M4/3 is "doomed" unless ....

[Raymond Lin]

T

But it is, you were trying to convince me that a 2.8 lens on M43 is direct equiv to 5.6 on FF, that is all I am contesting here. We all know you get shallower DOF with the equiv FF lens, but that's about it.

That is the exact point i am making.

So it is not truly equivalent, i don't know if its just me, but when someone say the same, I take it as EXACTLY the same and produces results that is indistinguishable.

It is that simple really, I am not upset about it. It's like i am not upset that 1+1 = 2.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Nope, it should not be the same because F2.8 only tells you the Ratio of the focal length to Diameter, it tells you nothing else.

What are you keep ranting on about diameter, I am talking about the look of a photo.

 

[Cagey75]

Raymond are you arguing because it’s important in any way , or are you just trying to put Keith’s back up by spouting b******t so he fires back and gets another forum holiday .. I also use MFT. It’s because I like it ,it works for me ,it’s cheap to own and use , and it’s lightweight ..any other spurious comments go right over my head and most likely every other MFT owner who like us will be laughing at your b******t

Don't worry, I know the limits now and those in command also see when there is baiting. I don't think Ray is trying to lure me here, he's just passionate at times, he doesn't even see that we can both be right on this score.

Yes, FF gets shallower DOF, has better ISO performance and DR - No, you don't need to double the aperture values in terms of light gathering, as the lenses are tailor made for smaller sensors, as Bearair pointed out, the equation can't be argued with - The advantages of FF are sensor based, not lens. A 2.8 is a 2.8, I don't know why this is even an argument.

M43 has advantages over FF too, but they never get mentioned - Greater DOF at wider apertures, some of us prefer this! I don't want insane 'bokeh' every other shot - weight and size saving, it's just fact that you can have a much lighter system in terms of equivalence - since FF users love to do this so much let's turn it around - go check out the Olympus 300mm F4, show me a 600mm F4 .... no, let's give you half way, show me a 600mm 5.6 that's anywhere close to being as tidy!! For macro too, we don't need to stop down as much to keep more in focus, then there's the insane IBIS, FF ML are not even close there ... yet! I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually. Cost! You can have a very nice M43 package for 1/4 the price of similar with FF, you don't look at the highest end, look to the budget options, you can buy a nice little M43 camera used for less than £100 - why do we only compare tele photo lenses and the highest end bodies per system?

 

[Cagey75]

That is the exact point i am making.

So it is not truly equivalent, i don't know if its just me, but when someone say the same, I take it as EXACTLY the same and produces results that is indistinguishable.

It is that simple really, I am not upset about it. It's like i am not upset that 1+1 = 2.

No, you were pushing the aperture equiv in terms of light gathering also, go back to your earlier post where you said the lenses I showed were not equiv because they were both 2.8 - they are! when you omit the DOF factor. That has been my only point

Are you looking at it with TRUE equivalent ?

i.e. using a F/1.4 zoom vs a F/2.8 zoom on FF or are you looking at a F/2.8 zoom on m4/3 vs a f/2.8 zoom on FF?

The latter is NOT the same, and that was a BIG point he was making.

If you side stepped that point then you don't really have a point, at all. Zilch, nothing, nada.

Pretty clear there that you are indeed saying that we shouldn't compare apertures, but your only back up is shallow DOF

 

[tijuana taxi]

Well I use m4/3, don't care if it's doomed, how the figures compare or how shallow the dof is.
Don't think it's as good in outright photo quality as my Fuji gear, but still enjoy using it

Surely that last bit is how we should measure a camera and lens combo.
No I wouldn't want to print from it at A1 size, there again I never did when I owned Canon FF gear.
Looks fine at A3 and that's ok with me, seems that some people talk a lot about cameras, but we never actually see a photo they have taken
(Not aimed at anyone in particular, just a general observation)

 

[Baloo]

What are you keep ranting on about diameter, I am talking about the look of a photo.

I keep "ranting" on about what the F number on a lens is used to measure, the F number is used to set exposure and in that sense it matters not what sensor you are using!
Unless someone has changed the exposure triangle when I was not looking!

 

[Cagey75]

Well I use m4/3, don't care if it's doomed, how the figures compare or how shallow the dof is.
Don't think it's as good in outright photo quality as my Fuji gear, but still enjoy using it

Surely that last bit is how we should measure a camera and lens combo.
No I wouldn't want to print from it at A1 size, there again I never did when I owned Canon FF gear.
Looks fine at A3 and that's ok with me, seems that some people talk a lot about cameras, but we never actually see a photo they have taken
(Not aimed at anyone in particular, just a general observation)

I switched from Fuji to M43 just a year ago, it was a struggle tbh, I would have liked to keep both. But I never really regretted it, I find I get just as good results at reasonable levels, I could push the Fuji higher in terms of ISO but tbh, clean up is just as easy on both. I would probably still switch to an XT2 and the right lenses if I got the chance, but I'm not sad about staying with what I have for now. The lens I would probably want for Fuji most would be the 16-55 2.8, and it's double what I paid for the Olympus 12-40, and a lot bigger and heavier [almost double the weight, and that's APSC!]. I can't see it being any sharper, and it doesn't have anything close to the minimum close focus distance nor magnification of the Oly.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I keep "ranting" on about what the F number on a lens is used to measure, the F number is used to set exposure and in that sense it matters not what sensor you are using!
Unless someone has changed the exposure triangle when I was not looking!

All this thread has proven to me is m4/3 users like to move the goal posts.

No one is taking about exposure, i already mentioned it, THE LOOK OF THE PHOTO.

What are you keep ranting on about diameter, I am talking about the look of a photo.

 

[Cagey75]

All this thread has proven to me is m4/3 users like to move the goal posts.

No one is taking about exposure, i already mentioned it, THE LOOK OF THE PHOTO.

All your posts are proving is that FF users like to try push them in tighter, it's almost as if you feel threatened that someone would dare compare to your pricey kit! We don't start the equivalence talk, you do. Like, we get it, FF is better .... what does this have to do with someone publicly stating to millions of viewers that a system is doomed, just because he thinks so?

Why not cut to the chase, forget all the comparisons - do you think it's 'doomed'? Personally I'd be willing to bet it is far from, and I think Olympus are going to prove this soon enough. They've already come out and said they're not shifting away from it, and the rumours are they have a body in line that will out-perform an XT3

 

[Baloo]

All this thread has proven to me is m4/3 users like to move the goal posts.

No one is taking about exposure, i already mentioned it, THE LOOK OF THE PHOTO.

No, Tony is making a false equivalency, F numbers are there for the exposure triangle not to indicate DOF. The look of the photo is subjective and depends on other variables.
Of course the larger the sensor, "all other variables being taken into account" the larger sensor will always be handicapped by a smaller DOF!

 

[HoppyUK]

You've made all these points about M4/3 many times before Keith, and I and others have tried to explain where you're wrong and why it's important. Anyone wanting to argue with Tony Northrup had better be very sure of their facts because he knows his stuff. Listen carefully to what he says, or check out his other videos on equivalence.

Here's an example of M4/3 vs full-frame equivalence, as far as it's possible:
- M4/3: 25mm lens at f/2.8, 1/125sec at ISO100
- FF: 50mm lens at f/5.6, 1/125sec at ISO400
Framing and perspective is the same, depth-of-field is the same, shutter speed is the same and image noise is the same (because total light gathered [photons] is equalised by adjusting ISO).

The only thing that's different is the M4/3 image will be less sharp - because smaller sensors demand higher lens resolution (assuming same total pixel count) and when resolution goes up image contrast goes down and the image appears less detailed. It's noticeable and significant.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You've made all these points about M4/3 many times before Keith, and I and others have tried to explain where you're wrong and why it's important. Anyone wanting to argue with Tony Northrup had better be very sure of their facts because he knows his stuff. Listen carefully to what he says, or check out his other videos on equivalence.

