Does M43 outperform FF with more DoF and lower ISO?

Ysarex · Aug 12, 2025

HicHic said:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

Even after maxing out the comments, no one was able to provide a test to answer a simple question

The OP did have a simple question. "Does M43 outperform FF with more DoF and lower ISO?" was not the OP's question.

And ahaslett is right your images aren’t really helping.

The OP specifically noticed that Photons to Photos PDR results showed that a G9 produced more DR than an S5II when they were shot at equivalent DOF (FF stopped down +2 stops) and the FF camera forced (no tripod) to expose two stops less. The OP's simple question was does Photons to Photos data about DR reflect real world usage capturing DR?

If you look through Photons to Photos data you can find many other examples of the same -- more examples than not that show the smaller format camera ahead of the FF given the OP's specific restrictions; for example my Fuji X-T4 versus all the FF Nikons. I have been aware of the same phenomena for years now and my usage experience bears out what the OP uncovered looking at those PDR graphs.

It's difficult to conduct a comparison that will show the difference because the difference isn't great, it concerns DR -- how do you assess DR, and most of us (like you) don't have appropriate test cameras. To begin with, as already noted, comparing 20mp and 45mp cameras isn't a valid comparison. There are plenty of 24mp FF cameras -- using one of those would at least be closer.

HicHic said:
...surely, I'm not the only one around here with both FF and M43?

R5+16-35/4 @24mm, F8 (electronic first curtain)

OM-1+12-45/4 @12mm, F4

OM-1 12-45

R5 16-35

Ysarex · Aug 12, 2025

Ysarex said:
HicHic said:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

Even after maxing out the comments, no one was able to provide a test to answer a simple question

Click to expand...

The OP did have a simple question. "Does M43 outperform FF with more DoF and lower ISO?" was not the OP's question.

And ahaslett is right your images aren’t really helping.

The OP specifically noticed that Photons to Photos PDR results showed that a G9 produced more DR than an S5II when they were shot at equivalent DOF (FF stopped down +2 stops) and the FF camera forced (no tripod) to expose two stops less. The OP's simple question was does Photons to Photos data about DR reflect real world usage capturing DR?

If you look through Photons to Photos data you can find many other examples of the same -- more examples than not that show the smaller format camera ahead of the FF given the OP's specific restrictions; for example my Fuji X-T4 versus all the FF Nikons. I have been aware of the same phenomena for years now and my usage experience bears out what the OP uncovered looking at those PDR graphs.

It's difficult to conduct a comparison that will show the difference because the difference isn't great, it concerns DR -- how do you assess DR, and most of us (like you) don't have appropriate test cameras. To begin with, as already noted, comparing 20mp and 45mp cameras isn't a valid comparison. There are plenty of 24mp FF cameras -- using one of those would at least be closer.

========================================================

I shot it for you as best I could and the results I got verify Bill Claff's data at Photons to Photos.

For a FF camera I used my 24mp Leica SL. For a MFT camera I used my 16mp Olympus E-PL9. Photons to Photos indicates a stop difference in DR advantage to the E-PL9. I tried to compensate for the pixel density difference by shooting the Leica a little wider and cropping -- I did fair,

First I put my E-PL9 on a tripod and set an exposure at base ISO (200) that would optimally expose the sensor (brightest diffuse highlight at sensor saturation threshold). I took that photo at 1/10 sec. f/4.

Put the SL on the tripod and set the exposure to 1/10 sec. f/8. At ISO 800 the SL would have nuked the diffuse highlights. I set the ISO to 400 and the SL slightly clipped the green channels in the raw file so no higher ISO was possible. ISO isn't at issue here what's creating the difference between the two cameras is exposure. The SL sensor is getting exposed two stops less.

I set up a high contrast light scene to push DR limits. Here's the JPEG from the E-PL9 so you can see the condition.

How to compare DR? DR is noise limited on the low end. So we look at the noise in both images and if one is noisier then it's capturing less DR. I processed both images in C1 and opened the shadows a whole lot so the noise would be visible. All noise filtering turned off for both images. Here's the dark shadow side of the bowl at 100% for both images and yes, the SL is just a little noisier = less DR. Why? Two stops less exposure.

