Depth of field equivalence “ripoff thoughts” by Admiring Light (Olympus 75mm to ship late in Europe?).

Share

According to Amazon UK (Click here) the Olympus lens will be released on July 31! That’s a lot later than the rumored late June early July release. But as usual, keep in mind that this is just an indicative date. Amazon US (Click here) says it will ship within 1-2 months. But now let’s read Admiringlight (Click here) because he posted some thoughts about the two new Micro Four Thirds lenses.
1) About the Olympus 75mm lens, he writes: “I think the lens looks to be a real winner. It’s got beautiful bokeh, a lovely contrast and color signature and is quite sharp at the focal point. It also seems to exhibit very well controlled longitudinal chromatic aberration and fringing, which is usually a big problem on lenses of this focal length and aperture. The downside for some with this lens is that the focal length of 75mm is a little longer than the ‘standard’ portrait lengths“.
2) About the Panasonic 12-35mm X lens, he writes: “Early reviews are showing this lens to be a truly stellar performer, right from f/2.8.  In fact, it’s looking like one of the sharpest f/2.8 standard zooms for ANY camera system.   Now, those who feel the need to bang on depth of field equivalence will cry “but it only gives depth of field similar to f/5.6 on full frame!  What a ripoff!” Read the full post to read the reasons why he says that this is an irrelevant argument. I 100% agree with him :)

Preorders:
The Olympus 75mm lens can be preordered at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here) and BHphoto (Click here). And Adorama has also the accessories: Olympus LH-61F, Metal Lens Hood (Click here) and the Olympus LC-61, Metal Front Lens Cap (Click here).
The Panasonic 12-35mm X lens can be preordered at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Amazon Japan (Click here) and Digitalrev (Click here).

Share
  • tmrgrs

    You can also preorder the 75/1.8 at:

    https://us.buyolympus.com/lenses/m-zuiko-digital-lenses-pen-series/m-zuiko-digital-ed-75mm-f1-8.html

    . . . My experience is that they fill their preorders on new items earlier than anyone else.

    • El Aura

      The lens the Olympus 75 mm f/1.8 should be compared to would be the Voigtländer 180 mm f/4 (the Voigtländer is a bit slower and a bit longer, ie, take a small crop, 1.2x, from the Olympus and you end up with the same FOV and almost exactly the same DOF).

      In size, they don’t differ much. But m43 cameras will all be noticeably smaller than FF cameras. That is what the 75 mm f/1.8 provides, a compact high quality medium telephoto lens. It also happens to be m43 lens with the shallowest DOF (if we discount the 50 mm f/0.95 lens which is MF and optically far from a match wide-open).

      • Mr. Reeee

        Voigtländer 180mm? Do you mean the 90mm f3.5?

        I’d say that the Oly 75mm should be compared to either of the TWO 75mm lenses that Voigtländer makes… Both include lens hoods, BTW.

        The 75mm f1.8 Heliar Classic (Leica M mount), which is actually designed specifically for portraits, so that it’s a bit soft when the aperture is wider than f5.6, sharp at f5.6 and beyond. It’s a similar in design, size and weight as the m4/3 Nokton 25mm and only $715.

        And the discontinued (but still available for $489) 75mm f2.5 Color Heliar (Leica L39 screwmount), that’s smaller and lighter (about 230g) than the other 75mm. (I just got one a couple of weeks ago and am really enjoying it.)

        50mm f0.95? You mean the 25mm?
        You have it backwards, the Oly is hardly a match at f0.95. 😉

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/dummy00001/ Dummy00001

    Now, those who feel the need to bang on depth of field equivalence will cry “but it only gives depth of field similar to f/5.6 on full frame! What a ripoff!” Read the full post to read the reasons why he says that this is an irrelevant argument.

    NOOOOOO! Not again!!

    It it pretty much established fact that the followers of the equivalency church can neither read nor count.

    Why touch it again?

    Let’s better read this together:
    “Show Me Photographs, Not Gear: How to Improve Photography Without Upgrading Gear” by Robin Wong.
    http://robinwong.blogspot.de/2012/05/show-me-photographs-not-gear-how-to.html

    • Fish

      That is a great article, thanks for the link.

    • Vlad

      What a coincidence, just read that. Great post as usual.

    • http://youdidntdidyou.com/ YouDidntDidYou

      @ Dummy00001
      just had a quick read , a few flaws in Robin Wong’s argument about composition in that you can use white balance and exposure decisions as part of your composition and can be used to lead the viewer’s eye into your image…..

    • DrThrash

      If you click the link, you’ll read that giving up depth of field is the price you have to pay for the small size of the system. I absolutely agree. MFT is small, I love my GF3 with the two Pana pancakes plus Oly 45/1.8, but there is a price you have to pay for it. If image quality counts, everything boils down to collecting photons, the more, the better. Sensor size matters, even if MFT users do not like to hear this basic truth.

      • Will

        Haha not if you’re into landscape or (traditional) street photography, m43 DoF becomes a blessing.

        I’m not trying to sound like it’s the best system out there but for me I don’t like shooting below about f2.5 on m43 because the DoF is too shallow, i’ll only do this if the light demands it. Yes there are some cool shallow DoF photos out there however I believe you need FF or better yet MF to really achieve good results (3d) through that and that 95% of photo’s shouldn’t be only about shallow depth of field. I admit at first I was one of the crowd and used a DSLR to achieve that, then after a couple of years I realised there’s more to it, and there really is, m43 benefits me from giving double the DoF. Just saying.

      • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

        DrThrash.
        Now tell me does a 50mm f2 wide open put more or less photons per square micron on a m43 sensor or a 135 sensor?
        If the M43 sensor is 16MB and the 135 is 17 MB does it make any difference?
        If the m43 sensor is 12MB and the 135 is 24MB what difference per square micron will be seen.
        If you don’t like microns use per square mm.

        • DrThrash

          Photons collected in total, of course, not per square millimeter. For high photons per area count, you can also use your smartphone.

          The bigger the sensor, the more photons you can collect and the better your photographic and creative options. But the downside is that also the weight and size of the lenses increases accordingly.

          • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

            I ask about per sq mm or whatever because the argument you put is a blanket statement that that really says nothing. I ask about per sq mm to give some meaning. All the photons in the world might be inside a camera but the quantity, quality and efficiency of the receptors that see the red, green and blue photons are the important factor what really counts. If there are 50 receptors or there are 50 million receptors on a 1″ sensor the captured image will be different in a viewing mode. The 50 million receptors will cover a larger % of the surface area even if the 50 receptors are individually bigger.
            So its the density and the quality of the receptor that makes the difference if the same lens is used on different sensors.
            So “The bigger the sensor, the more photons you can collect and the better your photographic and creative options.” is not true. Saying there are more photons available to collect may well be true. But capturing them is not the same as being available.

        • Martin

          @ JimD
          Why are you so obsessed with ‘photons per square micron’? If we want to talk about image quality, ESPECIALLY when comparing different formats, that ‘number’ is pretty irrelevant. The physical quantity that is, however, determinant for IQ is the TOTAL luminous flux incident on the active sensor area.
          Of course, than there are other factors, like the quantum efficiency of the sensor (which is also influenced by the number of pixels to some extent, of course), but the total luminous flux is the primary one. Why primary? Exactly because it is independent of the used sensing technology! It tells us how different systems are predisposed as for the IQ..

          • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

            Should we not be talking candela, radiant flux and luminous emittance, rather than luminous flux and luminace is measured in meters square, so some measuring unit square is appropriate.

            As I noted above to DrThrash, you can have as much light as you want in the camera, the method of collecting it determines what an image will be. Having more light available does not mean it will be collected efficiently or at all.

    • DUMBO

      Please not this argument again!

      It seems that a lot of people use the internet to find a ´magic bullet´to making photos, instead of the having creativity to take the tool which they have, be it full frame, or m43, or anything else and make art or craft with that tool.

      The dof argument is flawed anyway, because medium format people can laugh at full frame people, and large format can laugh at medium format people. Hell, while we are talking of such stupidity, within medium format 6×7 people can laugh at 6×4.5 people 😛

      But then again, sites are driven,whether first hand or not, by sales revenue, which is perpetuated by telling people that their ´such and such´ is too small or too big or too medium.

      • Vlad

        Your last sentence is exactly why we should talk about these issues :)

    • Alan

      What was that David Bailey thinking about in the early 1960s, thinking he could change the look of fashion magazine pictures by using 35mm SLRs rather than the 6×6 TLRs then commonly used? Didn’t he realize he wasn’t gathering as many photons in each picture? And what did he know about “equivalence” – didn’t he realize DOF would be different from using a smaller format? Oh wait a moment – he didn’t want equivalence, he wanted a different look, that was the point!

      These equivalence arguments bore me. I ‘m very happy with micro 43, I don’t want equivalence with the other formats I use. Vive le difference!

  • Joe

    His argument with regards to the 12-35mm makes obvious technical points, but doesn’t really respond to the “ripoff” charge. In fact, his first comment rather supports the assertion that the 12-35mm is overpriced. “Users of Micro 4/3 know we give up some depth of field control in exchange for the smaller size of both camera bodies and lenses.” What he’s essentially saying is, choosing m4/3 means making a compromise. Now choosing any system obviously requires compromise – choose a Nikon D4 and a 70-200mm f/2.8, and you’re compromising on portability in order to attain maximum image quality. By choosing m4/3 however, the compromise comes on the image quality and flexibility end. Not to say m4/3 isn’t capable of excellent image quality – it’s just that no one is going to mistake the quality of m4/3 for a full-frame DSLR. For some, the limited ability to manipulate depth of field will be important… for others, not so much. Regardless, it is a limitation compared to larger systems. Therein lies the basis of the argument that a lens like the 12-35mm – and a camera like the EM-5 – is overpriced. As good as they may be, the user is still having to compromise in some way on image quality.

    Now I’m not saying that the lens is in fact overpriced. I’m just playing devil’s advocate. I really haven’t decided where I come down on this debate.

    • Vlad

      I disagree. As the guy at Luminous-landscape already posted some time ago, even pros mistake a compact camera image quality with pro gear in some situations. I am not saying there isn’t a compromise, but depending on one’s type of shooting, it may become rather irrelevant.

      http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

      • Vlad

        I also don’t buy the less DOF=more flexibility argument. That’s like saying that a Ferrari gives you more flexibility, because you can also drive slower.

        • Pei

          That’s actually what flexibility mean. You can drive a Ferrari on a track at 180mph or 65 on highway or 30 in city street. A Smart Fortwo isn’t going to do 180 and isn’t safe at 65.

          It give you option to drive fast or take picture under moonlight.

          • Vlad

            No, it isn’t, when you drive in the city all day and you need low fuel consumption. Some people require less DOF, others more. If I require more, how is not having a full frame camera making me less flexible?

          • ArtP

            Well, maybe if speed is your only criteria, Ferrari beats out econobox.
            I had a Dodge Omni that couldn’t do more than 90mph, but it got good gas mileage, took me off road, conquered snow drifts, jumped curbs and could fit five passengers (OK, it was a squeeze!) plus groceries, or 20′ of model railroad. Oh, yeah, and I could park it on the street in seedy neighborhoods w/o worrying that it might not be there when I got back. Now that was flexibility!

            • ArtP

              Oh, and I’d hate to see that Ferrari’s suspension after a few runs on the BQE (Brooklyn-Queens Expressway)

        • io

          Sometimes you might want less shallow DOF without loosing light.

          • MikeS

            I often do, particularly when shooting events. Shallow DOF is overrated; it’s just another number for people to latch onto.

          • Gabi

            +1000! If I want to shoot well-lit city buildings in the night, I want to have a decent DOF without having to use a very high ISO value.

            • El Aura

              And for medium to high DOF, m43 and DX and FX all provide pretty much the same noise (for the same shutter speed).

          • Sarek

            Agree! I’m doing a film about a boxer at the moment. There’s not that much light in the gym and she is moving fast in the ring – but I can use F2.8 with my AF101 to get the light, and the DOF I need for her to be in focus.
            For film I think focus is more important than shallow DOF.
            I use shallow DOF for interviews or details, but not when people are moving around.

      • http://www.thevoiceoverman.com TheVoiceoverman

        @Vlad Thanks for posting the Luminous Landscape piece. How absolutely brilliant! Shows what a total waste of time all the measurebating is.

      • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

        Vlad, yes, That’s been on before. Puts it all into perspective.

        Have a look at this
        http://www.mdavid.com.au/photography/megapixels.shtml
        Another earth shattering article for the

    • Willy

      This idea that the m4/3 system compromises “maximum image quality” needs to be qualified. In order to make such a claim, first tell us how many 16″ x 20″ prints did one print last year? I doubt some of the differences in lines /mm that some wring their hands over can be seen in smaller prints. Professionals that sell large prints and those that display large prints in galleries may be rightly concerned. Those that view their photos on their computer monitor and like to pixel peep at 100%, its an academic exercise.

      Then again, if you look at Henri Cartier-Bresson’s wonderful photographs, they are by no means tack sharp and free of noise, yet they are able to convey emotion and distill superb composition.

      • Pei

        I agree with you. Depend on personal preference, the required image quality is different. Some people post ugly instagram picture on facebook while other take a medium camera on vacation.

        m4/3 users are willing to accept less IQ than APS-C and FF users but demand better quality than Pentax Q and cellphone users.

    • E-1

      I believe I have my EPM1/14/2.5 more often with me than you have your D4/70-200/2.8.

      • Fish

        Amen E-1,
        I have the same combination and love it! I’m just looking for the perfect wrist strap for it.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/youdidntdidyou/ YouDidntDidYou
    • admin

      Yep! I will link to it within my next E-M5 reviews roundup! Thanks anyway!

    • tmrgrs

      I’m not a video person but that is an interesting article!

      • tmrgrs

        And BTW . . That article’s author ought to have known that Vitaliy works for Panasonic now. Who know? Maybe the impending arrival of the OM-D is why they hired him.

        • Anonymous

          I thought that was an April Fools joke…?

        • Will

          You’re not talking about the April fools joke right? Vitality doesn’t work for them

  • Bob B.

    Hopefully all of the f/stop cry-babies can read the Admiringlight article and shut up, or just go buy a full-frame camera and a f/1.2 lens. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

    • io

      Pros like me use a medium format camera with a f1.0 lens. That’s what I call molecular thin DOF. Anything else is for average Joes. 😐

      • Zonkie

        I don’t understand the fuss of the equivalence conversion. It is normal to do it. It’s all about the way pictures look, which is what really matters in the end.

