M43 vs FF - It depends on what you want

rurikw said:

Great Bustard said:

For example, mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view

Click to expand...

Isn't n degrees n degrees any more?

Click to expand...

Bustard doesn't know his stuff. From the DP Review article on equivalence:

"So, let's consider the effect of that 25mm aperture in the lenses we've been discussing. Both lenses give the same angle-of-view, so you're likely to shoot them with the same shooting distance - since that way you'll get the same framing in both photos."

His entire post is excusatory.

The only ay one van claw back equivalence from a sensor level IQ deficiency is through more light. So you need faster glass, also in the DP Review article on equivalence:


Or you require other tech like stabilization. But stabilization is becoming,ing ubiquitous on all platforms with excellent, "equivalent" CIPA and other tested measures. I have seen zero difference between my EM1.2 and the Z6. The EM1.2 claw back 1 stop in about 50% of shooting situations with the 12-100/4.

That leaves glass. But to get back that equivalence on glass requires a much more expensive optic for m43, and much larger optic as well. So m43 cannot use glass to gain equivalence without giving up form factor and mass and price.

That leaves price. Since m43 will always have lower IQ than larger sensors, it will have to occupy a pricing tier across the board lower than that of APS-C and especially FF mirrorless. That s why cameras like the EOS RP and the upcoming Nikon Z5 are a major problem for m43.

joeletx said:

James Stirling said:

joeletx said:

SUPERHOKIE said:

If the available light for a given situation requires ISO 1600 and f2.8, how is that gonna change just because of sensor size? If M43 gives me sufficient DOF and exposure at 1600 and 2.8, then if i want the same DOF with FF i would need f5.6 which would require me to bump the ISO to 6400. Sure i can use 2.8 on FF at 1600 but then i would not have the deep DoF im looking for

Click to expand...

I could hit a thousand times thumb up everytime I see the concept of "2X DOF for same exposure" mentioned. I don't really know why this is so hard for the E-observers to understand.

Anyway, I shoot 1600 strictly for social media snapshots only. I would never dream of producing any kind of wall hanger from it. Maybe FF can produce wall hangers out of ISO1600 shots, but I highly doubt that.

Click to expand...

You would be wrong 1600 ISO on FF is barely warming up and I generally avoid high ISO like the plague. Prints are quite effective at hiding noise I have 18x12" prints from 12mp m43 cameras at 1600 ISO that I think look pretty good

1600 ISO not going on my wall though

Click to expand...

LOL! You proved my point. Guys like you with FF always want to make a point by posting a ridiculous picture like this! I would call this picture a snapshot that could be shot with a smartphone or any camera, even a 1" sensor. This is a snapshot with vulgarity that it proves nothing to the point you tried to make. It is sad that you continue to show up in threads like this for the purpose of arguing to meaningless ends. Quite frankly, I have never seen any meaningful wall hanger shot with your superior FF. I will give you the benefit of the doubt; show the wall hanger that you have talked about; and it doesn't have be ISO1600. Otherwise you have been blowing smoke all along; not that I have not known already.

Click to expand...

The idea of my post was to inject a touch of fun into the usual nonsense that goes on here . Always funny to see over reaction from fanatics like yourself . You stated that for some reason, 1600 ISO on FF was incapable of wall hangers. I also specifically stated that I have wall prints made from the old 12mp GF1 sensor at 1600 ISO so it was not to prove anything other than the nonsensical claim by you about 1600ISO being an issue

In reality 1600 ISO on FF will be every bit as clean as 400 ISO on m43, in fact given the advantage of the higher MP FF cameras at the same output size and detail level . The 1600ISO FF image will be every bit as good as a base ISO m43 image. So now we get to the stage that you are basically saying that you cannot get a print worthy of wall hanging from a base ISO m43 shot ?

1600 ISO Z7 vs 200 ISO E-M1X



So while my clearly meant to be fun example offends your delicate sensibilities { you really should get a life if this shot offends you } you are the one blowing smoke . I am afraid if you cannot get a 1600ISO shot from m43 let alone FF worthy of a wall print you are the one with the problem. Printing really does reduce the impact of noise in an image but thanks for the comedy . Content is of course a matter of opinion

--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

M_digicapt said:

joeletx said:

James Stirling said:

joeletx said:

SUPERHOKIE said:

If the available light for a given situation requires ISO 1600 and f2.8, how is that gonna change just because of sensor size? If M43 gives me sufficient DOF and exposure at 1600 and 2.8, then if i want the same DOF with FF i would need f5.6 which would require me to bump the ISO to 6400. Sure i can use 2.8 on FF at 1600 but then i would not have the deep DoF im looking for

Click to expand...

