Does M43 outperform FF with more DoF and lower ISO?

sherman_levine said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. If you look at this scattergram which I posted earlier, the variation in PDR among cameras with the same sensor size is huge.

Click to expand...

A variation of about 1 stop worst to best is not huge:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha...sonic Lumix DC-S5M2,Pentax K-3 II,Sony ILCE-9

At ISO 100 the Pentax K3II is worst 10.12 and the Panasonic S5II is best 11.21. With the other cameras falling between them the average difference is less than a stop -- not huge. And does some of that variation explain away because there are different ISO standards in use?

sherman_levine said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Area_scatter.htm

If you go to the actual chart, you can select camera brands by clicking on the brand name, and you can see the specific camera by hovering the cursor over the dot. For any given brand, it appears that newer cameras have a larger PDR than older ones. Beyond that, I'm sure different camera designers have different priorities in determining read speed vs PDR vs pixel count, etc.

FWIW, the variations among DXOMark.com SNR18% are extremely small for cameras of any given sensor size.

Click to expand...

That argues against the variation being huge.

sherman_levine said:

Unfortunately they don't provide a scattergram so you need to compare a maximum of no more than three cameras at a time (as I've done in an earlier post in this thread)

Click to expand...

BudgetTraveller 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?

Click to expand...

The true answer lies in how many people who do own a FF system and why many people use FF system. Using charts to try and bend the truth works in a hypothetical situation, but it usually doesn't reflect the true reality of life.

There is no simple question that can be answered with a simple answer.

Take Paris, Las Vegas. I know some people completely believed that Paris, Las Vegas gave a more complete authentic experience than Paris, in France. Again, can that be answered with a simple answer? I've been to Europe and Las Vegas does not and can not provide an authentic experience compared to the real European cities it tried to replicate. I even heard from the same people that all to get the true Bavarian experience without needing to go to Germany is Leavenworth, WA. We don't need passports. We just go to Leavenworth and it's the same as going to Germany. But I digress.

People buy into FF are mainly buying the system, because it does provide some benefits in real life and in the real world better than MFT, because those are real world needs that no charts in the world can proxy for. Leavenworth WA can not and will never proxy for the real Germany or any other European cities and neither does Paris, Las Vegas can proxy for and become the real Paris in France.

Click to expand...

Interesting analogy. Show two people a postcard of the Eiffel Tower and one thinks of the $5000 they won on a slot machine - the other walking through the Louvre taking in masterpieces. Both arguably enriching experiences but of vastly different value.

I find the “truth” is highly user dependent as is the question of authenticity and results. So whilst you cannot argue the capacity and capabilities between two inanimate pieces of hardware - The capability of two different users can be vastly different as to render the differences irrelevant between them. . The superior outcome can come from the lesser camera where the user can “bend” another aspect of reality - skill and application applied to realisation. That someone owns a full frame camera is no guarantee they are getting a superior results to another using a smaller format, despite technically being positioned to do so. The same skill and application from one user applied to two different cameras may render those differences less important than aspects of preference and enjoyment. They are able to achieve an outcome with both that fits the technical brief of outcomes.

Technology is a tool, but the user creates the value, not the gear. I have both MFT and FF but as tools the performance is not an asymmetrical comparison. Each have capabilities the other doesn’t and as a user I make the best of both as a measure of application. There are times where one will perform better than the other and depending on the application, they operate at a point where they are equivalent vs the outcome.

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

The demo I did was using a camera featuring a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor. Both the "full frame" and "micro four thirds" representative images shared the same aspect. The 2.0x crop factor applies.

Forgive my lack of familiarity but aren't m43 cameras built around a 4:3 aspect sensor? If so, would that result in a crop factor slightly less than 2.0x? I'm wondering if the subtle differences (about 1/3-stop at equivalent settings) in DR being discussed might be explained, at least in part, by the m43 camera having a crop factor of 1.85x as opposed to 2.0x?

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

--

Sherm
Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

Click to expand...

