FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

relative size difference m43/APS/FE

Page  <12345 7>
Author
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 2789
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 December 2021 at 21:16
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

The equivalence theory is very nice. It creates strife wherever it goes because it keeps banging into reality and the practical.
Can you elaborate? I agree that the relevance of equivalence theory at times is overstated, but it does describe reality I think. I can test it and seems correct. What am I missing?

When I raise a camera and lens to my eye, I'm thinking about subject, light, gesture, framing, context, et cetera.

I am not doing a grade school math exercise: Tommy has a 6.1MP Minolta 7D with a 600mm lens and Tammy has 61MP Sony A7RIV with a Sony FE 28-70MM lens. They are both photographing a charging Grizzly Bear ....
 



Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12951
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 December 2021 at 21:53
That is the practical not the reality. In a lot of situations it indeed does not make no difference at all. But looking at your picture with the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 it is clear to me that the f/8 setting was more suitable for the situation.

Proponents of the equivalence imho tend to miss the fact that in many situations it doesn't matter enough. Wildlife at f/5.6 or f/6.3 doesn't make a big difference - 100iso or 200iso is irrelevant. At the same time, there IS a difference and in some situations it makes a real difference. In your example, I would not see the bear at 70mm when I need 600mm on the 7D.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Jonas A-R View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 December 2007
Country: Denmark
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Posts: 1645
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jonas A-R Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 10:18
Equivalence is some simple facts on how the AoV an aperture determines some fundamental aspect of the images such as DoF, noise and the effect of diffraction. It does not need proponents.
It is a sensible thing to understand as it will help set your system optimally. There is a reason after all that f/64 is typically not available in our systems although it makes perfect sense on other systems.
I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial
a9 a6300
21/2.8 Loxia 35/1.4Z 50/1.4Z 85/1.4GM 90/2.8G Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro 100/2.8GM 135/1.8GM
12-24/4G 24-105/4G 100-400/4-5.6GM 2x TC
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12951
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 10:56
Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial
It is controversial because sometimes it is not relevant - the f/6.7 on the long end for the Olympus 75-300 and f/6.3 for the Sony (APS) 70-350 will make little difference in real live in decent light and you're able to use, say, around 800iso for a decent shutterspeed. Yes, the Olympus set might be at 1000iso with a slightly smaller sensor - but that is not a huge difference and both pictures will be more then acceptable in most cases.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Jonas A-R View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 December 2007
Country: Denmark
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Posts: 1645
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jonas A-R Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 14:22
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial
It is controversial because sometimes it is not relevant - the f/6.7 on the long end for the Olympus 75-300 and f/6.3 for the Sony (APS) 70-350 will make little difference in real live in decent light and you're able to use, say, around 800iso for a decent shutterspeed. Yes, the Olympus set might be at 1000iso with a slightly smaller sensor - but that is not a huge difference and both pictures will be more then acceptable in most cases.


Equivalence quickly lets you calculate that the difference is 1.25stops, so the m4/3 ISO800 shot would give the same noise as APSC ISO1900 at the same shutter speed.
Whether that is acceptable and irrelevant will probably differ from user to user


Edited by Jonas A-R - 07 December 2021 at 16:49
a9 a6300
21/2.8 Loxia 35/1.4Z 50/1.4Z 85/1.4GM 90/2.8G Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro 100/2.8GM 135/1.8GM
12-24/4G 24-105/4G 100-400/4-5.6GM 2x TC
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12951
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 15:25
Yeah, what I said - you also has to take into consideration other aspects like the noise characteristics of the camera. But for some the difference will be too much and others will be fine - like Lee.

Also, with different cameras the difference can differ. If you compare say the A700 to a state of the art m43 it is possible the m34 is better.....
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
 



Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 2789
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 16:14
If shooting on film you might have a point. It's bits and bites. Ones and Zeros. But you still shoot in the moment with what you have.
Back to Top
4paul View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 July 2011
Country: United States
Location: St Petersburg
Status: Offline
Posts: 1536
Post Options Post Options   Quote 4paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 16:14
Lemme go make some popcorn, this may be entertaining LOLOL

Are you all doing this because I mentioned the "Glory Days of Dyxum" and you're bringing up an argument from years ago just for me?!?!? That's so sweet of you!

LOL BADH ROFL

Years ago I avoided these discussions (although I read every one!), maybe I should jump in and argue, what do you think? LOL

I'll take "Equivalence is BS for a thousand Levar"....
There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks. - Schrödinger
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14428
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 17:36
Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial

I think people who make equivalence controversial might do so for various reasons.

If they only ever shoot with one format, and don't anticipate adding a different format, it's of little value to them.

Large sensor shooters might resent being reminded that smaller sensor systems can often produce equivalent photos.

Small sensor shooters might resent being reminded that larger sensor systems can often produce photos that can't be made with existing small sensor systems.

And, as I said earlier, I think many who raise objections around equivalence have simply made incorrect assumptions about what it is intended to predict.

Others like you and me, who perhaps use multiple formats, and who know what equivalence is intended (and not intended) to predict regard it as a simple and helpful tool.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12951
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 17:59
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Others like you and me, who perhaps use multiple formats, and who know what equivalence is intended (and not intended) to predict regard it as a simple and helpful tool.
Let me look up exceptionalism

To me the most annoying bit is the people who kept on mentioning it in all situations it was not relevant. It is a very technical view of photography and not all photographers are mathematicians. Not everybody is interested. I know and understand it, but in many cases it is irrelevant to me. Might be different for you, but it is to me.

So, I understand it and use it when it is relevant for the case, but in many cases I am not interested to discuss it. I might want to explain it to somebody when it is relevant.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14428
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 18:32
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

I think people who make equivalence controversial might do so for various reasons ... Others like you and me, who perhaps use multiple formats, and who know what equivalence is intended (and not intended) to predict regard it as a simple and helpful tool.

Let me look up exceptionalism

To me the most annoying bit is the people who kept on mentioning it in all situations it was not relevant. It is a very technical view of photography and not all photographers are mathematicians. Not everybody is interested. I know and understand it, but in many cases it is irrelevant to me. Might be different for you, but it is to me.

So, I understand it and use it when it is relevant for the case, but in many cases I am not interested to discuss it. I might want to explain it to somebody when it is relevant.

I was explaining why I think some people make equivalence controversial. If someone really understands what it's about but finds related discussions annoying or boring, that shouldn't be a matter of controversy. Just avoid those discussions.

Edited by sybersitizen - 07 December 2021 at 19:44
Back to Top
Jonas A-R View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 December 2007
Country: Denmark
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Posts: 1645
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jonas A-R Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 19:47
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:


Also, with different cameras the difference can differ. If you compare say the A700 to a state of the art m43 it is possible the m34 is better.....


Equivalence can actually be understood in terms of AoV and aperture treating the camera as a black box.
But it is true, an antique camera will possibly perform worse than a state of the art modern sensor camera even if the antique had a larger sensor
a9 a6300
21/2.8 Loxia 35/1.4Z 50/1.4Z 85/1.4GM 90/2.8G Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro 100/2.8GM 135/1.8GM
12-24/4G 24-105/4G 100-400/4-5.6GM 2x TC
Back to Top
Jonas A-R View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 December 2007
Country: Denmark
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Posts: 1645
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jonas A-R Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 19:49
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by Jonas A-R Jonas A-R wrote:

I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial

I think people who make equivalence controversial might do so for various reasons.

If they only ever shoot with one format, and don't anticipate adding a different format, it's of little value to them.

Large sensor shooters might resent being reminded that smaller sensor systems can often produce equivalent photos.

Small sensor shooters might resent being reminded that larger sensor systems can often produce photos that can't be made with existing small sensor systems.

And, as I said earlier, I think many who raise objections around equivalence have simply made incorrect assumptions about what it is intended to predict.

Others like you and me, who perhaps use multiple formats, and who know what equivalence is intended (and not intended) to predict regard it as a simple and helpful tool.


Good points. Equivalence can be boiled down to: there is no free lunch
a9 a6300
21/2.8 Loxia 35/1.4Z 50/1.4Z 85/1.4GM 90/2.8G Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro 100/2.8GM 135/1.8GM
12-24/4G 24-105/4G 100-400/4-5.6GM 2x TC
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 2789
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 December 2021 at 20:02
So we can just gloss over it's irrelevance in the face of computational photography?
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > Other camera systems Page  <12345 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.