        If you take a picture in m43 with a focal length of 25mm and one with a FF camera with the same focal length, the pictures look different. That’s why we do the conversion and say that 25mm in 4/3 is equivalent to 50mm in full frame. There is an equivalence conversion for focal length, aperture and ISO value. Why do people complain if you apply it.

        Pictures is what matters, so take this example:

        – First, I will leave DoF out of the equation. Not that it should be done when taking pictures, but just to prove it’s not only about DoF.

        – Ok, so you got your two brand new Nikon D4 and Oly EM-5, and you out to the street at night to test them. You find a nice square, with people walking around, and you decide to take a picture with the D4 using these settings:

        – 50mm, f/4, 1/160, ISO 6400

        Then you want to take a similar picture with the E-M5, so you take these shots with the following settings:

        – 25mm, f/4, 1/160, ISO 6400
        – 25mm, f/4, 1/40, ISO 1600
        – 25mm, f/2, 1/160, ISO 1600

        You go home, look at the picture with the D4 and you think: “It looks good”. Then you open the first one from the EM5, and you see that:

        – It has the same FoV
        – It has the same motion blur (just a bit)
        – It has a lot more noise, to the point of being unusable

        Then you look at the second one:

        – It has the same FoV
        – It has a lot more motion blur, to the point of making it unusable
        – It has the same amount of noise

        Then you look at the 3rd one:

        – It has the same FoV
        – It has the same motion blur
        – It has the same amount of noise.

        You throw away the first two shots and stay with the 3rd one, which looks more or less like the one of the D4.

        Now let’s bring back the DoF, which is an important thing in photography:

        – The first shot has a much larger DoF than the one on the D4 (not a bad thing, just different)
        – The second shot has a much larger DoF than the one on the D4 (idem)
        – The third shot has the same DoF as the D4.

        In conclusion, the third shot has the same FoV, motion blur, noise and DoF as the one in the D4. That’s what matters. The way the pictures look.

        • io

          You needed to up ISO until 6400 in order to make it work, but lenses HAVE NO ISO nor NOISE.

          Let’s change it to (D4 vs E-M5);
          – 50mm, f/4, 1/160, ISO 400
          – 25mm, f/4, 1/160, ISO 400

          Same light, noise OK in both, same motion blur and FOV, just different DOF; both usable. You aren’t comparing just lenses, you’re comparing CAMERAS. How much costs the D4 over the E-M5?

          At high ISO any high end DSLR will outperform a m43. Nobody here cares about it.

          • Zonkie

            In low light you will see a difference in noise even at ISO 400. Both are usable, of course, but they are DIFFERENT (and hell, shooting in low light does require high ISOs most of the times. And people are saying that f/2.8 = f/2.8 for light gathering, leaving DoF aside. But it doesn’t happen in the real world).

            And yes, as you said, also different DoF. That counts. I’m not saying less DoF is better, I actually prefer larger DoF in most cases. I’m just talking about what’s equivalent and what’s different.

            No, at high ISOs the D4 has no advantage over the EM-5 given the size difference. The advantage only comes when the lenses on the EM-5 cannot be 2 f-stops faster.

            At low ISO, though, the D4 will have an advantage, since the EM-5 doesn’t have ISO 25. But it’s not such a big deal.

            • Vlad

              “And people are saying that f/2.8 = f/2.8 for light gathering, leaving DoF aside. But it doesn’t happen in the real world.”
              What do you mean by “it doesn’t happen in the real world”?

              “The advantage only comes when the lenses on the EM-5 cannot be 2 f-stops faster.”
              The advantage for what?

              “At low ISO, though, the D4 will have an advantage”
              For what exactly?

              • io

                ““At low ISO, though, the D4 will have an advantage”
                “For what exactly?””

                I though we we’re talking about lenses equiv. and not cameras…

                • Vlad

                  You are actually right. I guess it was inertia.

              • Zonkie

                >”What do you mean by “it doesn’t happen in the real world”?

                I mean that in the real world, you can’t detach the f/number of the lens from the sensor size, not for DoF, nor for Signal to Noise Ratio. As in the example above. You can’t take the same shot at the same aperture on a FF camera/lens and in a 4/3 camera/lens. They will look different.

                @io
                “I though we we’re talking about lenses equiv. and not cameras…”

                But the sensor size has a direct impact on the lens characteristics. 25mm in 4/3 is equivalent to 50mm in FF, simply because of the sensor size. You can’t forget about the sensor size in the real world. It matters. And for the different sensor sizes of FF and 4/3, the lens aperture is equivalent when the 4/3 lens is 2 f-stops more open. Why make a drama about it?

                • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

                  The sensor has nothing to do with lens characteristics. The lens is an individual item.
                  I use 135 lenses, 43 lenses, m43 lenses and PenF lenses on my m43 sensor. The sensor reports what is getting through the lens using the lens characteristics. (be it good or bad)
                  Signal to noise, mp size and other such things are sensor characteristics and will vary from brand to brand and model to model.

                  The subject and the size of the intended viewing format and type has more to do with a combination of both.
                  Vlad supplied a link above you may wish to look at.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

                  If I use a lens on a 135 camera to take a shot then move the lens to a m43 and take the shot using the same body settings, the common parts of the shot will be the same. ( given a normal city scape or such in daylight) Yes, it will look different on a screen, it will look like I cropped the middle of the 135 shot, that’s all.

                  BUT ! If I use the 135 lens on the M43 having taken the differences into consideration when I put it on, then its just another lens on the camera. All argument on DOF, FOV focal length are irrelevant, as they also are if I had selected a Pen f lens or a native m43 lens.

        • ArtP

          One problem with that analogy
          you haver to add:
          You throw out the pictures taken with the D4 because people were either stairing at you or trying to avoid the camera, totally ruining any chance of a candid shot, while at least some of those taken w the E-M5 are usable because no one noticed you were taking pictures. :)

          • Vlad

            One more – there are no pictures from the D4, because it was too cumbersome to take. :)

  • Pei

    Olympus will miss the Olympic.

    • Ronnbot

      Pei: How does that affect the majority of people who take any kind photo?

      • Pei

        It is tongue-in-cheek joke. Olympus ,Olympic. Get it?

    • io

      deleted

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

      That’s all Greek to me!

  • Fish

    I was going to try to hold off getting the 75mm, but my local camera store is offering it for $850 for anyone who preorders. Not sure how I am going to break it to my wife…

    • http://-- BLI

      Can you say you lost $850 on gambling? :-)

      • Fish

        Haha, she might be more forgiving with that excuse. Sometimes, she asks if I’m looking at cameras on the Internet and I lie and tell her I’m looking at pornography instead.

      • Vlad

        Very good idea! Then he can lose some more on therapy.

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/ulli/ Ulli

      i must always laugh when husbands need their wives’s permission to buy something expensive.

  • http://-- BLI

    … and to those who think that 75mm is too long for a portrait lens and wish for a 45mm: IT ALREADY EXISTS :-)

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/59182905@N05/ Peter Bjorvand

    admin, Andrew from eoshd wrote an article about the Olympus EM5 video (http://www.eoshd.com/content/8149/olympus-om-d-e-m5-first-impressions)

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/frosti7/ frosti7

    “”…read the reasons why he says that this is an irrelevant argument. I 100% agree with him :)…”

    Admin, i agree with him as well, especially the part that its not MFT’s main goal to give dof control like a FF camera,

    but carrying the same weight – one cannot call this zoom equilant to 24-70, because it is not, it is 12-35\2.8 on MFT, or if you want to play the (silly for some) game of equivalence then this lens is 24-70\5.6,
    The bottom line is that it is not 24-70\2.8, there is no such lens on MFT, its either 12-35\2.8 or 24-70\5.6.

    • Anonymous

      Incase anyone is wondering on current em5 shipping times. I got an email from amazon today.
      Omd em5 silver kit with 12-50
      Ordered on march 10
      Delivery estimate may 30th

    • Jakron

      Incase anyone is wondering on current em5 shipping times. I got an email from amazon today.
      Omd em5 silver kit with 12-50
      Ordered on march 10
      Delivery estimate may 30th

    • http://www.flickr.com/khoa_sus2 khoa_sus2

      A lot of us think light-gathering ability is more important the “DOF equivalence”. In that case, it most definitely is equivalent to a “full frame” 24-70, f/2.8 lens.

      • io

        +1.000.000

        • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

          I’ll double that.

      • Vlad

        +1

      • Chez Wimpy

        Of course the same aperture f2.8 “gathers” 4x the light on a FF sensor, 16x the light on 6×7 MF, 64x the light on 4×5 LF, 256x the light…

        here we go round the mulberry bush

      • Martin

        @khoa_sus2
        >A lot of us think light-gathering ability is more important the “DOF equivalence”.

        It’s not more important. It’s another side of the coin.

        >In that case, it most definitely is equivalent to a “full frame” 24-70, f/2.8 lens.

        It most definitely isn’t. Learn something about photometry. The “light-gathering ability” of a FT system with a 12-35mm f/2.8 lens is (approximately) the same as the light gathering of a FF system with a 24-70mm f/5.6. It gathers (approx.) the same luminous flux.

        • io

          “It most definitely isn’t. Learn something about photometry. The “light-gathering ability” of a FT system with a 12-35mm f/2.8 lens is (approximately) the same as the light gathering of a FF system with a 24-70mm f/5.6. It gathers (approx.) the same luminous flux.”

          Who cares? You need 1/4 of the light in order to light a m43 sensor against a FF one.

          • Martin

            > You need 1/4 of the light in order to light a m43 sensor against a FF one.

            Yes. To obtain an image smaller by 3/4. And?

            • io

              That you have the same amount of light per cm^2

              The f numer is a RATIO. It makes no sense to scale it up when doing a 35mm equiv.

              • Martin

                Okay, and what do you do with ‘the same amount of light per cm^2’? You know, I like viewing the whole picture, not ‘cm^2’… But you may be different.

                > The f numer is a RATIO. It makes no sense to scale it up when doing a 35mm equiv.

                It makes a perfect sense – when you want to compare what is actually WORTH comparing, i.e. the whole image, not some ‘cm^2’.

                • io

                  “It makes a perfect sense – when you want to compare what is actually WORTH comparing, i.e. the whole image, not some ‘cm^2′.”

                  That has no sense.

                  A m43 sensor DOES NOT NEED a lens that renders an oversized image.

                  My Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens, is on my GH1, LIKE a 100mm f1.4 full frame. If you take a shot with a 50mm f1.4 lens in a full frame camera and crop the size of the m43 sensor, you have the same result.

                  As you can see. The f number does not change in this example. My sensor does not care if there is more light than needed. A native 50mm f1.4 will perform very similar. My GH1 just ignores the extra light that falls outside the sensor area.

                  When I put that FD lens on my camera; that lens isn’t like a f0.7 lens just because it has more light than a native m43 50mm f1.4 lens.

                  A FF camera needs more light, that’s why you should not change the f number when comparing. At the same shutter speed and ISO value, a FF camera will output a darker image at f5.6 than a m43 camera at f2.8

                  A 12-35mm f2.8 m43 lens is 24-70 f2.8 equiv in FF.

                  • Martin

                    > A m43 sensor DOES NOT NEED a lens that renders an oversized image.

                    I beg your pardon? Is it an argument? Supporting what?

                    > My Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens, is on my GH1, LIKE a 100mm f1.4 full frame.

                    No, it acts like a 100mm f2.8 on FF.

                    > If you take a shot with a 50mm f1.4 lens in a full frame camera and crop the size of the m43 sensor, you have the same result.

                    Yes, you obtain the same result as if you put a 50mm f1.4 lens on a FT camera, which is comparable to an UNCROPPED FF image with a 100mm f2.8 lens. What was your conclusion?

                    > As you can see. The f number does not change in this example.

                    I have never said anything like that…

                    > When I put that FD lens on my camera; that lens isn’t like a f0.7 lens just because it has more light than a native m43 50mm f1.4 lens.

                    I have never said anything like that…

                    > My GH1 just ignores the extra light that falls outside the sensor area.

                    And that’s EXACTLY why the FT system as a whole behaves like a FF system with a 100mm f2.8 lens attached.

                    > A FF camera needs more light,..

                    … to do what? To collect ‘the same amount of light per cm^2’? Do you understand that a square cm of an image on the FF sensor is NOT comparable to a square cm of the FT sensor (with a lens of the same AOV attached) when comparing the projected parts of the images? Probably not…

                    > comparing. At the same shutter speed and ISO value, a FF camera will output a darker image at f5.6 than a m43 camera at f2.8

                    Correct, it is darker, BUT the ‘number of collected photones’ is the same. And so is the shot (photone) noise and depth of field. Simply the two images are perfectly comparable, once you display them at the same size!

                    > A 12-35mm f2.8 m43 lens is 24-70 f2.8 equiv in FF.

                    No, it is not. Neither in terms of DOF, nor for light gathering ability. The only thing comparable is your ‘amount of light per cm^2’, aka brightness. Which is NOT a very useful quantity to compare 2 different formats, as I’ve shown above..
                    It’s time for you to take some physics classes.

                    • Vlad

                      “> A FF camera needs more light,..
                      > … to do what?”

                      To cover a bigger sensor obviously.

                      “> comparing. At the same shutter speed and ISO value, a FF camera will output a darker image at f5.6 than a m43 camera at f2.8
                      > Correct, it is darker, BUT the ‘number of collected photones’ is the same. And so is the shot (photone) noise and depth of field. Simply the two images are perfectly comparable, once you display them at the same size!”

                      How are they comparable then, if the FF one is underexposed (or the m43 overexposed, take it as you wish)?

                      “> A 12-35mm f2.8 m43 lens is 24-70 f2.8 equiv in FF.
                      > No, it is not. Neither in terms of DOF, nor for light gathering ability. ”

                      In terms of exposure, it is equivalent. That is the whole point of the F-ratio.

                    • Martin

                      @Vlad
                      > To cover a bigger sensor obviously

                      .. which is a typical vague argument of the “f/2.8=f/2.8!!!” crowd.

                      > How are they comparable then, if the FF one is underexposed (or the m43 overexposed, take it as you wish)?

                      Okay, one more special go for you: They are comparable in the field of view, depth of field, shutter time and shot noise, i.e. the most important image characteristics..
                      And how do YOU exactly define ‘underexposed’ and ‘overexposed’?

                      > In terms of exposure, it is equivalent. That is the whole point of the F-ratio.

                      I see. And how exactly is exposure important for you when comparing the outputs of two different formats? “Never mind that the images aren’t comparable in terms of DOF and noise.. They have the same exposure – that’s what counts! Because exposure is the Holy Grail of photography, right?”

    • io

      You’re wrong.