Exactly what I said a week ago in the original thread, guess people are catching on now...

HicHic said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

Exactly what I said a week ago in the original thread, guess people are catching on now...

Click to expand...

The OP noted a difference between the output of a G9 and an S5II in trusted data from a very respected testing source. How does using only the G9 in a test account for the performance of the S5II?

HicHic said:

Click to expand...

Ysarex said:

The OP noted a difference between the output of a G9 and an S5II in trusted data from a very respected testing source. How does using only the G9 in a test account for the performance of the S5II?

Click to expand...

Any full frame.

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. If you look at this scattergram which I posted earlier, the variation in PDR among cameras with the same sensor size is huge.

Click to expand...

A variation of about 1 stop worst to best is not huge:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha...sonic Lumix DC-S5M2,Pentax K-3 II,Sony ILCE-9

At ISO 100 the Pentax K3II is worst 10.12 and the Panasonic S5II is best 11.21. With the other cameras falling between them the average difference is less than a stop -- not huge. And does some of that variation explain away because there are different ISO standards in use?

Click to expand...

The progress continues and you missd the LUMIX S1-2: Max PDR is 11.75. And in video it is even about a stop better thanks to DRboost and it is best in class

This should be compared to the best MFT sensor in terms of DR with about same pixel number: GH7/G9-2 has PDR 10.18 at base level.

Now it depends on usage which one wins: E.g.with video:S1-2. Single foto: G9-2/GH7, SH-mode foto: S1-2

Thus: It is the technology but not the size.

ISO is an other topic - a bit boring.

Ysarex said:

Ysarex said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Area_scatter.htm

If you go to the actual chart, you can select camera brands by clicking on the brand name, and you can see the specific camera by hovering the cursor over the dot. For any given brand, it appears that newer cameras have a larger PDR than older ones. Beyond that, I'm sure different camera designers have different priorities in determining read speed vs PDR vs pixel count, etc.

FWIW, the variations among DXOMark.com SNR18% are extremely small for cameras of any given sensor size.

Click to expand...

That argues against the variation being huge.

Ysarex said:

Unfortunately they don't provide a scattergram so you need to compare a maximum of no more than three cameras at a time (as I've done in an earlier post in this thread)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bill Ferris said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

The demo I did was using a camera featuring a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor. Both the "full frame" and "micro four thirds" representative images shared the same aspect. The 2.0x crop factor applies.

Forgive my lack of familiarity but aren't m43 cameras built around a 4:3 aspect sensor? If so, would that result in a crop factor slightly less than 2.0x? I'm wondering if the subtle differences (about 1/3-stop at equivalent settings) in DR being discussed might be explained, at least in part, by the m43 camera having a crop factor of 1.85x as opposed to 2.0x?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I encountered the same discrepancy years ago between my aps-c Fuji X-T4 and most FF cameras and they have the same 3:2 aspect ratio. There isn't a FF Nikon camera made that delivers equivalent DR to my X-T4 given "total light equivalent" exposures. The FF Nikons are down by a stop or more. I don't know why and frankly don't much care but Bill Claff's data shows the difference and I've learned that Bill Claff's data is trustworthy.

HicHic said:

Ysarex said:

The OP noted a difference between the output of a G9 and an S5II in trusted data from a very respected testing source. How does using only the G9 in a test account for the performance of the S5II?

Click to expand...

Any full frame.

Click to expand...

Most full frames.

Jens_ac said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. If you look at this scattergram which I posted earlier, the variation in PDR among cameras with the same sensor size is huge.

Click to expand...

A variation of about 1 stop worst to best is not huge:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha...sonic Lumix DC-S5M2,Pentax K-3 II,Sony ILCE-9

At ISO 100 the Pentax K3II is worst 10.12 and the Panasonic S5II is best 11.21. With the other cameras falling between them the average difference is less than a stop -- not huge. And does some of that variation explain away because there are different ISO standards in use?

Click to expand...

