My take on equivalence

Just to make it clear: I accepted equivalence many years ago and have never had any problems with it. But nobody needs to understand or believe in equivalence. If you don’t believe in gravity, you may get hurt. If you don’t believe in global warming, your grandchildren may get hurt. But if you don’t believe in equivalence, nothing happens. Just keep shooting. You can take world class images with your MFT gear without ever having heard of equivalence (yes, of course you can take world class images with MFT – and don’t blame your gear if you can’t).
On the other hand, equivalence does no harm and doesn’t make your gear inferior in any way, so there’s nothing to fear.
For the record, I’m a Nikon user since 1970 and a MFT user since 2010. I own a D800E and a D7100 with several lenses. I also own no less than eight MFT bodies (I hate to sell things).
Two years ago, I went through my favourite images and discovered to my surprise that a disproportional amount of them were taken with MFT. Not only that, I also found that all of those MFT images were technically good enough, i e they wouldn’t really have been meaningfully better if they had been taken with my full frame high resolution camera.
After that discovery, I invested in a used E-M1, then another one and finally an E-M1 II. And, in spite of several issues with the Oly bodies, I have only occasionally used my Nikon cameras in the last two years. I still like Nikon though, and I have to admit that I keep an eye on the Z7.
But why would I get more keepers with MFT than with my excellent Nikon gear? I can’t know for certain, but I think it has to do with the fun factor.
Life isn’t about light gathering or resolution charts. Life is about having fun.
So here’s my addition to the equivalence theory:
After several years of empirical studies, I have found that MFT has a two stop fun advantage over full frame DSLRs.
There. Keep this in mind.
And here are two images, taken with the super fantastic Olympus 300/4. I don’t know if these images qualify for my personal 2018 top 50 list, but they were taken today and, believe me, I was having fun.


Crested tit. I have shot these birds with my very good Nikon 200-500 as well as with my Olympus 300/4. Believe it or not, I actually get better technical quality from the Oly. Maybe it's the lens, maybe it's the stabilisation, maybe it's the vibration free electronic shutter, maybe it's the focus accuracy or, more likely, a combination. I'm a firm believer in equivalence, but other things may sometimes be more important.





Regards
Lasse

--

Equivalence, unlike Santa Claus, is real. So, who gives a hoot? I just keep shooting and enjoy the results I get with m:4:3.. Somehow equivalence is just not important. I don't seem to notice it at all.

Like my signature says... lol

And I will wait to hear from those that will point out how a certain FF 85mm f1.8 on a certain FF mirrorless body costs less and weighs less and gathers more light and has more background separation than an EM1.2 with 45mm f1.2 Pro lens...

Like the OP says, m43 is fun (enjoyable) and gets great results.

Bobby J said:

Equivalence, unlike Santa Claus, is real.

Click to expand...

Wait, what??!

Bobby J said:

So, who gives a hoot? I just keep shooting and enjoy the results I get with m:4:3.. Somehow equivalence is just not important. I don't seem to notice it at all.

Click to expand...

Bobby J said:

Equivalence, unlike Santa Claus, is real. So, who gives a hoot? I just keep shooting and enjoy the results I get with m:4:3.. Somehow equivalence is just not important. I don't seem to notice it at all.

Click to expand...

I mostly agree. It may be somewhat useful though if you're shooting multiple formats and even more so if you're considering switching to another format.

photofan1986 said:

Bobby J said:

Equivalence, unlike Santa Claus, is real.

Click to expand...

Wait, what??!

Click to expand...

I am gutted that was just mean

photofan1986 said:

photofan1986 said:

So, who gives a hoot? I just keep shooting and enjoy the results I get with m:4:3.. Somehow equivalence is just not important. I don't seem to notice it at all.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lasse Eisele said:

Just to make it clear: I accepted equivalence many years ago and have never had any problems with it. But nobody needs to understand or believe in equivalence. If you don’t believe in gravity, you may get hurt. If you don’t believe in global warming, your grandchildren may get hurt. But if you don’t believe in equivalence, nothing happens. Just keep shooting. You can take world class images with your MFT gear without ever having heard of equivalence (yes, of course you can take world class images with MFT – and don’t blame your gear if you can’t).
On the other hand, equivalence does no harm and doesn’t make your gear inferior in any way, so there’s nothing to fear.

Click to expand...

Yep!