Here's the two processed images:

NOTE: Lens on the SL is a manual Leica M mount lens and so the EXIF data is not accurate.

HicHic · Aug 12, 2025

Ysarex said:
I tried to compensate for the pixel density difference by shooting the Leica a little wider and cropping -- I did fair

But you used F8 at the wider focal length, so you messed up the FL to aperture ratio.

jjbinx · Aug 12, 2025

HicHic said:
jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

Why are we arguing about this nonsense again here ?

jj

Click to expand...

Who's arguing with who? It's just a test bro chillax.

Click to expand...

Just a test of what ?
You haven’t defined the test parameters or objectives. You simply pose a provocative open question with images of little value to the question posed

answers are given, and disagreements ensue = argument.

Nothing is resolved.

Why not state your own position as to which you think is better?
will you tell us what differences you can see between the images you posted ?

jj

Click to expand...

Relax...read the OP. It references another thread. The only one arguing here is you...

Click to expand...

Was the other thread useful - did it come to a conclusion after its 149 posts?

Why are you expecting this thread to be any different ?

jj

Click to expand...

Also explained in the OP.

Your OP: Even after maxing out the comments, no one was able to provide a test to answer a simple question...surely, I'm not the only one around here with both FF and M43?

Why can’t you answer the question yourself ?

As an owner of both systems surely you know their relative merits. Do the test and tell us the answers - why wait for others , or is this some kind of class assignment where you are the teacher waiting for the students to come to a conclusion on our own.

jj

James Stirling · Aug 12, 2025

jjbinx said:
HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

Why are we arguing about this nonsense again here ?

jj

Click to expand...

Who's arguing with who? It's just a test bro chillax.

Click to expand...

Just a test of what ?
You haven’t defined the test parameters or objectives. You simply pose a provocative open question with images of little value to the question posed

answers are given, and disagreements ensue = argument.

Nothing is resolved.

Why not state your own position as to which you think is better?
will you tell us what differences you can see between the images you posted ?

jj

Click to expand...

Relax...read the OP. It references another thread. The only one arguing here is you...

Click to expand...

Was the other thread useful - did it come to a conclusion after its 149 posts?

Why are you expecting this thread to be any different ?

jj

Click to expand...

Also explained in the OP.

Click to expand...

Your OP: Even after maxing out the comments, no one was able to provide a test to answer a simple question...surely, I'm not the only one around here with both FF and M43?

Why can’t you answer the question yourself ?

As an owner of both systems surely you know their relative merits. Do the test and tell us the answers - why wait for others , or is this some kind of class assignment where you are the teacher waiting for the students to come to a conclusion on our own.

jj

Did the title of the OP , mislead you into thinking that a different subject was being discussed ? Reading posts or threads is optional, thank the gods

Ysarex · Aug 12, 2025

HicHic said:
Ysarex said:

I tried to compensate for the pixel density difference by shooting the Leica a little wider and cropping -- I did fair

Click to expand...

But you used F8 at the wider focal length, so you messed up the FL to aperture ratio.

No, I got the Leica a little wider (very minor) by dragging the tripod back a couple inches. What's at issue here isn't a precise DOF match. The issue is the captured DR when the FF has to underexpose two stops compared with the MFT and I got that right.

Mark Ransom · Aug 12, 2025

Bill Ferris said:
First, it assumes ISO is either a source of noise or that ISO is a direct indicator of noise. (A higher ISO always means there's more noise in a photo.) Neither assumption is correct.

Second, depending on the settings used, both formats can make photos having the same depth of field and noise visibility or different levels of both.

If the OP provides a specific scenario and set of conditions, that would provide the context needed to determine the respective depths of field and noise visibility in both images.

ISO is not a direct indicator of noise, but it's a good indirect indicator of it. If you're using a high ISO, it's an indication that you're using a low exposure - and low exposures directly cause noise. There's an interesting article that pops up often on the right pane, "Shedding some light on the sources of noise" and it's worth reading.

James Stirling · Aug 12, 2025

Ysarex said:
HicHic said:

Ysarex said:

I tried to compensate for the pixel density difference by shooting the Leica a little wider and cropping -- I did fair

Click to expand...

But you used F8 at the wider focal length, so you messed up the FL to aperture ratio.

Click to expand...

No, I got the Leica a little wider (very minor) by dragging the tripod back a couple inches. What's at issue here isn't a precise DOF match. The issue is the captured DR when the FF has to underexpose two stops compared with the MFT and I got that right.

Looking at the Leica sample it actually has more DOF look at the books in the background so it did not need to be shot at F/8 . Contrary to the omg FF has super shallow DOF posts we see here

The reality is 35mm film (FF sensor size ) was a small "sensor"

deep DOF format , compared to the various MF and LF film stuff.110 film ( m43 sensor size ) certainly had more but no one really cared.

Unless I am specifically shooting a very fast FF lens to deliberately achieve a certain shallow DOF look . I have no problem getting sufficient DOF with FF. Most commonly the subjects where you want deep DOF are done with wider lenses for landscape where DOF is plentiful, or a longer focal length to isolate part of a scene where DOF is less of a challenge

For macro , DOF is always a challenge regardless of format hence why stacking is so popular. Do the calculations of each format to see what it is needed to fill the frame with a 1:1 ratio, which of course is a universal standard definition. Namely fill the sensor with an image the same size in real life as it is on a sensor . If I adapted a 1:1 FF lens to a Nikon J5 it does not magically become a 2.7:1 lens. It just means a 1:1 sized subject that fills the smaller sensor

This is the DOF filling the frame with a 1:1 macro shot at the minimum focal distance . I have the Nikon Z 105mm macro and 60mm Olympus . I also have a Laowa 2x macro, and the usual array of macro accessories .

I use the Z9 and Z7 II which gives me 45mp 1:1 images . My OM-1 gives me 20mp 1:1 macro . Whilst you can move the focal distance of the Olympus back to fill the frame with the same FOV of the FF lens have a half life size image on the sensor . I also have a Tamron 90mm III for Sony which gives me 61mp images

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

Ysarex · Aug 12, 2025

James Stirling said:
Ysarex said:

HicHic said:

Ysarex said:

I tried to compensate for the pixel density difference by shooting the Leica a little wider and cropping -- I did fair

Click to expand...

But you used F8 at the wider focal length, so you messed up the FL to aperture ratio.

Click to expand...

No, I got the Leica a little wider (very minor) by dragging the tripod back a couple inches. What's at issue here isn't a precise DOF match. The issue is the captured DR when the FF has to underexpose two stops compared with the MFT and I got that right.

Click to expand...

Looking at the Leica sample it actually has more DOF look at the books in the background so it did not need to be shot at F/8 .

Probably because I pulled the tripod back some to compensate for the 16mp versus 24mp difference, regardless in the context of this illustration the fact that f/8 wasn't needed for the FF image is entirely meaningless. The point of this illustration is to see the difference in DR capture capability when the FF camera is forced to expose two stops less. The illustration is staged to produce that outcome -- two stops less exposure for the Leica.

The OP of the other thread originally noted landscapes as a subject. I can relate to that as I go for long walks and take landscape/cityscape photos that very frequently would require FF f/8 DOF. Being able to take those photos handheld at f/4 with my MFT camera often enough allows me the opportunity to still optimize my sensor exposure and so get the maximum DR my MFT camera can produce which could be more DR than my FF Leica could produce forced to expose two stops less.

James Stirling said:
Contrary to the omg FF has super shallow DOF posts we see here The reality is 35mm film (FF sensor size ) was a small "sensor" deep DOF format , compared to the various MF and LF film stuff.110 film ( m43 sensor size ) certainly had more but no one really cared.