The progress continues and you missd the LUMIX S1-2: Max PDR is 11.75. And in video it is even about a stop better thanks to DRboost and it is best in class

This should be compared to the best MFT sensor in terms of DR with about same pixel number: GH7/G9-2 has PDR 10.18 at base level.

Click to expand...

The comparison the OP originally made was for "total light equivalent" exposures between the G9 and S5II -- 9.94 versus 9.26. The S1II is worse than the S5II delivering 9.11. So the OP's observation applies even more to the S1II.

Jens_ac said:

Now it depends on usage which one wins: E.g.with video:S1-2. Single foto: G9-2/GH7, SH-mode foto: S1-2

Thus: It is the technology but not the size.

ISO is an other topic - a bit boring.

Jens_ac said:

Jens_ac said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Area_scatter.htm

If you go to the actual chart, you can select camera brands by clicking on the brand name, and you can see the specific camera by hovering the cursor over the dot. For any given brand, it appears that newer cameras have a larger PDR than older ones. Beyond that, I'm sure different camera designers have different priorities in determining read speed vs PDR vs pixel count, etc.

FWIW, the variations among DXOMark.com SNR18% are extremely small for cameras of any given sensor size.

Click to expand...

That argues against the variation being huge.

Jens_ac said:

Unfortunately they don't provide a scattergram so you need to compare a maximum of no more than three cameras at a time (as I've done in an earlier post in this thread)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thank you for looking at this

Having read the messages, it appears clear that at equivalent settings, FF cameras often end up with a little less dynamic range than crop sensor cameras

This explains why when I look at wedding photos taken indoors with FF cameras, the windows are often blown out (because the photographer needs a deeper depth of field therefore higher f stop and consequently higher iso)

Or if I look at photos taken of woods with FF cameras, trees are often too dark (again, deeper depth of field required and higher iso).

Explaining this all from a marketing perspective is hard!

I am no expert whatsoever - am going by the data and what I can see on Flickr

i appreciate everybody’s comments

Ysarex said:

Jens_ac said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. If you look at this scattergram which I posted earlier, the variation in PDR among cameras with the same sensor size is huge.

Click to expand...

A variation of about 1 stop worst to best is not huge:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha...sonic Lumix DC-S5M2,Pentax K-3 II,Sony ILCE-9

At ISO 100 the Pentax K3II is worst 10.12 and the Panasonic S5II is best 11.21. With the other cameras falling between them the average difference is less than a stop -- not huge. And does some of that variation explain away because there are different ISO standards in use?

Click to expand...

The progress continues and you missd the LUMIX S1-2: Max PDR is 11.75. And in video it is even about a stop better thanks to DRboost and it is best in class

This should be compared to the best MFT sensor in terms of DR with about same pixel number: GH7/G9-2 has PDR 10.18 at base level.

Click to expand...

The comparison the OP originally made was for "total light equivalent" exposures between the G9 and S5II -- 9.94 versus 9.26. The S1II is worse than the S5II delivering 9.11. So the OP's observation applies even more to the S1II.

Click to expand...

Sure - total light equivalent is nice - one may choose between blown up highlight in MFT or underexposed shadow in fullframe - the latter does work at least a bit. But no way the S1-2 is worse than S5-2, only at high ISO. That may be the reason to do such test - crazy condition lead to funny results and we can discuss them with joy.

Ysarex said:

Ysarex said:

Now it depends on usage which one wins: E.g.with video:S1-2. Single foto: G9-2/GH7, SH-mode foto: S1-2

Thus: It is the technology but not the size.

ISO is an other topic - a bit boring.

Ysarex said:

Ysarex said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Area_scatter.htm

If you go to the actual chart, you can select camera brands by clicking on the brand name, and you can see the specific camera by hovering the cursor over the dot. For any given brand, it appears that newer cameras have a larger PDR than older ones. Beyond that, I'm sure different camera designers have different priorities in determining read speed vs PDR vs pixel count, etc.

FWIW, the variations among DXOMark.com SNR18% are extremely small for cameras of any given sensor size.

Click to expand...