Lasse Eisele said:

For the record, I’m a Nikon user since 1970 and a MFT user since 2010. I own a D800E and a D7100 with several lenses. I also own no less than eight MFT bodies (I hate to sell things).
Two years ago, I went through my favourite images and discovered to my surprise that a disproportional amount of them were taken with MFT. Not only that, I also found that all of those MFT images were technically good enough, i e they wouldn’t really have been meaningfully better if they had been taken with my full frame high resolution camera.
After that discovery, I invested in a used E-M1, then another one and finally an E-M1 II. And, in spite of several issues with the Oly bodies, I have only occasionally used my Nikon cameras in the last two years. I still like Nikon though, and I have to admit that I keep an eye on the Z7.
But why would I get more keepers with MFT than with my excellent Nikon gear? I can’t know for certain, but I think it has to do with the fun factor.
Life isn’t about light gathering or resolution charts. Life is about having fun.
So here’s my addition to the equivalence theory:
After several years of empirical studies, I have found that MFT has a two stop fun advantage over full frame DSLRs.
There. Keep this in mind.
And here are two images, taken with the super fantastic Olympus 300/4. I don’t know if these images qualify for my personal 2018 top 50 list, but they were taken today and, believe me, I was having fun.


Crested tit. I have shot these birds with my very good Nikon 200-500 as well as with my Olympus 300/4. Believe it or not, I actually get better technical quality from the Oly. Maybe it's the lens, maybe it's the stabilisation, maybe it's the vibration free electronic shutter, maybe it's the focus accuracy or, more likely, a combination. I'm a firm believer in equivalence, but other things may sometimes be more important.

Click to expand...

There can be no denying that when you're out looking for tits, the fun factor is what matters most! ;-)

Cheers!

A pessimist says the cup is half empty,

The optimist says the cup is half full.

The Olympus engineer says the cup is over-designed by a factor or 2.

Lasse Eisele said:

Just to make it clear: I accepted equivalence many years ago and have never had any problems with it. But nobody needs to understand or believe in equivalence. If you don’t believe in gravity, you may get hurt. If you don’t believe in global warming, your grandchildren may get hurt. But if you don’t believe in equivalence, nothing happens. Just keep shooting. You can take world class images with your MFT gear without ever having heard of equivalence (yes, of course you can take world class images with MFT – and don’t blame your gear if you can’t).
On the other hand, equivalence does no harm and doesn’t make your gear inferior in any way, so there’s nothing to fear.
For the record, I’m a Nikon user since 1970 and a MFT user since 2010. I own a D800E and a D7100 with several lenses. I also own no less than eight MFT bodies (I hate to sell things).
Two years ago, I went through my favourite images and discovered to my surprise that a disproportional amount of them were taken with MFT. Not only that, I also found that all of those MFT images were technically good enough, i e they wouldn’t really have been meaningfully better if they had been taken with my full frame high resolution camera.
After that discovery, I invested in a used E-M1, then another one and finally an E-M1 II. And, in spite of several issues with the Oly bodies, I have only occasionally used my Nikon cameras in the last two years. I still like Nikon though, and I have to admit that I keep an eye on the Z7.
But why would I get more keepers with MFT than with my excellent Nikon gear? I can’t know for certain, but I think it has to do with the fun factor.
Life isn’t about light gathering or resolution charts. Life is about having fun.
So here’s my addition to the equivalence theory:
After several years of empirical studies, I have found that MFT has a two stop fun advantage over full frame DSLRs.
There. Keep this in mind.
And here are two images, taken with the super fantastic Olympus 300/4. I don’t know if these images qualify for my personal 2018 top 50 list, but they were taken today and, believe me, I was having fun.


Crested tit. I have shot these birds with my very good Nikon 200-500 as well as with my Olympus 300/4. Believe it or not, I actually get better technical quality from the Oly. Maybe it's the lens, maybe it's the stabilisation, maybe it's the vibration free electronic shutter, maybe it's the focus accuracy or, more likely, a combination. I'm a firm believer in equivalence, but other things may sometimes be more important.



Regards
Lasse

Click to expand...

I'm here to suggest a new measure - FAD - for fun advantage factor. Thus, M43 has FAD=2 while FF has FAD=0

Cheers

S.

--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

Thank god someone finally decided to weigh in with their take on equivalence.

Englishman in France said:

A pessimist says the cup is half empty,

The optimist says the cup is half full.

The Olympus engineer says the cup is over-designed by a factor or 2.

Click to expand...

I say it is 100% full of matter, 50% liquid and 50% gas, question is what you can do with a mixture by its properties.

It's good to know how the technology works. Logical thinking will allow people to use that info on equivalence and apply it to their skills and techniques.

Nevertheless, I shoot for the optimal exposure at all times. This way I get the maximum amount of data to work with when processing. And for some low to no light photography, i.e., milky way landscapes, optimal exposure has no room for error because there is no excess data to process.