Unless I am specifically shooting a very fast FF lens to deliberately achieve a certain shallow DOF look . I have no problem getting sufficient DOF with FF. Most commonly the subjects where you want deep DOF are done with wider lenses for landscape where DOF is plentiful, or a longer focal length to isolate part of a scene where DOF is less of a challenge

For macro , DOF is always a challenge regardless of format hence why stacking is so popular. Do the calculations of each format to see what it is needed to fill the frame with a 1:1 ratio, which of course is a universal standard definition. Namely fill the sensor with an image the same size in real life as it is on a sensor . If I adapted a 1:1 FF lens to a Nikon J5 it does not magically become a 2.7:1 lens. It just means a 1:1 sized subject that fills the smaller sensor

This is the DOF filling the frame with a 1:1 macro shot at the minimum focal distance . I have the Nikon Z 105mm macro and 60mm Olympus . I also have a Laowa 2x macro, and the usual array of macro accessories .

I use the Z9 and Z7 II which gives me 45mp 1:1 images . My OM-1 gives me 20mp 1:1 macro . Whilst you can move the focal distance of the Olympus back to fill the frame with the same FOV of the FF lens have a half life size image on the sensor . I also have a Tamron 90mm III for Sony which gives me 61mp images

HicHic · Aug 12, 2025

jjbinx said:
HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

Why are we arguing about this nonsense again here ?

jj

Click to expand...

Who's arguing with who? It's just a test bro chillax.

Click to expand...

Just a test of what ?
You haven’t defined the test parameters or objectives. You simply pose a provocative open question with images of little value to the question posed

answers are given, and disagreements ensue = argument.

Nothing is resolved.

Why not state your own position as to which you think is better?
will you tell us what differences you can see between the images you posted ?

jj

Click to expand...

Relax...read the OP. It references another thread. The only one arguing here is you...

Click to expand...

Was the other thread useful - did it come to a conclusion after its 149 posts?

Why are you expecting this thread to be any different ?

jj

Click to expand...

Also explained in the OP.

Click to expand...

Do the test and tell us the answers

I did - do the photos not load on your end?

Bill Ferris · Aug 12, 2025

Mark Ransom said:
Bill Ferris said:

First, it assumes ISO is either a source of noise or that ISO is a direct indicator of noise. (A higher ISO always means there's more noise in a photo.) Neither assumption is correct.

Second, depending on the settings used, both formats can make photos having the same depth of field and noise visibility or different levels of both.

If the OP provides a specific scenario and set of conditions, that would provide the context needed to determine the respective depths of field and noise visibility in both images.

Click to expand...

ISO is not a direct indicator of noise, but it's a good indirect indicator of it. If you're using a high ISO, it's an indication that you're using a low exposure - and low exposures directly cause noise. There's an interesting article that pops up often on the right pane, "Shedding some light on the sources of noise" and it's worth reading.

Specifically, it's the total light energy used to make a photo that determines how much shot noise - the predominant type of noise we see in photos - will be in a photo. While ISO is an indicator of exposure, in many situations it's not a reliable indicator of the total light being delivered to a sensor.

The most obvious example is relevant to this discussion: comparisons of photos made with different format systems. By definition, equivalent photos will have the same noise visibility and be made at different ISOs.

Another example is comparisons of photos made with different focal lengths. Again this is directly relevant to this thread. The photos of a bird made with a 300mm f/4 lens on one camera and with a 600mm f/6.3 lens on another will be made at different exposures with different ISOs. Regardless of the format camera each lens is paired with, the 600mm f/6.3 lens will collect more total light energy from the bird then the 300mm f/4 lens will collect.

When evaluating the comparative noise performance of different camera/lens systems, qualities such as f-stop and ISO can be reliable indicators only under special circumstances. The entrance pupil sizes used by both cameras are always reliable as indicators of comparative noise delivered to the sensors.

HicHic · Aug 12, 2025

Bill Ferris said:
Mark Ransom said:

Bill Ferris said:

First, it assumes ISO is either a source of noise or that ISO is a direct indicator of noise. (A higher ISO always means there's more noise in a photo.) Neither assumption is correct.

Second, depending on the settings used, both formats can make photos having the same depth of field and noise visibility or different levels of both.

If the OP provides a specific scenario and set of conditions, that would provide the context needed to determine the respective depths of field and noise visibility in both images.

Click to expand...