Here's an example of M4/3 vs full-frame equivalence, as far as it's possible:
- M4/3: 25mm lens at f/2.8, 1/125sec at ISO100
- FF: 50mm lens at f/5.6, 1/125sec at ISO400
Framing and perspective is the same, depth-of-field is the same, shutter speed is the same and image noise is the same (because total light gathered [photons] is equalised by adjusting ISO).

The only thing that's different is the M4/3 image will be less sharp - because smaller sensors demand higher lens resolution (assuming same total pixel count) and when resolution goes up image contrast goes down and the image appears less detailed. It's noticeable and significant.

Their problem is their ego can’t let them admit they are wrong.

 

[Cagey75]

You've made all these points about M4/3 many times before Keith, and I and others have tried to explain where you're wrong and why it's important. Anyone wanting to argue with Tony Northrup had better be very sure of their facts because he knows his stuff. Listen carefully to what he says, or check out his other videos on equivalence.

Here's an example of M4/3 vs full-frame equivalence, as far as it's possible:
- M4/3: 25mm lens at f/2.8, 1/125sec at ISO100
- FF: 50mm lens at f/5.6, 1/125sec at ISO400
Framing and perspective is the same, depth-of-field is the same, shutter speed is the same and image noise is the same (because total light gathered [photons] is equalised by adjusting ISO).

The only thing that's different is the M4/3 image will be less sharp - because smaller sensors demand higher lens resolution (assuming same total pixel count) and when resolution goes up image contrast goes down and the image appears less detailed. It's noticeable and significant.

Many other youtubers have challenged him in the past, so someone's wrong. He doesn't know more than any of us just because he's 'famous' btw ... and I'd love to challenge him directly, he is wrong on the light gathering equiv side. Go back and check the article I posted earlier. I'll go by that over some well known vlogger or some bloke on the forums - no offence, but I mean anyone who's wrongly trying to convince us that 2.8 M43 should be compared to 5.6 FF for anything but DOF

 

[Raymond Lin]

All your posts are proving is that FF users like to try push them in tighter, it's almost as if you feel threatened that someone would dare compare to your pricey kit! We don't start the equivalence talk, you do. Like, we get it, FF is better .... what does this have to do with someone publicly stating to millions of viewers that a system is doomed, just because he thinks so?

Why not cut to the chase, forget all the comparisons - do you think it's 'doomed'? Personally I'd be willing to bet it is far from, and I think Olympus are going to prove this soon enough. They've already come out and said they're not shifting away from it, and the rumours are they have a body in line that will out-perform an XT3

I have m4/3, apsc and FF cameras. I’m not a FF user, I am just a camera user.

I think it’s doomed because why get a m4/3 body when the same lens, SAME lens on a FF Sony is the same size and the price now too is very attractive.

Show me the size of a m4/3 with a 17/1.4 lens on it compare to a Sony with 35/2.8.

 

[Cagey75]

Their problem is their ego can’t let them admit they are wrong.

No Ray, the problem is YOUR ego won't allow you to even compromise. I said earlier, we're both right in a way, and you've been offered good reasoning by others as to why you are in fact wrong on the aperture side. Don't get over excited because someone else is wrong with you

 

[Raymond Lin]

Many other youtubers have challenged him in the past, so someone's wrong. He doesn't know more than any of us just because he's 'famous' btw ... and I'd love to challenge him directly, he is wrong on the light gathering equiv side. Go back and check the article I posted earlier. I'll go by that over some well known vlogger or some bloke on the forums - no offence, but I mean anyone who's wrongly trying to convince us that 2.8 M43 should be compared to 5.6 FF for anything but DOF

He knows more than you because he has done tests, you and I just write forum posts.

 

[Cagey75]

I have m4/3, apsc and FF cameras. I’m not a FF user, I am just a camera user.