I could hit a thousand times thumb up everytime I see the concept of "2X DOF for same exposure" mentioned. I don't really know why this is so hard for the E-observers to understand.

Anyway, I shoot 1600 strictly for social media snapshots only. I would never dream of producing any kind of wall hanger from it. Maybe FF can produce wall hangers out of ISO1600 shots, but I highly doubt that.

Click to expand...

You would be wrong 1600 ISO on FF is barely warming up and I generally avoid high ISO like the plague. Prints are quite effective at hiding noise I have 18x12" prints from 12mp m43 cameras at 1600 ISO that I think look pretty good

1600 ISO not going on my wall though

Click to expand...

LOL! You proved my point. Guys like you with FF always want to make a point by posting a ridiculous picture like this! I would call this picture a snapshot that could be shot with a smartphone or any camera, even a 1" sensor. This is a snapshot with vulgarity that it proves nothing to the point you tried to make. It is sad that you continue to show up in threads like this for the purpose of arguing to meaningless ends. Quite frankly, I have never seen any meaningful wall hanger shot with your superior FF. I will give you the benefit of the doubt; show the wall hanger that you have talked about; and it doesn't have be ISO1600. Otherwise you have been blowing smoke all along; not that I have not known already.

Click to expand...

Imaging resource reviews include a section about printing. Just scroll down to the Printing Quality Analysis section… Interestingly, if you compare what they consider ok for the E-M10mkii vs E-M1mkii @ ISO 1600 printing it seems that even their staff can't agree on what looks ok or that what is ok changes as time goes by...

I don't print, so displaying full res images in a big 4k UHD TV is what I use to determine what is good enough, pixel peeping on a computer screen can cause permanent damage to a person's psyche. Or so I've been told.

Click to expand...

A 4kTV viewed at normal viewing distance is a great way to do the modern { and less tedious } version of a slide show. But you are only displaying an 8MP image viewed from a decent distance away so it is not a demanding way to view images from 1" , m43 , APS , FF or whatever , not sure about phone images as my phone is a bit of a dog and the camera may well be made from potato I agree that viewing all my shots on a 65" HDR 4k TV is a fun way to look at them. The 100% view available on most digital devices can indeed be a curse

Of course 8k TV's are now on the market with some prices dipping into the reasonable level 33mp stills on a TV is a crazy thought



--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

[No message]

One could ask the same of almost every post you make , thankfully just like my post or anyone else's post reading is optional

Z7 with f 4.0 24-70: 2.39 lbs, $3,297

Z6 with f 4.0 24-70: 2.39 lbs, $2,297

Nikkor Z 24-70 f 2.8: 1.775 lbs, $1,997

EM5-II with f 2.8 12-40: 1.73 lbs, $1,798

EM1-II with f 2.8 12-40: 2.09 lbs, $2,298

A friend has both the Z6 and Z7. Loves them. Did send the 24-70 f 2.8 back - too big and heavy.

I have the EM5-II with pro lenses. Less money and lighter. Very happy with them. Capture One helps a lot getting the final results I want.

Doing the percentages, the Z6 with lens is 38% heavier and 28% more expensive than the EM5-II. Of course the Z6 will get better results. Just not in my budget.

Stan Powers said:

SUPERHOKIE said:

snip

But even then, the 24-70 F4 is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the pany 12-35 2.8 or the Oly 12-40, and the Oly is built much better than either.

snip

Click to expand...

I dunno, I spent several weeks shooting both Z6+24-70 F4 and E-M1II+12-40 2.8 literally side by side (compulsively so) and in my hands the size and weight was give or take a draw.

I'll tell you this, that Z6+24-70 is an impressive combo. The EVF is almost worth the price of admission alone! Very fully realized. If it could have bested or even equaled my D500 for BIF I would have kept it.

Click to expand...

