sarlo100
Lives in
Chicago, IL, United States
Works as a
Chemical distributor/bodypaining photog
Joined on
Feb 23, 2007
About me:
Camera equipment (in case for some reason you are curious) Digital Rebel XT - Powershot S2IS Lost to dad: |
Comments
 |  |  |
| Winter scape by Kaappo from Wide Angle [New Shot] | Calm Lake by Kreber from Something new.. | Azure Kingfisher by ruley74 from A big year - birds 2021 |
Mike99999: For all the trolls (yabokkie etc..): if you do the aperture equivalence, you also have to do the ISO equivalence.
To imitate an image captured by four thirds 17mm/1.4 ISO 6400 (clean on an E-M5), you'd have to set your full frame camera to 34mm/2.8 ISO 25600. Suddenly the comparison becomes less attractive when you do *full* equivalence...
He's right. Aperture equivalence is straight mathematics, and there's a two stop difference between full frame and 4/3. Photographically, 12-35 f/1.4 (4/3") is 24-70 f/2.8 (FF) in all respects.
ISO equivalence is a fudged concept, because the manufacturers play around with the numbers so much. You can use it as a crude rule of thumb, but the only way to have true ISO equivalence is to have the same sensor manufacturer, using the same sensor technology of the same era, and the same number of pixels. Only then will you be close enough to a level playing field to make a difference - and you'll very likely see the noise performance of ISO 6400 (4/3) looking close to identical as ISO 25600 (FF).
Full frame is the standard. All other formats are size/performance/cost issue compromises. Nobody converts focal length or apertures into 4/3 or APS-C equivalents. I'm not in any way knocking 4/3rds, it's my preferred set up due to the size/cost/performance combination. But facts are facts
Ahhhhhh...a belly flop into a pool of fail. We'll be seeing these @ $75 on Slickdeals by X-mas for sure.
This isn't the answer. Canon should just build the camera/smartphone already. While they still have time to get ahead of the curve.