“Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 7 8 end

kewlcanon
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

I don't know who Jordan Steele is but here is his article

"How many times did we read these endless Full Frame vs Micro Four Thirds equivalence discussions? And I am sure they will come back again and again and again. But next time we may all be more prepared when discussing about it thanks to the great article posted by Jordan Steele on Admiringlight (Click here): “I’ve heard many times “Yeah, your 75mm f/1.8 is crap – it’s like a 150mm f/3.6.” No, it’s not, it’s a 75mm lens with an f/1.8 aperture and a field of view that is the same as a 150mm lens on full frame.”

http://www.43rumors.com/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter-admiringlight/

Feb 02, 2013 at 05:47 PM

Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Some good counterpoints on that link as well which provide a more balanced perspective to the article. It's all good though - whatever turns your crank... Jordan certainly puts out some great work with his system.

Edited on Feb 02, 2013 at 06:09 PM · View previous versions

Feb 02, 2013 at 06:00 PM

Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

"I don't know who Jordan Steele is but here is his article"

Lol..

JMan13 here on FM.

Otherwise, good article. Nothing new for me, but its nice that someone summed it up. Should be mandatory reading for some.

Feb 02, 2013 at 06:06 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

To be honest, both the article and the comments are misleading. Very few correct answers. Makes me wonder about the misconceptions regarding the different formats and the misinformation.

Feb 02, 2013 at 06:14 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

The article has been discussed somewhat at a micro 4/3 at a place many here doesn't care that much for. Even there errors were pointed to and several comments made about the article as being "biased" or "tendentious".

Here's what I wrote over at the DPR µ4/3 forum, were the article was presented by a user titling the topic to "Full Frame vs Micro Four Thirds equivalence: good article"

I wrote:
IMO it's a sad things all this talk about this and that which in the end is about people trying to defend or justify their gear.

Jordan is great, he is a fluent writer and I appreciate his every-now-and-then-reviews and I like discussing with him but here he has managed to make something biased and also containing some minor errors.

It's too much of fanboyism over it.

I'm sorry Jordan, but that's what I felt when done with your article.

Feb 02, 2013 at 06:26 PM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

When DSLRs were first being introduced, expensive and in crop-frame formats, "equivalence" comparison to the 24x36mm format was a useful concept --- every photographer would be intimately familiar with the ubiquitous "full frame" format, from disposable point-and-shoots to high end SLRs. These days, far fewer people "learning the ropes" with a first DSLR have much (if any) familiarity with the 24x36mm format; coming from cellphone and P&S cameras, it only adds confusion to expect people to first imagine an unfamiliar, mythical 24x36mm frame before "cropping" to common sensor formats.

I think the least confusing way to refer to lenses today would be by angular field of view (for their "native" mount) and entrance pupil diameter (instead of focal length and f-stop). A lens with equivalent numbers for these will "behave" the same regardless of format --- same image framing, depth of field, background blur, and noise limits in final image.

Feb 02, 2013 at 06:31 PM

CalW
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Michael, how does that differ from what Jordon said

Edited on Feb 02, 2013 at 06:36 PM · View previous versions

Feb 02, 2013 at 06:35 PM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

CalW wrote:
Michael, how does that differ from what Jordon said

It doesn't much. I basically agree with the premise of the article. Additionally, along with doing away with "equivalence" terms, I'm recommending a positive alternative way to describe lenses (field of view and entrance pupil) that reduces the need for confusing "equivalency" discussions.

Edited on Feb 02, 2013 at 06:38 PM · View previous versions

Feb 02, 2013 at 06:36 PM

CalW
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Ah, thanks! I think most of the discussion pro/con the term "equivalent" is pointless but in most cases could be resolved by instead using "same field of view as." And yes, entrance pupil is important, 'tho likely many don't have any idea what that is

So I suppose the simplest way to explain to a novice is as two easy-to-visualize factors: (1) Field of view (2) Depth of field. Those are what they must respond to in learning to use a new system. Teaching physics just causes eyes to glaze over...

Feb 02, 2013 at 06:37 PM

carlitos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

I figured that the "equivalence" argument was simply marketing blather to disguise the fact that the image sensor was not as large as a 35mm film frame. This was in the early days of DSLR. And it was dressed up in pseudo-physics to mislead.

A 24mm field of view & "perspective" was still the same, but the frame had been cut in half. DOF was still the same.

Motivation was to, of course, continue to sell 35mm lenses and "35mm" cameras.

Feb 02, 2013 at 07:25 PM

alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

What does he bring to the discussion?
The difference in ISO performance between the two formats u4/3 and 35 mm with current generation sensors is 1 2/3 stops, not 2 stops? So what. It is a minor deviation from 2 stops. I am very disappointed to see that used to deny the whole "total light" argument.

Then the IBIS. Yes, but there are FF cameras with stabilization, and there is in-lens stabilization in other systems.

Then I am even more disappointed to see the fallacies about "advantages" of the small sensor when long DOF is desired. Right after the "advantages" are listed, he even admits himself that they are not true.

It seems like the point of the article is "Equivalence doesn't matter because it is true" For a whole lot of applications the small system is just as good as the large. Yes of course. That is equivalence.

Feb 02, 2013 at 07:43 PM

mortyb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Feb 02, 2013 at 08:01 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Equivalence matters to anyone that wants to compare sensor sizes and systems of the same era. If it didn't matter, we would all be happy with point-and-shoot cameras if they had fast lenses.

I don't give a damn about sensor size as long as it gives me what I want. MFT does apparently not and I gave up on the system. It doesn't matter to me what Jordan or anyone else thinks is important or not important. Sensor size matters to me and the reason is easily explained with physics.

Feb 02, 2013 at 08:25 PM

Taylor Sherman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Generally I'm in agreement. I do think that "pupil size" would be a simple way for people to think about DOF. It's what I've been doing in my head when thinking about prospective lenses for a while now. It greatly simplifies trying to think about DOF.

It's info that's totally available - if the lens is a 35/1.2, the pupil size is 29mm. But that's not something that's always easy to do in your head. So it'd be great if that was just one spec that was listed at the top-level for a new lens. "This is our 19mm f/2.8 lens (pupil diameter 6.8mm)".

I also wish that I had, in my head, a good sense of things by FOV. I only vaguely know what FOV my various lens lengths provide on my camera.

Feb 02, 2013 at 08:35 PM

Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Olympus already used "FF equivalent" on lens.

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=230

Im not sure that anyone cared.

Otherwise theres only small "mistake" in article and thats that "crop" its only when its lens designed for FF used on APS-C and smaller. When its lens designed for crop, its not crop. Quite visible on photos.

If you want to prove it to yourself, get some 67 lens and use it on FF or smaller. You will see that even when you used lets say 80mm lens, it doesnt look like 80mm for FF neither it does look like 80mm for APS-C. Thats reason why I own only FF lens. And reason why I dont have m4/3 anymore.

As Makten said, size matters. Not only in sensor size, but in lens size too.

Feb 02, 2013 at 09:28 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

i am not sure... Even if they would mark lenses with angle of view and exit pupil size, we would still need the focal length and aperture to know what would happen when we adapt lenses, or?

Personally, I am fine with things the way they are, but it would be handy if every lens would additionally have the field of view marked in degrees. The current system requires some learning, but so does anything interesting.

Feb 02, 2013 at 09:34 PM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Mescalamba wrote:
If you want to prove it to yourself, get some 67 lens and use it on FF or smaller. You will see that even when you used lets say 80mm lens, it doesnt look like 80mm for FF neither it does look like 80mm for APS-C. Thats reason why I own only FF lens.

I've used several lenses designed for 645 and 6x6 coverage on FF, and they behave exactly like their focal length and apertures would imply (regardless of "native" format). There are certainly manufacturer-specific differences in coatings, design, etc., giving different rendering styles just as there are differences between FF-native lenses, but in what way are you finding an 80mm lens to not be "80mm-ish"?

Feb 02, 2013 at 09:39 PM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

carstenw wrote:
i am not sure... Even if they would mark lenses with angle of view and exit pupil size, we would still need the focal length and aperture to know what would happen when we adapt lenses, or?

Yes, you'd still have to be competent about what you are doing when adapting lenses for "off-label" uses (lenses marketed to work on multiple formats could be labeled with field of view for each). However, I think the change in terminology would clear up a lot of the confusion that new/inexperienced/non-technical photographers show about lens/sensor comparisons --- there wouldn't be all the fundamentally confused questions about "when does my 50mm lens turn into an 80mm lens?", and easier direct comparisons for what to expect in terms of DOF, low-light noise, etc.

Feb 02, 2013 at 09:46 PM

crazeazn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

majority of the people who buy m4/3rd systems dont care about equivalence

Feb 02, 2013 at 09:58 PM

JohnJ
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

mpmendenhall wrote:
I've used several lenses designed for 645 and 6x6 coverage on FF, and they behave exactly like their focal length and apertures would imply (regardless of "native" format). There are certainly manufacturer-specific differences in coatings, design, etc., giving different rendering styles just as there are differences between FF-native lenses, but in what way are you finding an 80mm lens to not be "80mm-ish"?

+1

I regularly use 80mm lenses from M645 (80/2.8 and 1.9), 6x6 (80/2.8), 35mm (80/1.4) and a host of 75-90 enlarging lenses (typically for medium format) and aside from rendering differences (due to optical designs, aperture etc) I see no dramatic or 'big-picture' differences that you could attribute to the lens being designed for another format. So I too would like to know what I'm missing here.

Feb 02, 2013 at 10:00 PM

1 2 3 … 7 8 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 7 8 end