      The f number is the RATIO of the lens’s focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.

      If you scale up the focal length, the RATIO DOES NOT CHANGE. It’s still a f2.8 lens.

    • Anonymous

      frosti7, you should at the very least describe it as a “very fast/bright 24-70\5.6”. How fast/bright I hear you ask? Interestingly enough, it’s about as fast/bright as an f2.8 lens (on a MFT sensor).

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

      So a 25mm MZD is not not the equivalent of a Leica 50mm? Or the equivalent of a Zenzanon 100mm.
      No frosti7 the 12-35mm is 2.8. Like it or lump it, it is the M43 equivalent of a 24-70mm 2.8 on a 135, and just to confuse you, is the same as 18-42.5 2.8 on APSC.

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/bbking/ bbking

    Oh lordy, the DOF debate again!!

    BTW, does anyone know what you have to do on a 4/3 camera to get equilavent (to FF) FoV AND DoF?

    I’m sure noone has mentioned it yet. It kind of has, but not directly.

    And I’ve brought it up before here: http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-12-35mm-f2-8-now-available-at-preorder-at-amazon/#comments but it seems people have ignored it…

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

      They are ignoring it because you got all the details wrong.
      You were mixing 100mm lens on a 135 with a 50mm on m43.
      The reference you were attempting to address was the use of a single lens on multiple formats.
      The calculator that you were using also works only for native lenses not cross format use. It shows the difference in DOF only with respect to correct lenses being used.
      When using the calculator for cross format use, enter the lens focal length x the format multiplier. However the COC is correct as that is common to the sensor/print size not the lens, though when taken into account with DOF can change visual perception, depending on the display format and size.

      • http://www.43rumors.com/members/bbking/ bbking

        The details I gave were fine.

        Ok, sure. You have two bodies sitting on a tripod at even level, one an OM 35mm film and the other a 4/3 and one 50mm 1.8f OM lens.

        Take a shot on the 35mm film at 1.8f and then put that lens onto the 4/3 body (with the appropriate adapter) and it will be exactly the same shot as the 35mm film, but cropped.

        But that’s exactly the point of EQUIVALENCE! To have the same angle of view, the subject will have to be twice as far away with the 4/3 body (if using the same legacy lens on each body) thus changing the DoF. OR put a 100mm OM lens on the OM body and a 50mm lens on the 4/3 and there you have it, same angle of view.

        I never said that if you put a lens on a different sensor you magically change the DoF but for equivalent AoV, you either need to move the subject or use a different focal length.

        I wasn’t trying to prove exactly and precisely that DoF changes with the same lens, but that mathematically the sensor size changes things for equivalent AoV.

        BTW, I have put a 50mm OM lens on my E-P2 and it has the same (well, very similar) AoV as my 50mm Macro 4/3 lens. Even when you put a 50mm OM lens on a 4/3 body, THAT AoV is the same as a 100mm OM lens on an OM body.

        Please explain how I’m wrong? It’s only about equivalence. I’m not changing things.

        I have also said before that I think the whole equivalence thing is a bit annoying. No two lenses will be the same. It’s pointless saying “This m4/3 75mm is equivalent to this 150mm FF lens, AND IS CHEAPER!”. I think that’s stupid. It’s only an equivalent AoV.

        • dzv

          Your question is “what you have to do on a 4/3 camera to get equilavent (to FF) FoV AND DoF?”

          I think you pretty much answered your question already. You’ve pointed out that to get the same FoV, you need to move further away. That increases the DoF. So if you want to get the same DoF for that FoV, you’ll need a larger aperture. If you’re already at max aperture, then there’s just no way to get the same DoF with the same FoV.

          Is that what you were asking?

          • http://www.43rumors.com/members/bbking/ bbking

            I’m not asking any questions at all. I’ve been told that when I said, to have equivalent DoF you need to double the aperture, that I’m wrong or got the numbers mixed up.

            I’m explaining that I’m right.

            NB: The following numbers relate to AoF!!

            1.8f = 1.8f for equivalent exposure. (Regardless of lens or sensor size.)

            1.8f = 3.6f for equivalent DoF.

            And 50mm = 100mm for equivalent focal length.

            That’s all I’ve ever said. But people have told me I’m wrong.

        • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

          From your earlier post. “If you put a 50mm legacy lens on a 4/3 (assuming it’s for 35mm film) it’s still a focal length of 50mm for 4/3 (but 100mm for FF). But it will also be cropped due to the size of the sensor”

          Having read your comment here, which I totally agree with, I assume the earlier comment was a typo. ‘looks like 100mm for 135 equivalence’ is what you meant in the brackets as its still a 135 50mm lens under discussion.

          We both think along the same lines.

          • http://www.43rumors.com/members/bbking/ bbking

            Well, that’s what equivalent means, right? I thought that was a given. That’s what the whole topic and debate is all about.

            Maybe that word should be changed to “RFOV” or “RAOV” (relative angle of view) because I think some people take “equivalent” as “the same as”, which it doesn’t.

            Also, @Alan had said:
            “A 50mm f2.8 has the same DOF on a large format, medium 35mm full frame, APC crop 35mm, m43rds and a 2/3rds inch broadcast video camera.”
            Which is true and maybe I got a little caught up in this first statement because he does go on to say that the field of view changes but after I gave some numbers he then said:
            At the same is distance a 50mm f2.8 is the DOF on all the cameras. You example has you moving the camera to compensate for the angle of view.
            The example I gave had exactly the same RAOF and subject distance. That’s what got me thinking I was more right than him.

            Apologies!! :)

            Do you ever do that with your partner? Arguing about the same thing? 😛

            • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

              My father and I would often spend all night arguing a point, my mother commented that we swapped sides several times during these sessions.
              But it was good fun.
              Hope you have a good day.

              • http://www.43rumors.com/members/bbking/ bbking

                Ha!

                It’s just that I got the impression that @Alan was saying the lens is the same (RAOV) no matter what size sensor it’s on.

                All I was trying to point out was that the mathematics (and RAOV) still apply, even when you swap sensor size with the same lens.

                But as we’ve established, every sensor, firmware/software and lens is different. :)

  • Chlau

    MFTs are not here to replace FF and MF cameras, nor are they miraculous devices that can break the light barrier. They’re cameras that pioneer technologies that push the limits of what is possible in small packages. Hence a miniature constant aperture zoom.

    Enthusiasts get too worked up and forget the raisin d’être of the system. Panasonic dropped the constant f2.0 reducing that to f2.8 to keep the lens SMALL. That’s the technological limit for these things.

    So for folks who demand only the very best razor thin DOF in a super small package, your best bet may be raiding Area 51 for alientech.

    • cybervand

      thank you sir!!!! +1000000

  • physica

    Is DoF really a dis-advantage ? IMO , 4/3 had it advantage for it’s wider DoF……especially for some case need to take a photo in a Larger Aperture but want a wider DoF…..

    DOF means everything? Maybe it is ? but not for me………. I’m considering 4/3 for it’s wider DoF……for Portrait and need a shallow DOF…. I will bring back my DSLR…..

  • Jedd

    For 75mm, which is a stage lens, greater DoF is actually a bonus.

  • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

    Most argument on DOF is from APSC users who seem to quote 135 DOF figures.
    The sales of 135 sensor cameras are low. The sale of APSC lenses is the highest of any category of glass, these can only be used on their native APSC cameras if they are AF lenses.