ISO is not a direct indicator of noise, but it's a good indirect indicator of it. If you're using a high ISO, it's an indication that you're using a low exposure - and low exposures directly cause noise. There's an interesting article that pops up often on the right pane, "Shedding some light on the sources of noise" and it's worth reading.

Click to expand...

Specifically, it's the total light energy used to make a photo that determines how much shot noise - the predominant type of noise we see in photos - will be in a photo. While ISO is an indicator of exposure, in many situations it's not a reliable indicator of the total light being delivered to a sensor.

The most obvious example is relevant to this discussion: comparisons of photos made with different format systems. By definition, equivalent photos will have the same noise visibility and be made at different ISOs.

Another example is comparisons of photos made with different focal lengths. Again this is directly relevant to this thread. The photos of a bird made with a 300mm f/4 lens on one camera and with a 600mm f/6.3 lens on another will be made at different exposures with different ISOs. Regardless of the format camera each lens is paired with, the 600mm f/6.3 lens will collect more total light energy from the bird then the 300mm f/4 lens will collect.

When evaluating the comparative noise performance of different camera/lens systems, qualities such as f-stop and ISO can be reliable indicators only under special circumstances. The entrance pupil sizes used by both cameras are always reliable as indicators of comparative noise delivered to the sensors.

danart · Aug 12, 2025

James Stirling said:
Jens_ac said:

HicHic said:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

Even after maxing out the comments, no one was able to provide a test to answer a simple question...surely, I'm not the only one around here with both FF and M43?

R5+16-35/4 @24mm, F8 (electronic first curtain)

OM-1+12-45/4 @12mm, F4

OM-1 12-45

R5 16-35

Click to expand...

That depends on your definition of DOF.

In Landscape, when large DOF is to get most detail sharp in the image: No, bigger sensor should be better, e.g. because you may use a tripod.

Click to expand...

My OM-1 is a solid stop better IBIS wise than my FF cameras but with either my Nikon or Sony FF I can manage a 1s exposure with a 100% hit rate. Any slower than this and movement in the scene is liable to be an issue

James Stirling said:

In macro with focus stacking and you do not want to see banding but stack fast, thus DOF is the largest step distance which does not result in visible banding: MFT is better. Especially at large magnification because of effective aperture.

Click to expand...

Just about every camera these days has a focus bracketing feature there is the convenience of doing the stacking in camera with the OM-1 . I am not sure what you mean by "banding" in this scenario . I have done many many stacks with FF with no issues. The in camera stuff can be great fun and I used it a fair bit when I first got my OM-1 I eventually drifted back to doing it in post for more control

James Stirling said:

In micro, like macro but with microscope: No, fullframe may be better again because you can use more light.

Equivalence must be ignored in case you want best image: Do what your system does best even if that is not possible with the other system, thus in conditions outside of equivalence.

Click to expand...

The FF lens did not need to be stopped down to F/8 for such as subject as in the OP above. 24mm in a landscape scenario with no significant close detail . Would have plenty of DOF at F/4 . I never feel the need to shoot my m43 like FF or vice versa.

If you shoot at equivalent settings you get not surprisingly equivalent results A 1" sensor camera shot at 1/5th at f/2.8 and 200 ISO would also give a similar result

That F4 is adequate for this subject is debatable and that f4 (or equivalent) will provide a desirable DOF subject of this type is not always the case.

Below is an example, shot at 12mm f2 (f4 equivalent) the focus point is the garage door - I would have much preferred an DOF of F8 because as we can see the mid zone of the frame (the flowers on the right side of the image) has already lost clarity due to DOF not being adequate.

This is a 12mm focal and I still need to be more careful when shooting this lens wide open. I cannot just focus anywhere and have no concerns regarding DOF

The idea that UWA provides plenty of DOF regardless of aperture is something I always find overplayed

If I had shot then same frame at FF at f2 - 24mm this would be far more problematic vs the intention.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1260162627/photos/4470110/

James Stirling said:
Low light RAW samples

Bill Ferris · Aug 12, 2025

HicHic said:
Bill Ferris said:

Mark Ransom said:

Bill Ferris said:

First, it assumes ISO is either a source of noise or that ISO is a direct indicator of noise. (A higher ISO always means there's more noise in a photo.) Neither assumption is correct.

