Micro 4/3rds vs. Full Frame

c h u n k wrote:

3D Gunner wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

3D Gunner wrote:

philzucker wrote:

I wouldn't say "advantage". Depends on what you want to achieve, because the designation "1:1" is tied to sensor size.

Hope this helps!

Phil

I'm sorry I have to contradict you, but the "1: 1" designation is independent of the sensor size, as well as any other magnification ratio.

He was right in what he said. He meant 1x was tied to sensor in terms of the relative fov. Was pretty clear he also understands that a lenses magnification is independent, but the resulting image is not.

The FF format has nothing special in it other than the fact that it was mostly used before digital photography.

lol. I think you are underestimating the understanding other people may have. etc.

but grab up a 100mm macro lens which maxes at 1x magnification. Set it to max magnification on your full frame. Take a picture of a ruler....Now, Do the same thing with an apsc. Not the same.

So what?

Magnification is the ratio between an object’s size when projected on a camera sensor versus its size in the real world. That's it, nothing more, nothing less, and this in independent of the sensor size, by definition.

In the 1:1 magnification ratio, content with the same size as the sensor (in the focus plane) is reproduced on the surface of the sensor, regardless of the size of the sensor: 24 x 36mm in the case of FF, 17.3mm x 13mm in the case of m4 / 3 system, and so on...

This is true for any format, from the smallest sensors on phones or all sorts of miniaturized devices, to the largest formats available. FF is just one of them, it has nothing special about it.

So, in principle, smaller subjects are easier to be reproduced on smaller sensors.

And in the end, only the magnification level reported between the size of the subject and the display device is significant, which is not related to the size of the information capture medium.