That argues against the variation being huge.

Ysarex said:

Unfortunately they don't provide a scattergram so you need to compare a maximum of no more than three cameras at a time (as I've done in an earlier post in this thread)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jens_ac said:

Ysarex said:

Jens_ac said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. If you look at this scattergram which I posted earlier, the variation in PDR among cameras with the same sensor size is huge.

Click to expand...

A variation of about 1 stop worst to best is not huge:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha...sonic Lumix DC-S5M2,Pentax K-3 II,Sony ILCE-9

At ISO 100 the Pentax K3II is worst 10.12 and the Panasonic S5II is best 11.21. With the other cameras falling between them the average difference is less than a stop -- not huge. And does some of that variation explain away because there are different ISO standards in use?

Click to expand...

The progress continues and you missd the LUMIX S1-2: Max PDR is 11.75. And in video it is even about a stop better thanks to DRboost and it is best in class

This should be compared to the best MFT sensor in terms of DR with about same pixel number: GH7/G9-2 has PDR 10.18 at base level.

Click to expand...

The comparison the OP originally made was for "total light equivalent" exposures between the G9 and S5II -- 9.94 versus 9.26. The S1II is worse than the S5II delivering 9.11. So the OP's observation applies even more to the S1II.

Click to expand...

Sure - total light equivalent is nice

Click to expand...

It's the single, entire and only point of this whole two thread exchange.

Jens_ac said:

- one may choose between blown up highlight in MFT or underexposed shadow in fullframe - the latter does work at least a bit. But no way the S1-2 is worse than S5-2,

Click to expand...

In the context of the topic of this thread it is.

Jens_ac said:

only at high ISO. That may be the reason to do such test - crazy condition lead to funny results and we can discuss them with joy.

Jens_ac said:

Jens_ac said:

Now it depends on usage which one wins: E.g.with video:S1-2. Single foto: G9-2/GH7, SH-mode foto: S1-2

Thus: It is the technology but not the size.

ISO is an other topic - a bit boring.

Jens_ac said:

Jens_ac said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Area_scatter.htm

If you go to the actual chart, you can select camera brands by clicking on the brand name, and you can see the specific camera by hovering the cursor over the dot. For any given brand, it appears that newer cameras have a larger PDR than older ones. Beyond that, I'm sure different camera designers have different priorities in determining read speed vs PDR vs pixel count, etc.

FWIW, the variations among DXOMark.com SNR18% are extremely small for cameras of any given sensor size.

Click to expand...

That argues against the variation being huge.

Jens_ac said:

Unfortunately they don't provide a scattergram so you need to compare a maximum of no more than three cameras at a time (as I've done in an earlier post in this thread)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Deep1981 said:

Thank you for looking at this

Having read the messages, it appears clear that at equivalent settings, FF cameras often end up with a little less dynamic range than crop sensor cameras

Click to expand...

Absolutely yes, the data is there and Photons to Photos is a trustworthy source. I own six cameras -- two FF, two APS-C, and two MFT. I didn't acquire any of them thinking about this issue. As it happens, all four of my crop sensor cameras deliver more DR than either of the two FF (Nikon and Leica) cameras given "total light equivalent" exposures. It's real, I discovered it myself by using the cameras.

Deep1981 said:

This explains why when I look at wedding photos taken indoors with FF cameras, the windows are often blown out (because the photographer needs a deeper depth of field therefore higher f stop and consequently higher iso)

Or if I look at photos taken of woods with FF cameras, trees are often too dark (again, deeper depth of field required and higher iso).

Explaining this all from a marketing perspective is hard!

I am no expert whatsoever - am going by the data and what I can see on Flickr

i appreciate everybody’s comments

Click to expand...

Ysarex said:

Bill Ferris said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

The demo I did was using a camera featuring a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor. Both the "full frame" and "micro four thirds" representative images shared the same aspect. The 2.0x crop factor applies.