Second, depending on the settings used, both formats can make photos having the same depth of field and noise visibility or different levels of both.

If the OP provides a specific scenario and set of conditions, that would provide the context needed to determine the respective depths of field and noise visibility in both images.

Click to expand...

ISO is not a direct indicator of noise, but it's a good indirect indicator of it. If you're using a high ISO, it's an indication that you're using a low exposure - and low exposures directly cause noise. There's an interesting article that pops up often on the right pane, "Shedding some light on the sources of noise" and it's worth reading.

Click to expand...

Specifically, it's the total light energy used to make a photo that determines how much shot noise - the predominant type of noise we see in photos - will be in a photo. While ISO is an indicator of exposure, in many situations it's not a reliable indicator of the total light being delivered to a sensor.

The most obvious example is relevant to this discussion: comparisons of photos made with different format systems. By definition, equivalent photos will have the same noise visibility and be made at different ISOs.

Another example is comparisons of photos made with different focal lengths. Again this is directly relevant to this thread. The photos of a bird made with a 300mm f/4 lens on one camera and with a 600mm f/6.3 lens on another will be made at different exposures with different ISOs. Regardless of the format camera each lens is paired with, the 600mm f/6.3 lens will collect more total light energy from the bird then the 300mm f/4 lens will collect.

When evaluating the comparative noise performance of different camera/lens systems, qualities such as f-stop and ISO can be reliable indicators only under special circumstances. The entrance pupil sizes used by both cameras are always reliable as indicators of comparative noise delivered to the sensors.

Click to expand...

Is it same light energy if it's 12mm F4 vs 24mm F8

It is.

Both lenses have 3mm diameter entrance pupils that would collect the same total light from a bird or other subject in their respective frames. Paired with the same shutter speed both systems deliver the same total energy from that bird to their respective sensors.

If the light is projected upon same format sensors, the f/4 lens projects a higher intensity (greater exposure) image. However, due to that lens's shorter focal length, the light from the bird covers a smaller area of the sensor. The greater intensify and smaller image size effectively cancel each other out and the total light projected upon the sensor is the same as that projected by the longer (larger image size), slower (lower light intensity) lens.

If the photographer using the f/4 lens pairs it with a 2x TC, the bird's image size now matches that of the 24mm lens image. The TC reduces the intensity of the projected image by 2 stops so, now both lenses project images of the bird having the same size and light intensity. Total light energy is, again, the same.

If the lenses are used with different format cameras that record images with the same framing, all of the above applies. The smaller format camera crops the image to produce a photo of the bird made with the same total light and having the same framing.

HicHic · Aug 13, 2025

Bill Ferris said:
HicHic said:

Bill Ferris said:

Mark Ransom said:

Bill Ferris said:

First, it assumes ISO is either a source of noise or that ISO is a direct indicator of noise. (A higher ISO always means there's more noise in a photo.) Neither assumption is correct.

Second, depending on the settings used, both formats can make photos having the same depth of field and noise visibility or different levels of both.

If the OP provides a specific scenario and set of conditions, that would provide the context needed to determine the respective depths of field and noise visibility in both images.

Click to expand...

ISO is not a direct indicator of noise, but it's a good indirect indicator of it. If you're using a high ISO, it's an indication that you're using a low exposure - and low exposures directly cause noise. There's an interesting article that pops up often on the right pane, "Shedding some light on the sources of noise" and it's worth reading.

Click to expand...

Specifically, it's the total light energy used to make a photo that determines how much shot noise - the predominant type of noise we see in photos - will be in a photo. While ISO is an indicator of exposure, in many situations it's not a reliable indicator of the total light being delivered to a sensor.

The most obvious example is relevant to this discussion: comparisons of photos made with different format systems. By definition, equivalent photos will have the same noise visibility and be made at different ISOs.

Another example is comparisons of photos made with different focal lengths. Again this is directly relevant to this thread. The photos of a bird made with a 300mm f/4 lens on one camera and with a 600mm f/6.3 lens on another will be made at different exposures with different ISOs. Regardless of the format camera each lens is paired with, the 600mm f/6.3 lens will collect more total light energy from the bird then the 300mm f/4 lens will collect.

