Is my thinking about equivalence right?

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
tintifax Contributing Member • Posts: 940
Re: Is my thinking about equivalence right?

very complicated .... and approximatly as usefull as a calculation based on 1 fact, which formular-1 car is faster: is the car with 344 HP really faster than a car with 324 HP - without considering all other facts like weight, torque, technique, tires, the drivers abilities .....

First: equivalence comes from "equivalent" which means "equal" - but equal in which aspect? 99 % of the "equivalence-dwarfs" only compare DOF. And yea: DOF is different between FF and MFT. MFT has more DOF - that can be good or bad. Good if you want more DOF like a street-photographer. Bad if you want to make portraits. But this difference is not good or bad for itself, it is only different. And YOU decide, whether this is and advantage or a disadvantage for you. (But sometimes it is the only argument why FF is better)

Don't compare a system only based on one fact.

Second: if you catch the light of one scene with a specific angle of view (xxx mm in FF or yyy mm in MFT) than the whole light of this scene/angle of view comes into your lens on your sensor. It depends on lens+sensor (they have to work together) but the whole light of the scene is projected on the sensor. If you have a FF-Sensor the whole light is projected on a 4-times bigger surface than on a MFT-sensor. So the bigger surface get's the same light that a MFT-sensor will get - so it is brighter on the smaller sensor But the pixels on the smaller sensor are much smaller and the pixels on the bigger sensor are much bigger - and the bigger pixels are more capable - but the smaller pixels get more light ..........  So you have bigger pixels that are more capable that get less light (each pixel) on the bigger sensor and smaller pixels (they are less capable) that get more light (each pixel) on the smaller sensor. That results in a smaller advantage in dark light because the more capable bigger sensors can make a slightly better work in low light.

Third: there are many differences between the different camera-brands. Olympus has a fantastic image-stabilization. The small MFT-Sensor can be moved easier because it has less weight and needs less deflection. For the same deflection a FF-sensor needs much more space in the body and much more way to be moved - more energy and more time. With this aspect, the stabilization of Olympus compensates by far the disadvantage of the smaller sensor because you can hold much longer shutter-times by hand. That works only if the scene tolerates longer shutter times. In fact: if you shoot Indoor-sports in low light than this technique will not use you. In the most other situations the fantastic image stabilization compensats the disadvantage of the smaller sensor by far.

fourth: beside a few dozen of other parameters the software of the camera is very important.

So: generally you can't compare cameras only by comparing sensors .......

And we discuss, whether a car has 344 or 324 HP - really, it is not important for the result (in 99 % of all cases).

-- hide signature --

with best regards from Vienna
Thomas T
If we photographers were taxi-drivers we all wanted a 450 HP Ferrari for our job
A good picture is a good picture, with 6 MP, 12 MP, 24 MP 36 MP or 45 MP. And it does not become better with more pixels

 tintifax's gear list:tintifax's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow