Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #19 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter |
You are still measuring an error which you imagine is an important advantage for the larger format, but this is only actually the case in very narrow circumstances, for example if you equalise everything from a noise perspective and ignore the image effects which come from that. If you shoot for equivalent depth of field, then they come out even in the noise comparison, since the MFT camera can gather two stops more light at equivalent depth of field.
Since the connection between noise levels and image results is much more indirect and variable than the effects of depth of field, I consider it to be primarily a theoretical concern. There are very few cameras today which cannot deliver excellent results in most situations. Depth of field is a primary concern, given that it changes how the image looks directly. And thus you see that what for you is a primary concern is nothing more than a few numbers on a piece of paper for me. This is all about opinion, not facts.
Anyway, the 1 2/3 stops is also imaginary, and doesn't apply to any actual cameras with very few exceptions. If you have an interest in specific cameras, the numbers are probably quite different. The noise comparison between the OM-D and the 5DII, to take two very popular cameras in this forum, representing MFT and FF, is nowhere near 1 2/3 stops, and is probably less than 1 stop, with the OM-D being better in some aspects, probably including low-ISO noise floor.
This discussion can go on forever, but two things are clear: if you are concerned primarily about theoretical aspects of performance, or if you are primarily concerned with narrow depth of field, buy the largest sensor you can afford. For all other concerns, the larger sensor camera may not be the best for your needs.
FWIW, I own FF and MFT and am happy with both for their use.