This is why today's evolution of cameras has closed the gap between MFT, Crop, and FF. People with the right skills and techinques can use any format and get great shots in low light. Nevertheless this was not the case 5 years ago. Things change, and tech evolves.

Lasse Eisele said:

On the other hand, equivalence does no harm and doesn’t make your gear inferior in any way, so there’s nothing to fear.

Click to expand...

Well, in fact, that is not necessarily true. If instead of m4/3 you buy a full-frame camera just because you heard of a "2-stop advantage" equivalency mantra, it may hurt your wallet. It may also hurt your photography, because your camera may not have the best features, or the most suitable for you, and it may be too heavy and you will don't use it so frequently.

(meant to reply to OP, sorry)

Your bird images are wonderful.

Lasse Eisele said:

Just to make it clear: I accepted equivalence many years ago and have never had any problems with it. But nobody needs to understand or believe in equivalence. I

Click to expand...

Equivalence is almost useless theory, it doesn't apply even when theory says it does, because other factors matters many times more. Why most people can achieve greatness without ever even hearing about equivalence.

Lasse Eisele said:

On the other hand, equivalence does no harm and doesn’t make your gear inferior in any way, so there’s nothing to fear.

Click to expand...

Actually it does. You know very well saying "Tieto lisää tuskaa". And that is huge negative impact to common people, when someone says "You can get better quality, because more light" to them, a common person is ready to do lots of things to "get better quality", regardless would they ever see that "better quality" that theory claims.

Then again there is the opposite side of the saying in English "Ignorance is a bliss". Meaning that person who doesn't know anything about equivalence, is happier and more productive and so on as well far more effective. When they work with the challenge, they don't need to think how it could be done with other thing, they simply accept the problem and finds the solution for it. That is similar to primes vs zooms. A prime lens user with ie. just 17mm lens will find a way to get something good and they are happy for it, but if they would have 12mm, 25mm, 45mm and 75mm with them, they have too many choices and they can start to suffer from paradox that nothing is good enough because they have so great lenses to use for different results.

The zoom is the answer for that, as it is not "I have so many great choices", but it is "I have great possibility to get the better perspective", and the user doesn't think about focal length but just the perspective and framing. A zoom lens makes it far more easier to operate artistically than a prime lens ever does, but it requires that person first has learned the relative information about perspective, framing, balances, color science etc. So more information that can as well cause a pain if started to think about it too much, as well if you have just a few choices and you restrict yourself to them as rules, like "45mm lens is best for portraits, and 12mm is best for landscapes".

Again, equivalence doesn't help anyone in that. It is totally better avoid the equivalence as long as possible, and even then as much as possible. Results gets far better from people who ignore it totally.

Lasse Eisele said:

Two years ago, I went through my favourite images and discovered to my surprise that a disproportional amount of them were taken with MFT. Not only that, I also found that all of those MFT images were technically good enough, i e they wouldn’t really have been meaningfully better if they had been taken with my full frame high resolution camera.

Click to expand...

And that your observation is again fighting against equivalence theory, because it doesn't apply to real world situations. A such situation where common photographer couldn't get a better photograph without equivalence theory is so rare, that it doesn't almost exist.

Lasse Eisele said:

After that discovery, I invested in a used E-M1, then another one and finally an E-M1 II. And, in spite of several issues with the Oly bodies, I have only occasionally used my Nikon cameras in the last two years. I still like Nikon though, and I have to admit that I keep an eye on the Z7.

Click to expand...

My heart is for Canon, second is the Nikon. After years for being a 35mm shooter with the best digital cameras that Canon and Nikon could produce, with best of the best lenses, it was pleasure to switch to 4/3" format when E-M1 came available, not because weight or size benefits, but because performance and quality benefits.

Lasse Eisele said:

But why would I get more keepers with MFT than with my excellent Nikon gear? I can’t know for certain, but I think it has to do with the fun factor.

Click to expand...

Olympus designed 4/3" format from empirical studies.

1) What image quality was required (Noise, colors, resolution)

2) What Depth of Field was required (shutter speed, DOF, flash power)

3) What image sizes was required (incl. cropping)

4) What image medium was required

And then they designed a format that can meet requirements of the 90% of the photographers and still offer more flexibility (ie, DOF being shallower than required, so user still needed to stop down the lens to get acceptable DOF, a final image size being larger than a needed) and so on meet the target goal.

With KODAK Olympus managed to do the color profiling from their sensors, to have possibility to improve image quality and possibilities to take photographs at the time when the digital technology gets better. And so they have. All the time they have been improving features so there are better possibilities for photographers to get great results without thinking the gear. To get a better image quality with better control than needed, so photographers has more freedom than limits.