    This shows that either the DOF APSC writers are more blustery, contrary and argumentative than me, or they are away with the fairies because the difference between APSC and M43 is not so big and they use the 135 reference point that does not apply to them. The former is highly unlikely and the latter is possibly, probably correct. (that’s not a double negative = positive. It’s ?+?=?)

    Also the http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html is fine if native lenses are being used. It will not work for cross sensor use of a lens unless the sensor multiplier is used as the focal length.

    In reality I think most M43 users here are not really interested in razor DOF and those that are, have discovered the voigtlander and the use of legacy lenses with MF depending on ones budget. Getting to use the camera in poor light is far more important.

  • Gabriel

    I don’t know about you but I prefer 12-35mm “F5.6” to my 14-140 “F8-11.2”.

    /s

  • Stupig

    Don’t waste time on equivalence – 4/3 was devised to trash that, because it is full frame! LOL

  • chris

    FULL FRAME … dumbest phrase EVAR. FourThirds *is* FULL-FRAME FOUR THIRDS.

    What this guy really meant to say is “… depth of field similar to f/5.6 on 36x24mm sensors (135 format)!”

    In which case … duh. And guess what, 35mm DOF is nowhere near as shallow as DOF on medium format cameras. So is 35mm a ripoff since medium format has even shallower DOF?

    Seriously.

  • Mike

    Why is there so much disgust about talking about f values as they relate to DOF in comparison with 35mm FF?

    Its just another piece of information that helps inform buying decisions and while experienced people might already know that if FOV is going to remain constant you need to scale the DOF eqivilance to FF in proportion to the sensor size – many people don’t know that.

    I’ve been following m43 for nearly 2 years, my girlfriend has a epl1 but I’ve held off buying a body myself and am now thinking I might get a FF camera if these rumored budget FF cameras actually appear. For a long time I thought that a f1.8 45mm would give me the same dreamy bokeh that you can get on a f.18 90mm on FF (with the same fov). Stupid me.

    • io

      Yes, you can say that a f2.8 m43 lens is like a f5.6 lens in FF IN TERMS OF BOKEH. But, f number, is not a bokeh measure.

      You complain yourself because you didn’t know the truth about bokeh, f-numbers and sensor sizes. But saying that the 12-35 f2.8 is like a 24-70 f5.6 is still wrong, because the f-number is a RATIO and cannot be scaled up.

      If you have a 40″ TV with a 16:9 aspect ratio, and you upgrade it to a 60″ TV, aspect ratio will be still the same (16:9) even if the display is 50% larger.

      What makes bokeh smaller in m43 against FF is SENSOR SIZE, not lens f number.

      • Martin

        @io Bokeh has NOTHING to do with this.
        FYI, bokeh ‘represents’ the QUALITY of out-of-focus areas. When you want to compare the bokeh of two different formats, you should do that for the same DOF.

        > What makes bokeh smaller in m43 against FF is SENSOR SIZE, not lens f number.

        SMALLER bokeh??? It has approximately the same meaning as ‘shorter beauty’. Get your shit straight please…

        • io

          Ok, you’re right. Wrong use of that word. But the argument remains valid, just change bokeh with DOF.

          • Martin

            When you want to compare different systems, you must compare them as wholes, not lenses separately and then sensors separately.
            When you want to compare image output of different systems, you should do that PROPERLY, i.e. for the same field of view and the same depth of field.
            Your only valid argument is that an f-number is just a ratio. The same f-ration doesn’t make different formats comparable, however. Or you really mean to compare a P&S with a f/2.8 lens and a FF camera with a f/2.8 lens? What would be such a comparison supposed to tell us?

            • io

              “Or you really mean to compare a P&S with a f/2.8 lens and a FF camera with a f/2.8 lens? What would be such a comparison supposed to tell us?”

              http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

            • ssgreenley

              @Martin, I don’t think your argument makes sense. If an EM5 has less noise than my EPL2, does my f1.8 lens change aperture when I put int on a diffrent body? No, of course not, that would be stupid, because the aperture is related to he lens and the noise level is related to the camera. See what I did there? Yeah.

            • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

              People do not always want to think in a single system. Many here see camera bodies and lenses as different items that can be swapped as required. You may have noted that mount adapters are very big business, and manufacturers also support cross sensor usage, Voigtlander and Fuji being just 2, in addition Olympus and Sony make adapters to use legacy lenses on different bodies to the ones they were made for.

              Also it is notable that when people start to talk ‘system’ ‘bigger is better’ and ‘DSLR is the only valid camera’ they refer to 135 data and apply it to all DSLRs even though there are few 135 DSLRs in the world compared to APSC DSLRs.

              You seem to get your lens properties confused with your sensor properties. They are different, however they may work in unison or they may work in conflict. That depends on the choice of camera and choice of lens being used.

              • Martin

                > People do not always want to think in a single system. Many here see camera bodies and lenses as different items that can be swapped as required.

                Of course. But once you “swap”, you’ll get a totaly different result with the same exposure. Not just in terms of field of view, but also DOF and shot noise.

                > Also it is notable that when people start to talk ‘system’ ‘bigger is better’ and ‘DSLR is the only valid camera’

                Such comments are very rarely seen here, so no need to exaggerate. There are actually much more complaints like yours…

                > they refer to 135 data and apply it to all DSLRs even though there are few 135 DSLRs in the world compared to APSC DSLRs.

                Btw, the very same principle applies to APSC DSLRs (in case you didn’t know).

                > You seem to get your lens properties confused with your sensor properties.

                Not at all. I just happen to see things in a broader context, not just in separate-items manner.

                > They are different, however they may work in unison or they may work in conflict. That depends on the choice of camera and choice of lens being used.

                … which is a completely empty prattle. So were is the confusion?

                • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

                  I think you should read what you have just posted. You have taken some parts of statement and then said nothing in return.
                  I mentioned lens and sensor properties. your reply
                  “Not at all. I just happen to see things in a broader context, not just in separate-items manner.”
                  They are separate in an interchangeable lens camera.
                  And as for
                  “which is a completely empty prattle. So were is the confusion?”
                  Read it again, apply a ‘broader context’, now as an example, refer to Leica M8 and problems with some lenses. Also 135 data is not valid for APSC in the same way that APSC data is not valid for m43, go read the charts. So it is not empty prattle, as your response is now proven to be.

      • Mike

        >What makes bokeh smaller in m43 against FF is SENSOR SIZE, not lens f number.

        There needs to be a measure of DOF capability. All other things being equal, you can get shallower DOF with a smaller F number.

        As someone who is/was considering m43, I know that I do a lot of shooting in good light so I’m not too bothered about having a low f number just to get light onto the sensor. I have plenty of light at f5 most of the time.

        I’m interested in the DOF that the f number, focal length and sensor size create (and I appreciate that bokeh is a question of quality so sorry for my misuse of the term).

        Its really just that full frame is a well recognised standard. All the talk of crop factors and equivalence is invariably done towards FF cameras. This is an arbitrary choice I guess, but it pays to have an standard to compare different systems and the lenses on different systems.

        Am I wrong in thinking that the best way to get the “look” of a FF camera with 50mm 1.8 lens is to buy the 0.95 25mm m43 lens? I understand that 0.95 is letter more light in, but the two lenses are capable of producing pretty similar shots right?

        I guess my point is – what is a meaningful way of talking about DOP capabilities of lenses on the m43 system that also allows comparison to other mirrorless formats, apsc, ff etc. It seems to me that one standard needs to be decided on, and then all the other formats can be spoken of in relation to that.