I think that is quite an ask Stan the D500 has one of the best DSLR AF systems on the market that very few mirrorless cameras can match . With in reality probably only the Olympus E-M1X and Sony A9 being the only mirrorless cameras as capable .

Stan Powers said:

Maybe Z6v2 will punch that ticket. I found it very Oly-esque in hand. Surprisingly compact. And sure, as a system the lenses will ultimately start to bog you down vs µ43 - but the kit rig is worth consideration - if one needs to scratch the FF itch. Those files will not disappoint.

Click to expand...

The 24-70mm F/4 Z is an excellent performer right from wide open . So much so in fact that I will not consider the 24-70mm F/2.8 { which is I believe the best tested 24-70 F/2.8 on the market } . If it is of interest it gives you the same DOF control and total light gathering of a m43 12-35mm F/2

jimrand said:

Z7 with f 4.0 24-70: 2.39 lbs, $3,297

Z6 with f 4.0 24-70: 2.39 lbs, $2,297

Nikkor Z 24-70 f 2.8: 1.775 lbs, $1,997

EM5-II with f 2.8 12-40: 1.73 lbs, $1,798

EM1-II with f 2.8 12-40: 2.09 lbs, $2,298

A friend has both the Z6 and Z7. Loves them. Did send the 24-70 f 2.8 back - too big and heavy.

I have the EM5-II with pro lenses. Less money and lighter. Very happy with them. Capture One helps a lot getting the final results I want.

Doing the percentages, the Z6 with lens is 38% heavier and 28% more expensive than the EM5-II. Of course the Z6 will get better results. Just not in my budget.

Click to expand...

So the EM1.2 with 12-40mm Pro compared to the Nikon Z6 with 24-70mm are basically the same price in both the UK and USA.

Cant think of a reason to take M43 over FF at price parity. Not one. Especially when additional glass makes the Z6 as a system significantly cheaper like for like.

gwydionjhr said:

These test charts ignore post processing = computational photography. The same algorithms that have allowed such amazing improvements in phones will help m43 level the playing field as well.

Click to expand...

Not at all.

Computational photography works with base data. FF delivers more data.

The advantage scales regardless.

Doug Janis said:

rurikw said:

Great Bustard said:

For example, mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view

Click to expand...

Isn't n degrees n degrees any more?

Click to expand...

Bustard doesn't know his stuff.

Click to expand...

Yeah...

Doug Janis said:

From the DP Review article on equivalence:

Click to expand...

And GB knows even less about Equivalence. Anyway, quiz time for you and rurikw: what is the MFD (minimum focusing distance) for the Olympus 12-40 and the Canon 24-70 / 2.8L II? How about the Olympus 40-150 / 2.8 vs the Canon 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS? What might that have to do with my claim that "mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view"?

BurnImage said:

jimrand said:

Z7 with f 4.0 24-70: 2.39 lbs, $3,297

Z6 with f 4.0 24-70: 2.39 lbs, $2,297

Nikkor Z 24-70 f 2.8: 1.775 lbs, $1,997

EM5-II with f 2.8 12-40: 1.73 lbs, $1,798

EM1-II with f 2.8 12-40: 2.09 lbs, $2,298

A friend has both the Z6 and Z7. Loves them. Did send the 24-70 f 2.8 back - too big and heavy.

I have the EM5-II with pro lenses. Less money and lighter. Very happy with them. Capture One helps a lot getting the final results I want.

Doing the percentages, the Z6 with lens is 38% heavier and 28% more expensive than the EM5-II. Of course the Z6 will get better results. Just not in my budget.

Click to expand...

So the EM1.2 with 12-40mm Pro compared to the Nikon Z6 with 24-70mm are basically the same price in both the UK and USA.

Cant think of a reason to take M43 over FF at price parity. Not one. Especially when additional glass makes the Z6 as a system significantly cheaper like for like.

Click to expand...

The special offer on the 50mm F/1.8Z that means you can pick it up for £329 is a must buy for anyone in the Z system. It offers basically Otus level performance at a true bargain price. It is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned

https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Nikon-NIKKOR-Z-50mm-f18-S-Lens

https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/nikon-50-1-8-s-otus-55-on-z7-zony-55-on-a7riii/

--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

joeletx said:

James Stirling said:

joeletx said:

SUPERHOKIE said:

If the available light for a given situation requires ISO 1600 and f2.8, how is that gonna change just because of sensor size? If M43 gives me sufficient DOF and exposure at 1600 and 2.8, then if i want the same DOF with FF i would need f5.6 which would require me to bump the ISO to 6400. Sure i can use 2.8 on FF at 1600 but then i would not have the deep DoF im looking for

Click to expand...