I think it’s doomed because why get a m4/3 body when the same lens, SAME lens on a FF Sony is the same size and the price now too is very attractive.

Show me the size of a m4/3 with a 17/1.4 lens on it compare to a Sony with 35/2.8.

Why would I do that when they're not comparable? Have a look at the Olympus 17mm 1.8, it's tiny! and brighter than your Sony

 

[Raymond Lin]

No Ray, the problem is YOUR ego won't allow you to even compromise. I said earlier, we're both right in a way, and you've been offered good reasoning by others as to why you are in fact wrong on the aperture side. Don't get over excited because someone else is wrong with you

I’m not the one got all upset and got banned from this thread!

 

[Baloo]

You've made all these points about M4/3 many times before Keith, and I and others have tried to explain where you're wrong and why it's important. Anyone wanting to argue with Tony Northrup had better be very sure of their facts because he knows his stuff. Listen carefully to what he says, or check out his other videos on equivalence.

Here's an example of M4/3 vs full-frame equivalence, as far as it's possible:
- M4/3: 25mm lens at f/2.8, 1/125sec at ISO100
- FF: 50mm lens at f/5.6, 1/125sec at ISO400
Framing and perspective is the same, depth-of-field is the same, shutter speed is the same and image noise is the same (because total light gathered [photons] is equalised by adjusting ISO).

The only thing that's different is the M4/3 image will be less sharp - because smaller sensors demand higher lens resolution (assuming same total pixel count) and when resolution goes up image contrast goes down and the image appears less detailed. It's noticeable and significant.

No, people just need to understand the difference between subjective and objective. Objective is something that can be measured, and there are simply to many variables involved in making the simple equivalence Tony tries to do.

 

[HoppyUK]

I keep "ranting" on about what the F number on a lens is used to measure, the F number is used to set exposure and in that sense it matters not what sensor you are using!
Unless someone has changed the exposure triangle when I was not looking!

To be clear, the f/number is used for exposure purposes because it measures the 'intensity' of the light, but not the total amount of light passed (photons). A FF lens projects a 4x larger image circle on to the 4x larger FF sensor - so 4x more photons which only need 1/4 the signal gain applied = less noise.

 

[Cagey75]

He knows more than you because he has done tests, you and I just write forum posts.

He has never done testing to show the light gathering is different at same apertures, if he did he would post it to shut people up. He can't dis-prove physics. Again, you've been shown reasoning as to why the aperture values are the same per system, but you ignore and dismiss because it goes against your way of thinking. Your still wrong though. I'm starting to think you are just baiting now, because you kind of know you're never convincing me, and i don't even know why you would care. I don't, I know I'll not convince you, you can remain ignorant to facts all you like. I'm bored with the equivalency thing, but I'm certain it'll continue to pop up every other time the FF-equiv-police log in

 

[HoppyUK]

No, people just need to understand the difference between subjective and objective. Objective is something that can be measured, and there are simply to many variables involved in making the simple equivalence Tony tries to do.

There is no subjectivity in equivalence calculations, it's all physics - and all easily measured. Not that you really need to measure anything - the differences between M4/3 and full-frame are clear enough for anyone to see.

 

[Cagey75]

I’m not the one got all upset and got banned from this thread!

I didn't get upset, I cleared this with the Mod who suspended - not banned me fyi. Now you are baiting ... time to report perhaps

 

[Cagey75]

No, people just need to understand the difference between subjective and objective. Objective is something that can be measured, and there are simply to many variables involved in making the simple equivalence Tony tries to do.

It's a waste of time, people be stubborn, even when you half agree with them, even gave Ray the benefit of doubt that he wasn't trying to stir a row, but he clearly is, best leave it

 

[Raymond Lin]

I didn't get upset, I cleared this with the Mod who suspended - not banned me fyi. Now you are baiting ... time to report perhaps

You get upset ALL the time Keith. You are 2nd to Fraser in getting yourself wound up. I say that with honesty, not to wind you up.