Forgive my lack of familiarity but aren't m43 cameras built around a 4:3 aspect sensor? If so, would that result in a crop factor slightly less than 2.0x? I'm wondering if the subtle differences (about 1/3-stop at equivalent settings) in DR being discussed might be explained, at least in part, by the m43 camera having a crop factor of 1.85x as opposed to 2.0x?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I encountered the same discrepancy years ago between my aps-c Fuji X-T4 and most FF cameras and they have the same 3:2 aspect ratio. There isn't a FF Nikon camera made that delivers equivalent DR to my X-T4 given "total light equivalent" exposures. The FF Nikons are down by a stop or more. I don't know why and frankly don't much care but Bill Claff's data shows the difference and I've learned that Bill Claff's data is trustworthy.

Click to expand...

If you're interested in pursuing this further, why not post the results in the Photo Science and Technology forum https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1061

Bill Claff is a frequent participant there and I'm sure you'll get an informed opinion from him

--

Sherm

Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

HicHic said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

Exactly what I said a week ago in the original thread, guess people are catching on now...

Click to expand...

Well, Bill's article was posted about 2 years ago, so he "caught on" in advance ;-)

--

Sherm

Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

Deep1981 said:

Thank you for looking at this

Click to expand...

No problem! Glad you found it helpful.

Bill Ferris said:

Mark Ransom said:

HicHic said:

Oh interesting...a lot of wildlife photographers take off their TC when the light goes down in order to get a cleaner image (even for perched owls that aren't moving, so AF isn't an issue). Is this practice just a misunderstanding of the physics?

Click to expand...

The statement above yours is incorrect. Yes the F/4 and F/8 lenses can collect the same amount of light, but only if the F/8 one is paired with a sensor of 4x the area. Exposure wise it's going to be two stops darker, and that's going to affect the image quality.

Click to expand...

The context of the question was total light collected from a subject - a bird, in this case - within the frame. As I accurately stated and explained, 12mm f4 and 24mm f/8 lenses, by virtue of their identical entrance pupil sizes, collect the same total light energy from any subject in the frame.

Click to expand...

It took me a lot of thinking to realize you were right after all. I knew the scene as a whole was going to get the same amount of light, but objects within it? At the shorter FL each object will be 1/4 the area it has in the longer FL, so less light. But the light hitting that area will be 4x as intense because of the difference in F-stop, so the effects cancel out.

Now the only question is how you deal with the more intense light from the lower F-stop. If you can drop the ISO by two stops, you're golden. If you're forced to increase your shutter speed, that's less light. The question above definitely sounds like a change the ISO situation.

Mark Ransom said:

Bill Ferris said:

Mark Ransom said:

HicHic said:

Oh interesting...a lot of wildlife photographers take off their TC when the light goes down in order to get a cleaner image (even for perched owls that aren't moving, so AF isn't an issue). Is this practice just a misunderstanding of the physics?

Click to expand...

The statement above yours is incorrect. Yes the F/4 and F/8 lenses can collect the same amount of light, but only if the F/8 one is paired with a sensor of 4x the area. Exposure wise it's going to be two stops darker, and that's going to affect the image quality.

Click to expand...

The context of the question was total light collected from a subject - a bird, in this case - within the frame. As I accurately stated and explained, 12mm f4 and 24mm f/8 lenses, by virtue of their identical entrance pupil sizes, collect the same total light energy from any subject in the frame.

Click to expand...

It took me a lot of thinking to realize you were right after all. I knew the scene as a whole was going to get the same amount of light, but objects within it? At the shorter FL each object will be 1/4 the area it has in the longer FL, so less light. But the light hitting that area will be 4x as intense because of the difference in F-stop, so the effects cancel out.

Now the only question is how you deal with the more intense light from the lower F-stop. If you can drop the ISO by two stops, you're golden. If you're forced to increase your shutter speed, that's less light. The question above definitely sounds like a change the ISO situation.

Click to expand...

If you have a zoom lens, then I think removing the teleconverter is still good practice when the light dims.