I could hit a thousand times thumb up everytime I see the concept of "2X DOF for same exposure" mentioned. I don't really know why this is so hard for the E-observers to understand.

Anyway, I shoot 1600 strictly for social media snapshots only. I would never dream of producing any kind of wall hanger from it. Maybe FF can produce wall hangers out of ISO1600 shots, but I highly doubt that.

Click to expand...

You would be wrong 1600 ISO on FF is barely warming up and I generally avoid high ISO like the plague. Prints are quite effective at hiding noise I have 18x12" prints from 12mp m43 cameras at 1600 ISO that I think look pretty good

1600 ISO not going on my wall though

Click to expand...

LOL! You proved my point. Guys like you with FF always want to make a point by posting a ridiculous picture like this! I would call this picture a snapshot that could be shot with a smartphone or any camera, even a 1" sensor. This is a snapshot with vulgarity that it proves nothing to the point you tried to make. It is sad that you continue to show up in threads like this for the purpose of arguing to meaningless ends. Quite frankly, I have never seen any meaningful wall hanger shot with your superior FF. I will give you the benefit of the doubt; show the wall hanger that you have talked about; and it doesn't have be ISO1600. Otherwise you have been blowing smoke all along; not that I have not known already.

Click to expand...

I too hate pictures of people having fun.

James Stirling said:

BurnImage said:

jimrand said:

Z7 with f 4.0 24-70: 2.39 lbs, $3,297

Z6 with f 4.0 24-70: 2.39 lbs, $2,297

Nikkor Z 24-70 f 2.8: 1.775 lbs, $1,997

EM5-II with f 2.8 12-40: 1.73 lbs, $1,798

EM1-II with f 2.8 12-40: 2.09 lbs, $2,298

A friend has both the Z6 and Z7. Loves them. Did send the 24-70 f 2.8 back - too big and heavy.

I have the EM5-II with pro lenses. Less money and lighter. Very happy with them. Capture One helps a lot getting the final results I want.

Doing the percentages, the Z6 with lens is 38% heavier and 28% more expensive than the EM5-II. Of course the Z6 will get better results. Just not in my budget.

Click to expand...

So the EM1.2 with 12-40mm Pro compared to the Nikon Z6 with 24-70mm are basically the same price in both the UK and USA.

Cant think of a reason to take M43 over FF at price parity. Not one. Especially when additional glass makes the Z6 as a system significantly cheaper like for like.

Click to expand...

The special offer on the 50mm F/1.8Z that means you can pick it up for £329 is a must buy for anyone in the Z system. It offers basically Otus level performance at a true bargain price. It is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned

https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Nikon-NIKKOR-Z-50mm-f18-S-Lens

https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/nikon-50-1-8-s-otus-55-on-z7-zony-55-on-a7riii/

Click to expand...

Yep, it’s an outstanding lens at a crazy cheap price, I bought one! Most reviews suggest it’s one of the best 50mm primes ever......

Plus it’s weather sealed yet cheaper than Oly 25mm 1.8, which is way inferior and not weather sealed. It makes the latter look a rip off. Massively .....

UppercanadianAcadian said:

joeletx said:

James Stirling said:

joeletx said:

SUPERHOKIE said:

If the available light for a given situation requires ISO 1600 and f2.8, how is that gonna change just because of sensor size? If M43 gives me sufficient DOF and exposure at 1600 and 2.8, then if i want the same DOF with FF i would need f5.6 which would require me to bump the ISO to 6400. Sure i can use 2.8 on FF at 1600 but then i would not have the deep DoF im looking for

Click to expand...

I could hit a thousand times thumb up everytime I see the concept of "2X DOF for same exposure" mentioned. I don't really know why this is so hard for the E-observers to understand.

Anyway, I shoot 1600 strictly for social media snapshots only. I would never dream of producing any kind of wall hanger from it. Maybe FF can produce wall hangers out of ISO1600 shots, but I highly doubt that.

