relative size difference m43/APS/FE

As you say "to each their own". As I've had people point out to me "there is no FE-mount, just E-Mount". You put that FE100-400 on an A6600 and you're there.
For close focus wide open the DOF is equally useless. At headshot portrait distance? Meh, I've never had client pay me to have them mostly out of focus. The difference on the SAL2470Z at F2.8 and F8 is not exactly night and day.
[IMG]DSC09195 by Lee Abernethy, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]DSC09197 by Lee Abernethy, on Flickr[/IMG]

addy landzaat wrote: LAbernethy wrote: The M4/3 did much better in the low light interior shots (a beautiful Christmas tree display at the Capitol Theater in Port Hope, Ontario) due to it's superior IBIS. That is not an characterisctic of the sensor size. Want better IBIS in full-frame then older Sony's? Get a newer Sony or a Canon for even better IBIS.

actually, it is a characteristic of sensor size. smaller the sensor better the IBIS. yes, new cameras or different cameras or different lenses you can get different results. For better IBIS, I bought a new Olympus. Sony wanted better IBIS, they sub-contracted Olympus.

addy landzaat wrote: Anyway, for equivalence theory, look here: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/equivalence-theory_topic133769_page1.html

Yep, that's theory, I thought we were talking reality, in use, actual photography.

I couldn't find a lens in the Panasonic or OMD-System (Olympus) line up that is comparable to the Sony 70-350G on the A6600. The closest I could find is the Panasonic 100-300mm lens - which is slightly longer on the long end, but much shorter at short end (being a 3x zoom compared to 5x for the Sony). I was surprized, as I expected that the advantage of the smaller sensor would result in more small hobbyist wildlife lenses. For a size comparison: Camarasize

With the smallest lenses, 28mm eq. the A6600 with the 20/2.8 is comparable to the OM-D EM 1 mark III with the 14/2.5. Sony really worked on keeping its APS-C cameras small. Neither can reach the smallness of the Ricoh GR3: Camerasize

Anyway, I believe sensor size matters - less then some think and more then other think. I also think there is a place for M43, especially in wild life and as a smaller option. However, it seems small cameras are not as sexy as the huge Nikon Z9.....

----

Edit: checked Lee's picture and found he is using the Olympus 75-300, it is slightly smaller then the other two lenses, but still not as wide. And with f/6.7 on the long end (vs. f/5.6 for the Panny and f/6.3 for the Sony): Camerasize

Edited by addy landzaat - 06 December 2021 at 12:22

Jonas A-R wrote: LAbernethy wrote: addy landzaat wrote: Anyway, for equivalence theory, look here: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/equivalence-theory_topic133769_page1.html Yep, that's theory, I thought we were talking reality, in use, actual photography. That is a silly thing to say. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. I recommend Joseph James' essay on the subject as an easy to read introduction to this pretty basic concept: Equivalence It is not overly difficult to understand why equivalent lenses tend to be the same size

I'm actually offended by that comment. Which is weird because I am really hard to offend.
Theory is good. I like theory. It makes for good bedtime stories. Prevailing theories exist until they're replaced with new ones.
The equivalence theory is very nice. It creates strife wherever it goes because it keeps banging into reality and the practical.

Well, if you can show that the background unsharpness of a shot on M43 at f2.8 compared to a shot at f2.8 on FF at double the focal length is the same you can discard the theory. Otherwise the theory is valid. It might not be important for your style of shooting but that's no reason to discard the theory in general.

And I agree, calling something you don't agree with "silly" is not helping to have a meaningful technical discussion.

So let me also repeat this:

Admin note: This is a general reminder of the high standards that our members expect of each other when posting in the Dyxum forums. We do not tolerate posts that belittle other members; call names; are SPAM; seek to offend or deceive; bait, flame or bash; make political points; use offensive language; suggest that someone posts elsewhere; or judge a member by their sex, ethnicity, country of residence or number of posts made. We are honest and open; we tolerate different opinions; we respect other’s cultural viewpoints; we try to pass on knowledge and expertise; we try to bring something constructive to each topic; we express disagreement in a reasoned and reasonable manner. We do report threads that we think go against these principles to the moderators via the report button. Members are respectfully asked to consider if their contributions comply with all of the above before pressing the post button, and to report posts and threads that they believe go against these principles to the moderators via the "Report post" button.

LAbernethy wrote: Jonas A-R wrote: LAbernethy wrote: addy landzaat wrote: Anyway, for equivalence theory, look here: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/equivalence-theory_topic133769_page1.html Yep, that's theory, I thought we were talking reality, in use, actual photography. That is a silly thing to say. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. I recommend Joseph James' essay on the subject as an easy to read introduction to this pretty basic concept: Equivalence It is not overly difficult to understand why equivalent lenses tend to be the same size I'm actually offended by that comment. Which is weird because I am really hard to offend. Theory is good. I like theory. It makes for good bedtime stories. Prevailing theories exist until they're replaced with new ones. The equivalence theory is very nice. It creates strife wherever it goes because it keeps banging into reality and the practical.

I apologise for the "silly" comment. As to the theory quote upthread: that was from the wiki article on the subject. Theory as used in science is rather different from the everyday usage of the term. The theory of equivalence is scientific and it does not bang into reality. At the contrary, it predicts the behaviour of sytems very accurately. I challenge you to find a single example which runs contrary to the theory.
A theory can sometimes be improved such as the relativity theory which superseeded Newtonian physics. That, however, does not stop Newtonian physics to work just as well as it used to. We have just become aware that it's power is restricted under certain well understood limits.