If the subject doesn't fill the sensor either with or without the TC then nothing is lost by having the TC mounted, but nothing is gained either (from the perspective of noise)

However, if you have to back off the zoom to keep the subject within the sensor, the calculation changes. Consider a 150-400 f/4.5 zoom and 2x TC. If you can fill the sensor at 400mm f/4.5 without the TC and at 200mm f/9 with the TC the sensor will get more light without the TC.

--

Sherm
Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

Ysarex said:

Jens_ac said:

Ysarex said:

Jens_ac said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

Ysarex said:

sherman_levine said:

I was going to suggest that you could avoid the inter-camera variation confusion entirely by taking two pictures with the same FF camera from the same location

1. 12mm f/4.0 ISO 400 1/5 sec cropped to the same FOV as #2 (this would be the same sensor dimensions as MFT)

2. 24mm f/8.0 ISO 1600 1/5 sec downsampled to the same pixel count as the cropped #1

and then came across this comprehensive post by Bill Ferris which does exactly that. As expected, the two images look identical.

https://dprevived.com/t/what-is-equivalence/2008/

Click to expand...

I've seen similar demonstrations of equivalence. Makes sense it should work with just one camera.

However what the OP discovered is real: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4812164

I discovered it as well and I've tested it and verified Photons to Photos data. Not all FF cameras deliver less DR than the MFT G9 or OM1 with "total light equivalence" exposures but most do. The OP specifically asked concerning DR; "does the data reflect real world usage?" The answer to the OP's question is yes.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. If you look at this scattergram which I posted earlier, the variation in PDR among cameras with the same sensor size is huge.

Click to expand...

A variation of about 1 stop worst to best is not huge:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha...sonic Lumix DC-S5M2,Pentax K-3 II,Sony ILCE-9

At ISO 100 the Pentax K3II is worst 10.12 and the Panasonic S5II is best 11.21. With the other cameras falling between them the average difference is less than a stop -- not huge. And does some of that variation explain away because there are different ISO standards in use?

Click to expand...

The progress continues and you missd the LUMIX S1-2: Max PDR is 11.75. And in video it is even about a stop better thanks to DRboost and it is best in class

This should be compared to the best MFT sensor in terms of DR with about same pixel number: GH7/G9-2 has PDR 10.18 at base level.

Click to expand...

The comparison the OP originally made was for "total light equivalent" exposures between the G9 and S5II -- 9.94 versus 9.26. The S1II is worse than the S5II delivering 9.11. So the OP's observation applies even more to the S1II.

Click to expand...

Sure - total light equivalent is nice

Click to expand...

It's the single, entire and only point of this whole two thread exchange.

Ysarex said:

- one may choose between blown up highlight in MFT or underexposed shadow in fullframe - the latter does work at least a bit. But no way the S1-2 is worse than S5-2,

Click to expand...

In the context of the topic of this thread it is.

Click to expand...

True. This is to the point and it is obvously not a good point. Next we proove that black is white and get killed on Zebra crossing...

Ysarex said:

Ysarex said:

only at high ISO. That may be the reason to do such test - crazy condition lead to funny results and we can discuss them with joy.

Ysarex said:

Ysarex said:

Now it depends on usage which one wins: E.g.with video:S1-2. Single foto: G9-2/GH7, SH-mode foto: S1-2

Thus: It is the technology but not the size.

ISO is an other topic - a bit boring.

Ysarex said:

Ysarex said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Area_scatter.htm

If you go to the actual chart, you can select camera brands by clicking on the brand name, and you can see the specific camera by hovering the cursor over the dot. For any given brand, it appears that newer cameras have a larger PDR than older ones. Beyond that, I'm sure different camera designers have different priorities in determining read speed vs PDR vs pixel count, etc.

FWIW, the variations among DXOMark.com SNR18% are extremely small for cameras of any given sensor size.

Click to expand...

That argues against the variation being huge.

Ysarex said:

Unfortunately they don't provide a scattergram so you need to compare a maximum of no more than three cameras at a time (as I've done in an earlier post in this thread)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...