Lasse Eisele said:

Life isn’t about light gathering or resolution charts. Life is about having fun.
So here’s my addition to the equivalence theory:
After several years of empirical studies, I have found that MFT has a two stop fun advantage over full frame DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Four times... Remember it is four times of the amount, so you have:

Four times more fun.

Four times more changes.

Four times better results.

Four times more ways to improve yourself

Four times more possibilities.

And Full Frame users are four times more jealous toward 4/3" format. Four times more negative toward 4/3" format. Four times more effort used to loathe the 4/3". Four times

Comes a questions, how much you think about equivalence when you are out using that Olympus setup and enjoying from its use? How often do you stop down to think "I see it this way in viewfinder, I need to set the settings 2 times of..."? How often do you believe after coming back on the computer that you would have done much better if following equivalence, regardless are you happy for the results afterwards? How often do you even watch other photographs and think them in equivalence standpoint?

As the equivalence theory itself is in conflict within. It requires that the camera will be exactly on the same position (meaning the camera is inside a another camera), it will have the focal length that offers exactly the same framing (regardless what ever is front of the camera or what are the camera settings), and that you get the exactly same DOF (regardless of any other option possibilities in any phase that affects to get the photograph and get it viewed) etc.

The equivalence theory requires that there is no two or more formats, two or more photographers, two or more different times, two or more different point of views, two or more different ideas, two or more different requirements etc.

Where the equivalence theory applies fully, is very strict internet argument reasoning. It is a huge hobby for some people. There are people that are so dedicated to explain about the equivalence theory that they have spent years even for it, more effort than for their photography even, and they care more about the interactivity with the people on Internet talking about equivalence, than they care about their photography itself and enjoyment from it, because the experience to explain the equivalence for others is their enjoyment and experience of the love they get from it.

And yet, equivalence doesn't really matter at all in the final image. The very few tiny moments that one might get some usefulness from it, are so rare and minimal, that it is just waste of time for majority of the people.

Equivalence is not required like a balance if wanted to learn drive a bicycle, nor information about car engine horse powers if wanted to learn to drive a car, nor required like the observations in the world for photography.

So much time, effort and content is given for praising and promoting equivalence, that doesn't fill even a promille of it amount that other informations in photography that actually matters. And equivalence ain't important at all to be explained to anyone or even mention, than in very rare and special cases.

E510 + 50-200 with tc





EM 1 mk II with300 f4 + MC 14

- Sanjay

Lasse Eisele said:

Just to make it clear: I accepted equivalence many years ago and have never had any problems with it. But nobody needs to understand or believe in equivalence. If you don’t believe in gravity, you may get hurt. If you don’t believe in global warming, your grandchildren may get hurt.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, we are actually suffering now... The frequent super typhoon/hurricane, extremely hot summer (cold winter is expected), extraordinary dry and torrential rain all in the wrong seasons, flowering in wrong time (I saw the April rhododendron flowering in December!)...

Lasse Eisele said:

But if you don’t believe in equivalence, nothing happens. Just keep shooting. You can take world class images with your MFT gear without ever having heard of equivalence (yes, of course you can take world class images with MFT – and don’t blame your gear if you can’t).
On the other hand, equivalence does no harm and doesn’t make your gear inferior in any way, so there’s nothing to fear.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Lasse Eisele said:

....

Click to expand...

Lasse Eisele said:

Regards
Lasse

Click to expand...

Thank you for the nice shots.

Tommi K1 said:

Lasse Eisele said:

Just to make it clear: I accepted equivalence many years ago and have never had any problems with it. But nobody needs to understand or believe in equivalence. I

Click to expand...

Equivalence is almost useless theory, it doesn't apply even when theory says it does, because other factors matters many times more. Why most people can achieve greatness without ever even hearing about equivalence.

Member said:

On the other hand, equivalence does no harm and doesn’t make your gear inferior in any way, so there’s nothing to fear.

Click to expand...

Actually it does. You know very well saying "Tieto lisää tuskaa". And that is huge negative impact to common people, when someone says "You can get better quality, because more light" to them, a common person is ready to do lots of things to "get better quality", regardless would they ever see that "better quality" that theory claims.

Click to expand...

etc.

Very well put, Tommi. Bravo.

Bobby J said:

Equivalence, unlike Santa Claus, is real. So, who gives a hoot? I just keep shooting and enjoy the results I get with m:4:3.. Somehow equivalence is just not important. I don't seem to notice it at all.

Click to expand...

My Christmas is ruined