Click to expand...

You would be wrong 1600 ISO on FF is barely warming up and I generally avoid high ISO like the plague. Prints are quite effective at hiding noise I have 18x12" prints from 12mp m43 cameras at 1600 ISO that I think look pretty good

1600 ISO not going on my wall though

Click to expand...

LOL! You proved my point. Guys like you with FF always want to make a point by posting a ridiculous picture like this! I would call this picture a snapshot that could be shot with a smartphone or any camera, even a 1" sensor. This is a snapshot with vulgarity that it proves nothing to the point you tried to make. It is sad that you continue to show up in threads like this for the purpose of arguing to meaningless ends. Quite frankly, I have never seen any meaningful wall hanger shot with your superior FF. I will give you the benefit of the doubt; show the wall hanger that you have talked about; and it doesn't have be ISO1600. Otherwise you have been blowing smoke all along; not that I have not known already.

Click to expand...

I too hate pictures of people having fun.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, and it could have been a lot worse as these guys did not go traditional under kilt wear

--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

Great Bustard said:

Doug Janis said:

rurikw said:

Great Bustard said:

For example, mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view

Click to expand...

Isn't n degrees n degrees any more?

Click to expand...

Bustard doesn't know his stuff.

Click to expand...

Yeah...

Great Bustard said:

From the DP Review article on equivalence:

Click to expand...

And GB knows even less about Equivalence. Anyway, quiz time for you and rurikw: what is the MFD (minimum focusing distance) for the Olympus 12-40 and the Canon 24-70 / 2.8L II? How about the Olympus 40-150 / 2.8 vs the Canon 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS? What might that have to do with my claim that "mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view"?

Click to expand...

While you are right about the minimum focus distance for most real life uses especially at the 300mm end of these zooms is that going to be much of an advantage ? If you are photographing anything further than say 1 metre for example

James Stirling said:

UppercanadianAcadian said:

joeletx said:

James Stirling said:

joeletx said:

SUPERHOKIE said:

If the available light for a given situation requires ISO 1600 and f2.8, how is that gonna change just because of sensor size? If M43 gives me sufficient DOF and exposure at 1600 and 2.8, then if i want the same DOF with FF i would need f5.6 which would require me to bump the ISO to 6400. Sure i can use 2.8 on FF at 1600 but then i would not have the deep DoF im looking for

Click to expand...

I could hit a thousand times thumb up everytime I see the concept of "2X DOF for same exposure" mentioned. I don't really know why this is so hard for the E-observers to understand.

Anyway, I shoot 1600 strictly for social media snapshots only. I would never dream of producing any kind of wall hanger from it. Maybe FF can produce wall hangers out of ISO1600 shots, but I highly doubt that.

Click to expand...

You would be wrong 1600 ISO on FF is barely warming up and I generally avoid high ISO like the plague. Prints are quite effective at hiding noise I have 18x12" prints from 12mp m43 cameras at 1600 ISO that I think look pretty good

1600 ISO not going on my wall though

Click to expand...

LOL! You proved my point. Guys like you with FF always want to make a point by posting a ridiculous picture like this! I would call this picture a snapshot that could be shot with a smartphone or any camera, even a 1" sensor. This is a snapshot with vulgarity that it proves nothing to the point you tried to make. It is sad that you continue to show up in threads like this for the purpose of arguing to meaningless ends. Quite frankly, I have never seen any meaningful wall hanger shot with your superior FF. I will give you the benefit of the doubt; show the wall hanger that you have talked about; and it doesn't have be ISO1600. Otherwise you have been blowing smoke all along; not that I have not known already.

Click to expand...

I too hate pictures of people having fun.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, and it could have been a lot worse as these guys did not go traditional under kilt wear

--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

Click to expand...

Scottish clan of the cave bare eh

UppercanadianAcadian said:

James Stirling said:

UppercanadianAcadian said:

joeletx said:

James Stirling said:

joeletx said:

SUPERHOKIE said:

If the available light for a given situation requires ISO 1600 and f2.8, how is that gonna change just because of sensor size? If M43 gives me sufficient DOF and exposure at 1600 and 2.8, then if i want the same DOF with FF i would need f5.6 which would require me to bump the ISO to 6400. Sure i can use 2.8 on FF at 1600 but then i would not have the deep DoF im looking for

Click to expand...