 

[Baloo]

There is no subjectivity in equivalence calculations, it's all physics - and all easily measured. Not that you really need to measure anything - the differences between M4/3 and full-frame are clear enough for anyone to see.

Tell me how you measure the Look of something, I am fascinated to know?

 

[Cagey75]

You get upset ALL the time Keith. You are 2nd to Fraser in getting yourself wound up. I say that with honesty, not to wind you up.

I don't get upset, I fire back is all, and you can't take it. Plain simple. I got suspended for jokingly doing a Hulk threat and it was at Bearair, see how I'm not gunning for him? I never even contested the day off, quite enjoyed that evening as it happened and I've not argued with anyone since. Just playful banter. Comparing me to someone you don't like is just more baiting for no reason. It is you, clearly, that wants to row, but why would I bother? You're not worth the trouble.

 

[HoppyUK]

He has never done testing to show the light gathering is different at same apertures, if he did he would post it to shut people up. He can't dis-prove physics. Again, you've been shown reasoning as to why the aperture values are the same per system, but you ignore and dismiss because it goes against your way of thinking. Your still wrong though. I'm starting to think you are just baiting now, because you kind of know you're never convincing me, and i don't even know why you would care. I don't, I know I'll not convince you, you can remain ignorant to facts all you like. I'm bored with the equivalency thing, but I'm certain it'll continue to pop up every other time the FF-equiv-police log in

Well, somebody is wrong - and it's not Tony Northrup. But in TN's absence, please read my post #171 above, it's all there.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Tell me how you measure the Look of something, I am fascinated to know?

Should I show you 2 photos, one with F/2.8 and one with F/5.6 and one will look objectively have more bokeh?

Do we really need to do that?

 

[HoppyUK]

Tell me how you measure the Look of something, I am fascinated to know?

With your eyes - that's good enough to distinguish between M4/3 and FF, though if you want accurate measurements, that's not hard either.

 

[Baloo]

Should I show you 2 photos, one with F/2.8 and one with F/5.6 and one will look objectively have more bokeh?

Do we really need to do that?

No, because you are using the same lens on the same sensor presumably at the same distance. Now I will ask you again how do you measure the LOOK?

 

[Cagey75]

Should I show you 2 photos, one with F/2.8 and one with F/5.6 and one will look objectively have more bokeh?

Do we really need to do that?

For the umpteenth time nobody has contested the DOF differences, you really are a broken record today. I did post 4.5 M43 shot though, show me one at f9 with similar DOF.

Well, somebody is wrong - and it's not Tony Northrup. But in TN's absence, please read my post #171 above, it's all there.

He is wrong on the light gathering side, which is all us peasant small sensor users care about - did you read the article I posted? Why is that guy wrong and some vlogger right? is Jared Polin wrong? He's challenged TN on these issues in the past.

 

[Baloo]

With your eyes - that's good enough to distinguish between M4/3 and FF, though if you want accurate measurements, that's not hard either.

My eyes are vastly different to your eyes in fact my left eye is different to my right eye, now if it is so easy to measure the look give me the mathematical formula to measure it. Simples!

 

[Raymond Lin]

No, because you are using the same lens on the same sensor presumably at the same distance. Now I will ask you again how do you measure the LOOK?

With your eyes! If you can tell the difference between 2.8 and 5.6 then it is objectively different.

If you can't tell the difference then what are you doing here? I say that not in an insulting way but telling that difference is like telling the difference between a black cab and a NYC taxi. They are objectively different cars. You don't need to measure anything !