When evaluating the comparative noise performance of different camera/lens systems, qualities such as f-stop and ISO can be reliable indicators only under special circumstances. The entrance pupil sizes used by both cameras are always reliable as indicators of comparative noise delivered to the sensors.

Click to expand...

Is it same light energy if it's 12mm F4 vs 24mm F8

Click to expand...

It is.

Both lenses have 3mm diameter entrance pupils that would collect the same total light from a bird or other subject in their respective frames. Paired with the same shutter speed both systems deliver the same total energy from that bird to their respective sensors.

If the light is projected upon same format sensors, the f/4 lens projects a higher intensity (greater exposure) image. However, due to that lens's shorter focal length, the light from the bird covers a smaller area of the sensor. The greater intensify and smaller image size effectively cancel each other out and the total light projected upon the sensor is the same as that projected by the longer (larger image size), slower (lower light intensity) lens.

If the photographer using the f/4 lens pairs it with a 2x TC, the bird's image size now matches that of the 24mm lens image. The TC reduces the intensity of the projected image by 2 stops so, now both lenses project images of the bird having the same size and light intensity. Total light energy is, again, the same.

If the lenses are used with different format cameras that record images with the same framing, all of the above applies. The smaller format camera crops the image to produce a photo of the bird made with the same total light and having the same framing.

TorsteinH · Aug 13, 2025

ahaslett said:
HicHic said:

ahaslett said:

He was asking about DR and equivalence. Your images aren’t really helping. Sure the higher resolution sensor provides more resolution but depth of field and DR aren’t really obvious in your samples.

A simple YES was enough to address OP’s question, although the thread wandered off as is typical of sensor size comparisons.

A

Click to expand...

Yeah, but after 150 comments, it didn't look like he was convinced by it. Sometimes, it's easier to demonstrate with a photo. A photo speaks a thousand words, or in this case, 150 comments in a forum thread LOL.

As for whether this photo helps, I guess that's up to him to decide. I think he just wanted to see a side by side comparison. Again, I don't wanna speak on behalf of someone else whether it's helpful or not haha!

Click to expand...

Let’s see if he joins this thread.

He was indeed thinking about images of a forest.

Not something with a central subject isolated by shallower depth of field.

Although there are other subjects where depth of field is part of the composition.

With a tripod, you can take advantage of the better light capacity of a larger sensor, even at dusk using a body with poor IBIS.

The idea that MFT has a DoF advantage makes no sense to me, unless you need AF in very low light much lower than my last example.

MFT has no advantage in low light, but if you need the extra DOF, the advantage of the larger sensor will not be there anymore. The total light gathered will be equal between the two different sensors.

ahaslett said:
PS Downsizing due to posting from my iPad.

--
Torstein
Some of my latest Photos

ahaslett · Aug 13, 2025

TorsteinH said:
ahaslett said:

HicHic said:

ahaslett said:

He was asking about DR and equivalence. Your images aren’t really helping. Sure the higher resolution sensor provides more resolution but depth of field and DR aren’t really obvious in your samples.

A simple YES was enough to address OP’s question, although the thread wandered off as is typical of sensor size comparisons.

A

Click to expand...

Yeah, but after 150 comments, it didn't look like he was convinced by it. Sometimes, it's easier to demonstrate with a photo. A photo speaks a thousand words, or in this case, 150 comments in a forum thread LOL.

As for whether this photo helps, I guess that's up to him to decide. I think he just wanted to see a side by side comparison. Again, I don't wanna speak on behalf of someone else whether it's helpful or not haha!

Click to expand...

Let’s see if he joins this thread.

He was indeed thinking about images of a forest.

Not something with a central subject isolated by shallower depth of field.

Although there are other subjects where depth of field is part of the composition.

With a tripod, you can take advantage of the better light capacity of a larger sensor, even at dusk using a body with poor IBIS.

The idea that MFT has a DoF advantage makes no sense to me, unless you need AF in very low light much lower than my last example.

Click to expand...

