.
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to satisfy your curiosity, but can you please satisfy mine first - did you deliberately rephrase "equivalent lenses" from my post to "lenses with equivalent field of view"? And if you did, does that imply that they should have equal, not equivalent, fstops?
Click to expand...
I think we are talking about different things. Since you didn't say equivalent dof, I assumed equal fields of view since this is the standard comparison when nothing else is specified. If you are talking about trying to match up dof from different formats, I rescind my question.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you possibly could have assumed that given the context of my post and this entire thread. It seems to me that your "honest curiosity" was anything but.
Click to expand...
You know, you are really becoming tiresome and unnecessarily argumentative.
Click to expand...
The feeling is mutual.
tedolf said:
He is asking about equivalent field of view comparisons because that is how normal people think when they are coming from a format they are familiar with to an unfamiliar format.
Click to expand...
This thread is about getting equivalent pictures on different formats. Original post, post that tamaraw35 read, understood and replied to, explicitly stated that it was not only about equivalent focal length but also about equivalent fstop. So why would, with all that context, assumption be that when I said "equivalent lenses" I was talking only about equivalent focal lengths?
tedolf said:
We know that you love FF, think everything else is inferior (even MF) and have your personal sense of self worth wrapped up in a camera format.
Click to expand...
You are clearly lying and making things up, because in this very thread, in my reply to YOU, I stated that MF has exactly the same advantages over FF as FF does over smaller formats.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61491487
 
Last edited:
Donald B said:
pocoloco said:
Theofanis_S said:
So my question is, how exactly do photographers get everything they are used to get in FF from a m43 sensor
Click to expand...
Wrong line of thought.

I never shoot my m43 equipment with 35mm equivalent in mind. I know how I want my image to look and use the equipment I have with me to get that shot.
Click to expand...
Im the same. the whole ff v m43 is so far off reality. I look at ff as a backward step.

Don
Click to expand...
I do not qualify another format as a step forward or backward. If I was shooting with a 35mm equivalent then I would not be thinking how I would need to get in shot with a 1" or an m43 or a medium format. I would only be focussing on the camera / lens combination I was using and get the shot I want with that combination. I consider the line of thought by the OP of no use/help at all when actually taking photographs.

Just now the strength/weaknesses of the system you are using on a shoot, and focus on how to get your shot with the gear at hand.
 
pocoloco said:
Donald B said:
pocoloco said:
Theofanis_S said:
So my question is, how exactly do photographers get everything they are used to get in FF from a m43 sensor
Click to expand...
Wrong line of thought.

I never shoot my m43 equipment with 35mm equivalent in mind. I know how I want my image to look and use the equipment I have with me to get that shot.
Click to expand...
Im the same. the whole ff v m43 is so far off reality. I look at ff as a backward step.

Don
Click to expand...
I do not qualify another format as a step forward or backward. If I was shooting with a 35mm equivalent then I would not be thinking how I would need to get in shot with a 1" or an m43 or a medium format. I would only be focussing on the camera / lens combination I was using and get the shot I want with that combination. I consider the line of thought by the OP of no use/help at all when actually taking photographs.

Just now the strength/weaknesses of the system you are using on a shoot, and focus on how to get your shot with the gear at hand.
Click to expand...
I do unless you can guarantee the FF sensor camera wont over heat on a shoot while streaming live to a monitor as well as having the evf on at the same time ?

Don
 
Last edited:
pocoloco said:
Donald B said:
pocoloco said:
Theofanis_S said:
So my question is, how exactly do photographers get everything they are used to get in FF from a m43 sensor
Click to expand...
Wrong line of thought.

I never shoot my m43 equipment with 35mm equivalent in mind. I know how I want my image to look and use the equipment I have with me to get that shot.
Click to expand...
Im the same. the whole ff v m43 is so far off reality. I look at ff as a backward step.

Don
Click to expand...
I do not qualify another format as a step forward or backward. If I was shooting with a 35mm equivalent then I would not be thinking how I would need to get in shot with a 1" or an m43 or a medium format. I would only be focussing on the camera / lens combination I was using and get the shot I want with that combination. I consider the line of thought by the OP of no use/help at all when actually taking photographs.

Just now the strength/weaknesses of the system you are using on a shoot, and focus on how to get your shot with the gear at hand.
Click to expand...
I fully agree ...

There are both advantages and disadvantages to both smaller and larger sensors.

A good photographer learn to fully-exploit each to their best advantage.
 
How do photographers get FF equivalent pictures in M43? this is a good question, as a student, I want to know.
 
Sweetque said:
How do photographers get FF equivalent pictures in M43? this is a good question, as a student, I want to know.
Click to expand...
And as a good student, you should go back and read bobn's first reply, back on page 2. That answers the question.
 
I apologize if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but one advanced way this is done is through the use of full frame DSLR lenses and speedboosters. Essentially a speedbooster is a piece of glass that reduces the size of the image circle from Full Frame to m43. This has the effect of giving the m43 camera the same field of view, depth of field and total light collected as the DSLR lens. So a 50/1.4 FF DSLR lens behaves as if it was a 25/0.7 m43 lens. The speedbooster is adding a new rear element that changes the final optical output of the lens. I am oversimplifying but this is the high level idea about what happens. They range from cheap manual only units from zhyonghi to high quality autofocus and full electronics versions from Metabones.

I use a viltrox speedbooster to adapt a Nikon F mount Twist 60 to my Sony APS-C mirrorless. It essentially gives me the same DOF, field of view and light collected as if I was shooting it on a Nikon FF DSLR. I could get a Nikkor 50/1.8 and turn it into a 33/1.2 APS-C lens.
 
liopleurodon said:
I apologize if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but one advanced way this is done is through the use of full frame DSLR lenses and speedboosters. Essentially a speedbooster is a piece of glass that reduces the size of the image circle from Full Frame to m43. This has the effect of giving the m43 camera the same field of view, depth of field and total light collected as the DSLR lens. So a 50/1.4 FF DSLR lens behaves as if it was a 25/0.7 m43 lens.
Click to expand...
There's no 0.5x 'speed booster' available (apart from Pentax Q). Mostly they are 0.71x, so a 50/1.4 lens would be turned into a 35/1.0 lens, not a 25/0.7. Metabones does a 0.64x converter mFT (which is compatible with a limited range of lenses), which turns the 50/1.4 into a 32/0.9 lens. Note also that the converters are thensleves aperture limited, so can't take the f-number below some limit, however fast the attached lens. I can't remember exactly what that is, but don't expect it to go all the way down to f/0.7
 
bobn2 said:
liopleurodon said:
I apologize if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but one advanced way this is done is through the use of full frame DSLR lenses and speedboosters. Essentially a speedbooster is a piece of glass that reduces the size of the image circle from Full Frame to m43. This has the effect of giving the m43 camera the same field of view, depth of field and total light collected as the DSLR lens. So a 50/1.4 FF DSLR lens behaves as if it was a 25/0.7 m43 lens.
Click to expand...
There's no 0.5x 'speed booster' available (apart from Pentax Q). Mostly they are 0.71x, so a 50/1.4 lens would be turned into a 35/1.0 lens, not a 25/0.7. Metabones does a 0.64x converter mFT (which is compatible with a limited range of lenses), which turns the 50/1.4 into a 32/0.9 lens. Note also that the converters are thensleves aperture limited, so can't take the f-number below some limit, however fast the attached lens. I can't remember exactly what that is, but don't expect it to go all the way down to f/0.7
Click to expand...
...is the one of the microlens covering over the sensor. That is, even given that the focal reducer ("speed booster") can deliver f/0.7 on mFT when applied to an f/1.4 FF lens, it may very well be that the transmission is still limited to t/1.4, or such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

James Stirling
lpmm to lwph how to
2
Replies
26
Views
13K
JimKasson
JimKasson
bluevellet
Something I've always wondered about lens development
Replies
11
Views
4K
OpticsEngineer
O
bluevellet
  • User review User review
Soft Spot For The 17mm f/1.8
Replies
15
Views
58K
baxters
B
C
200 f2.8 M43 and FF Size Comparison
2
Replies
24
Views
11K
Crispy61
C
bluevellet
  • User review User review
Good performance at a Bargain
Replies
1
Views
21K
DDoram
DDoram

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