        • ssgreenley

          This is what it comes down to; some people think of aperture for exposure and others for DOF; we’ll have to agree to disagree as to which matters more. I f you really are thinking about buying into m4/3, and if you’re looking for shallow DOF, there are better formats. I love my EPL2, but it’s got terrible autofocus tracking; if I decide to get serious about wildlife photography, I’d almost certainly buy a DSLR. Similarly, if you’re primarily interested in getting the slimmest DOF possible, you have to know this format isn’t for you.

          • elflord

            I think what irks a lot of people is the misleading claim of “equivalence” is that it is used to make very misleading claims about the merits or demerits of the product in question. The 12-35mm f/2.8 lens is not really “equivalent” to an 24mm-70mm f/2.8 lens because it doesn’t have the same depth of field. One can say “I don’t care for depth of field”, but that doesn’t make the issue go away — regardless of how much one might insist that the two lenses (24mm-70mm f/2.8 and 12-35mm f/2.8) are the same, they aren’t.

            However, those who insist that the lens is “overpriced” because it is “equivalent to 24mm-70mm f/5.6”, and therefore “too expensive” are missing the point. The extra depth of field is a limitation of the format, it by no means implies that the lens is inferior. One can get shallow dof in m43 by using longer or faster glass (either primes or the upcoming 35mm-100mm zoom) but that’s not really what this lens is for.

            Most complaints about pricing come from those who simply don’t understand the underlying economics. Newer products generally cost more (see the Canon 24-70mm Mk II for example)

            Of course from the narrow perspective of obtaining the shallowest dof at the lowest price, m43 is not the optimal system, but I don’t see anyone claiming that it is.

          • elflord

            I don’t understand why my comment is “awaiting moderation” after 4 hours, let me try again:

            I think what irks a lot of people is the misleading claim of “equivalence” is that it is used to make very misleading claims about the merits or demerits of the product in question. The 12-35mm f/2.8 lens is not really “equivalent” to an 24mm-70mm f/2.8 lens because it doesn’t have the same depth of field. One can say “I don’t care for depth of field”, but that doesn’t make the issue go away — regardless of how much one might insist that the two lenses (24mm-70mm f/2.8 and 12-35mm f/2.8) are the same, they aren’t.

            However, those who insist that the lens is “overpriced” because it is “equivalent to 24mm-70mm f/5.6″, and therefore “too expensive” are missing the point. The extra depth of field is a limitation of the format, it by no means implies that the lens is inferior. One can get shallow dof in m43 by using longer or faster glass (either primes or the upcoming 35mm-100mm zoom) but that’s not really what this lens is for.

            Most complaints about pricing come from those who simply don’t understand the underlying economics. Newer products generally cost more (see the Canon 24-70mm Mk II for example)

            Of course from the narrow perspective of obtaining the shallowest dof at the lowest price, m43 is not the optimal system, but I don’t see anyone claiming that it is.

            • Martin

              > However, those who insist that the lens is “overpriced” because it is “equivalent to 24mm-70mm f/5.6″, and therefore “too expensive” are missing the point.

              Yes, the price is a much more complex question. But by no means should be the price of the 12-35 f/2.8 compared to an up-to-date 24mm-70mm f/2.8.

              > The extra depth of field is a limitation of the format, it by no means implies that the lens is inferior.

              The extra depth of field PLUS more noise and less postprocessing latitude.

              > Newer products generally cost more (see the Canon 24-70mm Mk II for example)

              Yes, that’s true. It just seems to me that DSLRs (APS-C ones in particular) and their accessories constitute nowadays simply better value than mirrorless cameras (as for the image quality). IMO it’s a tax both for the ‘newness’, less competition, and the much better portability of the mFT system. I myself will wait for lower prices before buying new equipment.

  • http://www.brautrausch.de Dirk

    When I go out earning money with my crappy FT and mFT gear, no one ever asked me about the photons I was collecting. 😉
    Poor souls out there who care about that.

  • http://www.brautrausch.de Dirk

    When I go out earning money with my crappy FT and mFT gear, no one ever asked me about the photons I was collecting. 😉
    Poor souls out there who care about that.

    Dirk

  • Coby

    Part of what is so annoying about the equivalence-twerps is that they seem chronically unable to explain their point clearly.

    So allow me to try: “An f2.8 M4/3 lens has the light transmission per unit area of sensor of a FF f2.8, and the DOF of a FF f5.6. However, the M4/3 sensor has more noise, so to match a M4/3 camera at ISO200 you can crank the FF up to ISO800. This gives the FF a two stop advantage in shutter speed as well as DOF at f2.8.”

    My question is – is this really so? For equivalent-price camera bodies, is ISO200 M4/3 noise equivalent to ISO800 FF noise?

    • Martin

      > Part of what is so annoying about the equivalence-twerps is that they seem chronically unable to explain their point clearly.

      Or, more probably, you are unable to comprehend simple fatcs, Mr. Wise.

      • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

        Were you addressing this to Mr. Morcambe, or Mr. Wise?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFgdhZGLJrY
        and the unbeatable
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mDTn-QvO9I

      • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

        Why awaiting moderation??

        • admin

          Because if you have more than two links It automatically puts it on hold. It’s a spam protection!

          • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

            Ok , Now I know the rules.
            Thank you.
            Do you ever sleep, or are you laughing to much at the comments all the time?

            Did you look at the links? you should.

    • fh

      It shouldn’t, but that’s how some people try to spin it by saying that FF captures 4x more light, and that the total amount of light is the single most important factor, hence two-stop gain in ISO.

      But historically, noise is a function of the sensor technology and pixel density, not the total sensor size and certainly not the lens characteristics. Try comparing a FF body with an APS-C body (from the same system, same lens). Which one has more noise? Well, who knows; are we comparing (for instance) a 5DM3 to a 60D, or a 5DM1 to a 7D? Optical performance is the same, and noise depends on the properties of the sensor. So why would a FF-MFT comparison suddenly be any different?

      Keep in mind, with enough variables, you can alter the analysis to fit whatever conclusion you want. Compare the 5DM3 with the D800, both FF. Reviewers have praised the 5DM3 for its superior per-pixel noise performance. The D800 understandably has worse, because of the 36mp count. But Nikonians will cry foul because you’re comparing performance at 1:1 (100%), instead of looking at the whole frame. So you can downsample the 36mp image to 20mp (to match the 5DM3), and suddenly the noise performance of the D800 improves significantly. But then where’s the 36mp resolution advantage gone? (See how easy it is to put a spin on anything?)

      In the 5DM3 vs D800 debate, neither one is outright superior. With the D800, you get crop flexibility normally found on medium format, at the cost of some per-pixel noise performance. With the 5DM3, you get the opposite. Which is more important to you? The same goes for FF vs MFT, when it comes to DOF and system size, and to some extent noise performance. Spin it however you want; at the end of the day, just go out and take some great photos.

      • fan_guo_lai_xiang_xiang

        Thank you for these pieces of gold.

      • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

        Great comments.

    • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

      Coby. Noise varies from camera to camera and no one brand/camera has the market on it. As electronics improve the noise levels go down. As ISO goes up in a camera the sensor sensitivity is changed by the electronics to enable an image to be formed by lower than normal light. This sensitivity change leads to noise increasing and the subsequent suppression by firmware to hide/minimise/mask the output effect. This is a factor of the sensor and firmware and why a sensor made by Sony (for example) can have different results for noise when used in different cameras. The other manufacturers may have differing ways of suppressing noise using the same sensor. The noise factor is not tied to a sensor size though, it may be determined by other factors as noted above and the design/cost/acceptability factor, true the smaller the sensor the more difficult to remove noise, or the more innovative the solution.
      If, as you suggest you crank up the ISO then you can open the lens more for a given shutter speed enabling shallower DOF but maybe higher noise. But don’t assume that it has to be done on a m43 any more than any other camera. You need to look at each option you have and then trade off one thing for another. For example to some DOF is what a fast lens is all about, to others it is about getting more light into the camera, and as you noted, used with ISO, maybe a bit of both.

      Don’t forget most figures given/quoted by people are for 135 cameras, but 135 cameras are not common, the APSC format is not the same as 135 though it is talked about as if it was.

      • Martin

        > This sensitivity change leads to noise increasing and the subsequent suppression by firmware to hide/minimise/mask the output effect.

        Alright. What you talk about here is so-called read noise – one of thetwo main noise sources present in digital photography.

        > The noise factor is not tied to a sensor size though,..

        And here you are utterly and completely wrong. Ever heard of shot noise? (Probably not, otherwise you would not say that). Shot noise is an inherent property of a projected image, which is caused by the ‘particle’ nature of photons. The shot noise depends on the amplitude of the (total) sensed signal, in other words on the total luminous flux incident on the active sensor area. For the same brightness of the projected image (i.e for the same exposure), the signal amplitude of a FF sensor is four times (approx.) greater than that of a FT sensor. This also means that its signal-to-noise ratio is about twice greater (as for the shot noise)!
        Let me repeat it for the ‘same-light-gathering-ability’ crowd: For the same exposure, signal-to-noise ratio is INHERENTLY better in case of a bigger format with comparable sensor technology, REGARDLESS of ISO.

        • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

          Go and read what I said again. I said
          “The noise factor is not tied to a sensor size though,..”
          I also said
          “it may be determined by other factors as noted above and the design/cost/acceptability factor, true the smaller the sensor the more difficult to remove noise”
          In case you have been locked away somewhere you will have noticed that many sensors have been poor with noise. This includes 135 and APSC. With some it is design of the sensor and the associated circuitry, with others it is the implementation of the noise reduction/suppression in firmware. This applies to the pictures derived from all sensors. It is not a m43 thing.
          Why do you think people come to sites like this to see the details on equipment if according to you it is all the same, but some are cut down more than others.
          To wit,
          “For the same brightness of the projected image (i.e for the same exposure), the signal amplitude of a FF sensor is four times (approx.) greater than that of a FT sensor”.

          Yes, If the same sensor and associated hardware and firmware is used.

          “signal-to-noise ratio is INHERENTLY better in case of a bigger format with comparable sensor technology”.
          You just said the same thing over again. Of course, if it is all the same, then, it is size that matters.
          Again, its not all the same. The same sensor is often used by several manufactures, they do not all get the same results, some may be very close but they are different. If that difference is just in manufacturing then that means the variation will be seen camera to camera, it is not,
          Now what are your comparable technology criteria?
          The way you are arguing they must be same sensor production, same driving electronics, (same board even) same firmware.

          Yes Martin, we have all seen noisy cameras irrespective of their sensor size. So as I stated
          It is not tied to sensor size. Its what you do with the sensor that counts. Design/cost/acceptability factor is inescapable.
          However having said that there is always the possibility that whatever is done to small sensors to improve them may also be applied to large sensors if they are of similar concept.
          But like many here I am just not interested, as the m43 size fits my needs along with my 6×7 I don’t need a big weight in a digital as well.

          • Martin

            Jim, you talk a lot, but your speech is generally short of logical arguments – I am sorry, but I see it as an excercise in rhetoric without a deeper knowledge of what is being discussed. (And I am not even going to bother with answering your other reply to me above, as it’s nothing but an empty drivel..)

            >… many sensors have been poor with noise. This includes 135 and APSC. With some it is design of the sensor and the associated circuitry, with others it is the implementation of the noise reduction/suppression in firmware. This applies to the pictures derived from all sensors. It is not a m43 thing.

            So, briefly said, various sensors differ both in design and in the used technology, which results in different quantum efficiency and read noise. So far so good.
            However, that’s just one part of the noise performance of a camera system. But then there is another noise source (that you evidently choose to ignore, so I must repeat it), which I would call ‘primary’, as it’s not dependent on the used technology, and it’s INHERENTLY present in the projected image. It is called SHOT NOISE and it provably depends on the sensor area – the bigger area, the better signal-to-noise ratio – it’s that simple.
            What I’ve just written, disproves your thesis that “The noise factor is not tied to a sensor size though…”, which is provably wrong at all events.

            > Again, its not all the same. The same sensor is often used by several manufactures, they do not all get the same results, some may be very close but they are different.

            But I don’t dispute this! I just say that the resultant SNR ratio is SIGNIFICANTLY influenced by the sensor size (which you refuse).

            > The way you are arguing they must be same sensor production, same driving electronics, (same board even) same firmware.

            I admit it IS simplifying, but to assume similar technology level in case of sensors of the same generation is NOT totally unreasonable. In most cases the quantum efficiency as well as the read noise are at least roughly comparable (again, for same generation sensors). Which is still better to say than your “It’s not the same.. Hence, you cannot suppose anything”.
            The sensor design and technolgy is just one (albeit important) factor of the resultant SNR ratio. Another two (no less important!) ones are the lens aperture AND THE SENSOR SIZE. Period.
            BTW, if you want to do away with the dependence on the sensor size when comparing two different systems, you can always use equivalent settings. For example a FF camera + 50mm f/2.8 lens and and FT + 25mm f/1.4 lens, using the same shutter speed. By doing that, you can easily reveal the differences in the sensor technology (provided the two lenses are similarly good at their respective f-numbers).

            • Martin

              Just to clarify one thing. I said “SHOT NOISE… provably depends on the sensor area – the bigger area, the better signal-to-noise ratio”… I mean…for the same illumination (a.k.a. image brightness), i.e. (also) for the same exposure.

              • http://www.43rumors.com/members/jimd/ JimD

                My original statement said
                “The noise factor is not tied to a sensor size though, it may be determined by other factors as noted above and the design/cost/acceptability factor, true the smaller the sensor the more difficult to remove noise”
                Then after your tirade, I wrote
                “you will have noticed that many sensors have been poor with noise. This includes 135 and APSC. With some it is design of the sensor and the associated circuitry, with others it is the implementation of the noise reduction/suppression in firmware. This applies to the pictures derived from all sensors. It is not a m43 thing.”
                I am saying that the noise seen in an image is not dependant on sensor size, there are many other things to consider. You seem to be one eyed on Shot noise for some strange reason. I said noise, just noise, that’s what most people who come here say, so that’s what I am saying. Now tell me again these statements are wrong.
                I repeat, that noise may be found in all size sensors it is not just in m43 sensors (not just the domain of m43 I said originally). How it is handled is a design/cost/acceptability factor.
                I also wrote “Of course, if it is all the same, then, it is size that matters”. referring to sensors of the same design components being the same and no manufacturing out of tolerance.
                But they are not all the same as you now seem to be adding to your tirades.
                Try reading it from the start and leave Mr Schottky out of it

  • Pete

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close