I could hit a thousand times thumb up everytime I see the concept of "2X DOF for same exposure" mentioned. I don't really know why this is so hard for the E-observers to understand.

Anyway, I shoot 1600 strictly for social media snapshots only. I would never dream of producing any kind of wall hanger from it. Maybe FF can produce wall hangers out of ISO1600 shots, but I highly doubt that.

Click to expand...

You would be wrong 1600 ISO on FF is barely warming up and I generally avoid high ISO like the plague. Prints are quite effective at hiding noise I have 18x12" prints from 12mp m43 cameras at 1600 ISO that I think look pretty good

1600 ISO not going on my wall though

Click to expand...

LOL! You proved my point. Guys like you with FF always want to make a point by posting a ridiculous picture like this! I would call this picture a snapshot that could be shot with a smartphone or any camera, even a 1" sensor. This is a snapshot with vulgarity that it proves nothing to the point you tried to make. It is sad that you continue to show up in threads like this for the purpose of arguing to meaningless ends. Quite frankly, I have never seen any meaningful wall hanger shot with your superior FF. I will give you the benefit of the doubt; show the wall hanger that you have talked about; and it doesn't have be ISO1600. Otherwise you have been blowing smoke all along; not that I have not known already.

Click to expand...

I too hate pictures of people having fun.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, and it could have been a lot worse as these guys did not go traditional under kilt wear

Click to expand...

Scottish clan of the cave bare eh

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

James Stirling said:

Great Bustard said:

Doug Janis said:

rurikw said:

Great Bustard said:

For example, mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view

Click to expand...

Isn't n degrees n degrees any more?

Click to expand...

Bustard doesn't know his stuff.

Click to expand...

Yeah...

James Stirling said:

From the DP Review article on equivalence:

Click to expand...

And GB knows even less about Equivalence. Anyway, quiz time for you and rurikw: what is the MFD (minimum focusing distance) for the Olympus 12-40 and the Canon 24-70 / 2.8L II? How about the Olympus 40-150 / 2.8 vs the Canon 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS? What might that have to do with my claim that "mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view"?

Click to expand...

While you are right about the minimum focus distance for most real life uses especially at the 300mm end of these zooms is that going to be much of an advantage ? If you are photographing anything further than say 1 metre for example

Click to expand...

Like anything else, the advantage will be of more value for some people more than others. For example, I don't do video, so 4K isn't important to me in a camera. But for others, I'm well aware that it is.

Great Bustard said:

Doug Janis said:

rurikw said:

Great Bustard said:

For example, mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view

Click to expand...

Isn't n degrees n degrees any more?

Click to expand...

Bustard doesn't know his stuff.

Click to expand...

Yeah...

Great Bustard said:

From the DP Review article on equivalence:

Click to expand...

And GB knows even less about Equivalence. Anyway, quiz time for you and rurikw: what is the MFD (minimum focusing distance) for the Olympus 12-40 and the Canon 24-70 / 2.8L II? How about the Olympus 40-150 / 2.8 vs the Canon 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS? What might that have to do with my claim that "mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view"?

Click to expand...

So you meant that you can focus closer with m43 lenses? That's interesting. I had no idea.

rurikw said:

Great Bustard said:

Doug Janis said:

rurikw said:

Great Bustard said:

For example, mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view

Click to expand...

Isn't n degrees n degrees any more?

Click to expand...

Bustard doesn't know his stuff.

Click to expand...

Yeah...

rurikw said:

From the DP Review article on equivalence:

Click to expand...

And GB knows even less about Equivalence. Anyway, quiz time for you and rurikw: what is the MFD (minimum focusing distance) for the Olympus 12-40 and the Canon 24-70 / 2.8L II? How about the Olympus 40-150 / 2.8 vs the Canon 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS? What might that have to do with my claim that "mFT can typically frame tighter for a given angle of view"?

Click to expand...

So you meant that you can focus closer with m43 lenses?

Click to expand...

Yes -- for a given equivalent focal length (since "given angle of view" was causing problems. ;-) ).

rurikw said:

That's interesting. I had no idea.

Click to expand...

How much so, or if at all, will depend on the particular lenses being compared, however.