 

[Cagey75]

I said he's wrong about aperture equivalence [in terms of light gathering], not DOF - he's right on that - but my words often get twisted I simply added that 'I' don't care about that aspect of it. I do care about the light gathering, and whichever way is correct, once I'm getting sufficient light to keep the ISO down [which is a weakness of smaller sensors] then that's all that matters right? It just gets annoying any time we mention an M43 lens that has a max aperture of 2.8 or whatever, someone immediately jumps on it to state that would only be 5.6 on FF! I know from my own experience this is not the case. I also know I can get shallow DOF when I desire by focusing closer, which is one of the strengths of this lens - it can get right in there, it's incredible


The Fallacy of Aperture Equivalence
While crop factor has a use simply to compare focal lengths between formats and such, the constant comparison of a smaller format lens to its full frame ‘equivalent’ aperture is largely unevenly applied and misunderstood. It’s often used to show that a smaller format is inferior or not capable of the same things as a larger format. In some cases, this usage is correct, but it is also nearly never used the other way.

I’ve heard many times “Yeah, your 75mm f/1.8 is crap – it’s like a 150mm f/3.6.” No, it’s not, it’s a 75mm lens with an f/1.8 aperture and a field of view that is the same as a 150mm lens on full frame.

What IS true is that the 75mm f/1.8 is not capable of the same ultra shallow depth of field as, say, something like the Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 on full frame. However, this is essentially the ONLY way that it is inferior.

https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

That's page 2, worth reading though the whole article, but that cut above gets the point across better than I can, I can't word today

Also from the same article:

Aperture ‘equivalence’
This is a new one. In the past few years, people have also been using the crop factor to relate so called ‘aperture equivalence.’ That is, they’ll multiply the F-stop of a lens by the crop factor to get the ‘equivalent aperture’ of a lens. This has some basis in reality, but it is a pretty major fallacy, in my opinion, and it really skews people’s perceptions. I’ve gotten angry and rude comments on this blog about how I’m delusional about Micro 4/3 because of aperture equivalence. Interestingly enough, this term really only started to be thrown around when Micro 4/3 started getting popular…it was almost never brought up with regards to APS-C DSLRs. There’s a little bit of fanboyism going on quite often with this.

I know how he feels

 

[Baloo]

For the umpteenth time nobody has contested the DOF differences, you really are a broken record today. I did post 4.5 M43 shot though, show me one at f9 with similar DOF.



He is wrong on the light gathering side, which is all us peasant small sensor users care about - did you read the article I posted? Why is that guy wrong and some vlogger right? is Jared Polin wrong? He's challenged TN on these issues in the past.

You are of course assuming that people are prepared to put up with the lack of DOF FF gives you!

 

[Raymond Lin]

For the umpteenth time nobody has contested the DOF differences, you really are a broken record today. I did post 4.5 M43 shot though, show me one at f9 with similar DOF.

I don't shoot at f/9. When i shoot at that aperture i have everything in focus on purpose. f/11

 

[Baloo]

Also from the same article:

Aperture ‘equivalence’
This is a new one. In the past few years, people have also been using the crop factor to relate so called ‘aperture equivalence.’ That is, they’ll multiply the F-stop of a lens by the crop factor to get the ‘equivalent aperture’ of a lens. This has some basis in reality, but it is a pretty major fallacy, in my opinion, and it really skews people’s perceptions. I’ve gotten angry and rude comments on this blog about how I’m delusional about Micro 4/3 because of aperture equivalence. Interestingly enough, this term really only started to be thrown around when Micro 4/3 started getting popular…it was almost never brought up with regards to APS-C DSLRs. There’s a little bit of fanboyism going on quite often with this.

I know how he feels

It was never brought up when comparing the smaller size formats like 35mm when compared to Medium Format or Large Format in film days!

 

[Baloo]

With your eyes! If you can tell the difference between 2.8 and 5.6 then it is objectively different.

If you can't tell the difference then what are you doing here? I say that not in an insulting way but telling that difference is like telling the difference between a black cab and a NYC taxi. They are objectively different cars. You don't need to measure anything !

And there you go, they are objectively, measurable, different in certain ways but you would not say a 1.5 Litre TD Black cab is the equivalent of a 3 Litre Petrol NYC Taxi, that is what Tony tries to do when he uses F numbers to compare lenses!

 

[mikew]

Oh good this thread finally got interesting