MFT has no advantage in low light, but if you need the extra DOF, the advantage of the larger sensor will not be there anymore. The total light gathered will be equal between the two different sensors.

I have a 20-70/4 G lens, equivalent in light gathering and shallow DoF to an MFT 10-35/2. A lens that meets my long term desire for a 14-35/2 SWD. My OM1 with the 12-40/2.8 will focus in lower light than my A7Riv with the 20-70/4 at equivalent FLs, even though the Sony lens gives shallower DoF, and less noise at the same shutter speed.

As it happens, IBIS on the OM1 outperforms the A7Riv by a long way, and the A7CR enough to make a difference. The OM1 handheld in low light therefore beats the A7Riv on AF, DoF and noise. On a tripod in poor light shooting a high DR landscape, the A7Riv wins every time because I shoot both at base ISO and expose for RAW.

I suspect we both knew that!

There are further composition differences I won't go into, that mean I tend to shoot at different DoFs. Which way round depends on the subject. For my kind of photography, the 12-45/4 is hard to beat, although a 10-50/4 would be even better - I do have the Laowa 10/2 and the OM5 is resistant to sensor dust. Over a year, the OM5 is my most carried camera.

If I had to pick one camera and two lenses only, it would be hard but an A7CR with 20-70/4 G and Viltrox 35/1.2 would be high on the list of options. Just a shame about wildlife and tele landscapes.

The OM5 is very seductive because it makes a low visual impact, low replacement cost kit. The OM1 does everything moderately well at a manageable cost and weight.

The GM1 isn't a great camera but you can take it anywhere.

A

TorsteinH said:
TorsteinH said:

PS Downsizing due to posting from my iPad.

Click to expand...

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

jjbinx · Aug 13, 2025

HicHic said:
jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

Why are we arguing about this nonsense again here ?

jj

Click to expand...

Who's arguing with who? It's just a test bro chillax.

Click to expand...

Just a test of what ?
You haven’t defined the test parameters or objectives. You simply pose a provocative open question with images of little value to the question posed

answers are given, and disagreements ensue = argument.

Nothing is resolved.

Why not state your own position as to which you think is better?
will you tell us what differences you can see between the images you posted ?

jj

Click to expand...

Relax...read the OP. It references another thread. The only one arguing here is you...

Click to expand...

Was the other thread useful - did it come to a conclusion after its 149 posts?

Why are you expecting this thread to be any different ?

jj

Click to expand...

Also explained in the OP.

Click to expand...

Do the test and tell us the answers

Click to expand...

I did - do the photos not load on your end?

And what’s your answer, please tell us whether M43 outperforms FF with more DoF and lower ISO . . .

jj

Owlsfan · Aug 13, 2025

Interesting to discuss but probably not important.

I must have pixel peeped hundreds of full frame and M43 photos to compare. Looking from one to the other and peeping at 10% of the photo to see any detail differences.

All this dynamic range talk , tonal shifts, huge prints. Just buzz words people use that don't really matter to 99% of us.

HicHic · Aug 13, 2025

jjbinx said:
HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

jjbinx said:

Why are we arguing about this nonsense again here ?

jj

Click to expand...

Who's arguing with who? It's just a test bro chillax.

Click to expand...

Just a test of what ?
You haven’t defined the test parameters or objectives. You simply pose a provocative open question with images of little value to the question posed

answers are given, and disagreements ensue = argument.

Nothing is resolved.

Why not state your own position as to which you think is better?
will you tell us what differences you can see between the images you posted ?

jj

Click to expand...

Relax...read the OP. It references another thread. The only one arguing here is you...

Click to expand...

Was the other thread useful - did it come to a conclusion after its 149 posts?

Why are you expecting this thread to be any different ?

jj

Click to expand...

Also explained in the OP.

Click to expand...

Do the test and tell us the answers

Click to expand...

I did - do the photos not load on your end?

Click to expand...

And what’s your answer, please tell us whether M43 outperforms FF with more DoF and lower ISO . . .

jj

Judge the photos for yourselves?

Does M43 outperform FF with more DoF and lower ISO?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

jjbinx

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Attachments

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

jjbinx

Guest

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts