“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 … 6 7 8 end

alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Jman13 wrote:
Come on...you don't think it's MORE confusing to have people think of entrance pupils and the image circle than simply knowing that f/1.8 = f/1.8 regardless of lens, and that exposure is the same? You have to know that 'passes the same amount of light' in this instance is referring to light/area. If not, you're being intentionally obtuse. Plus, even though the image circle is larger and technically more light is gathered by a full frame 85/1.8 vs m4/3 75/1.8, the amount being captured by the image sensor is the same if both lenses are used on the same camera. Start going into the weeds with your suggestion and the audience will be completely lost. I probably should have chosen the Sony 135/1.8, and I might go back and change that to make it consistent, but come one...

Earlier in the article I already explain that a larger format captures more total light for the same exposure. There is no need to go deeper in depth. I'm not writing this as a technical article for publication in a physics journal. I'm writing an article to help newer photographers somewhat understand how their lenses work.

I would think it would be VERY important for the target audience that you included "per area" right here.

Sorry for being so persistent about this, but using your logic about accepting more noise since you chose a smaller system, I can equally rightfully say things like:

"The 70-200 f/4 lens is equivalent to the 70-200 f/2.8 lens, except DOF, when both are used on a FF camera. They are equivalent in shutter speed. Yes, I know I would have to raise the ISO and accept more noise with the F/4 lens, but I have already accepted more noise when i chose to carry a smaller lens."

Feb 04, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Guari
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #2 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Feb 04, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #3 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

alundeb wrote:
Sorry for being so persistent about this, but using your logic about accepting more noise since you chose a smaller system, I can equally rightfully say things like:

"The 70-200 f/4 lens is equivalent to the 70-200 f/2.8 lens, except DOF, when both are used on a FF camera. They are equivalent in shutter speed. Yes, I know I would have to raise the ISO and accept more noise with the F/4 lens, but I have already accepted more noise when i chose to carry a smaller lens."

You are missing the whole point. If I've chosen a camera system to shoot, that's the camera I have. I can't magically transform it into a full frame camera. I can't. The noise and DOF characteristics of lenses on that system all have to apply to that system. Arguing about how much light a COMPLETELY different system gathers at the same aperture is totally irrelevant to discussing what is going on with the lenses I use on my camera. This is what I find infuriating about this whole thing. Do you care how much a light 4x5 view camera captures with a 180mm lens at f/4 when you're shooting with a full frame DSLR? Just the same, I don't care about the characteristics of a lens on full frame if I'm shooting APS-C or m4/3...it's a pointless discussion...I can't change my sensor into a full frame sensor when I want..

Your example is not the same. BUT it is of course a valid viewpoint, and many, many photographers choose that...but other photographers don't routinely berate their f/4 for not being an f/2.8...but trust me, it happens a LOT with FF photographers to 4/3 photographers.

Feb 04, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #4 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Guys, honestly this semantic stuff just doesn't matter to the neophyte, a camera is just a tool and with all the automation today, you can go slowly or "revisit later" when it comes to the technical stuff.

When my friends want me to teach them photography, I teach them more about subject matter (what they are shooting) than the technical or the theoretical. Like when someone once asked me to show her how to do environmental portraiture, I honestly just showed her how to select 'portrait' from the mode dial because I needed to get on to the more important stuff like not standing too close to people, how to make people feel at ease, watching the position of the sun and the background, what makes 'good' light vs. 'bad' light, and being able to look around a place and spot the areas with 'good' light.

If you are interested in teaching photography, or helping neophytes with photography, the semantics are really the last thing you should be concerned with.

Feb 04, 2013 at 12:53 PM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #5 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

I am a fan of MF b&w film!

carstenw wrote:
I am not a fan of the rendering with that Hasselblad lens, but there are others which are brilliant. I have the CF version of the same lens you have, and will attempt something like this at some point to see if it might be better, although I doubt it. My Hasselblad happens to be an F model, so I might have to pick up a 110/2 again...

Feb 04, 2013 at 02:07 PM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #6 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

I've gotten a few new photographers into the m43 system. For them I just talk in terms of the native FL and not effective FL's. Getting into it from scratch, I will mention that if they think they want to blur out the background, that they should think about getting a larger sensor camera system... no reason to argue the fine points...

mpmendenhall wrote:
mh2000 wrote:
I have been shooting m43 exclusively for the last 3 years... that was preceded by 30 years of mostly 35mm FF... thinking in equivalence will probably the least confusing approach for me until I die.

For photographers with 30+ years of experience, it's a great idea to keep thinking in the terms that work for you. I'm not after changing anyone's established methods/understandings. My suggestions for terminology are aimed at how one describes lens parameters to new photographers, starting out with no firm understanding of what's actually going on --- I think that some particular ways to describe lenses can be a lot more intuitive, and avoid common beginner's misunderstandings, than the language typically used.

Feb 04, 2013 at 02:16 PM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

+1

Well said!

Access wrote:
Guys, honestly this semantic stuff just doesn't matter to the neophyte, a camera is just a tool and with all the automation today, you can go slowly or "revisit later" when it comes to the technical stuff.

When my friends want me to teach them photography, I teach them more about subject matter (what they are shooting) than the technical or the theoretical. Like when someone once asked me to show her how to do environmental portraiture, I honestly just showed her how to select 'portrait' from the mode dial because I needed to get on to the more important stuff like not standing too close to people, how to make people feel at ease, watching the position of the sun and the background, what makes 'good' light vs. 'bad' light, and being able to look around a place and spot the areas with 'good' light.

If you are interested in teaching photography, or helping neophytes with photography, the semantics are really the last thing you should be concerned with.

Feb 04, 2013 at 02:18 PM

Makten
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #8 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

mh2000 wrote:
I've gotten a few new photographers into the m43 system. For them I just talk in terms of the native FL and not effective FL's. Getting into it from scratch, I will mention that if they think they want to blur out the background, that they should think about getting a larger sensor camera system... no reason to argue the fine points.

Sounds good, since there is no such thing as "effective" focal length. Nor does any "native" focal length exist.

Feb 04, 2013 at 03:28 PM

eosfun
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #9 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

We do have of course standards that apply to any format, but it's like some poster above suggested, the world of photography got used to the full frame equivalence standards and changing it might be as hard as changing the US to the metric system or convert a great part of the world to the imperial system instead.

Universal standards though could be based on

* angle of view (in degrees)
* the circle of confusion (in millimeters or inches)
* entry pupil and exit pupil measures (in millimeters or inches)

Working with this kind of standards would avoid all kind of confusion and the use of semantics like "effective" focal length" or "native aperture" etc. I am afraid that's a long way of persistence to change the ruling concept of "full frame equivalence" and rather hypothetical unless the industry picks up the idea and starts consequently using that kind of standards. I guess that even the easier part of "educating" each other at this board is already too much of challenge

Feb 04, 2013 at 03:55 PM

theSuede
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #10 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

The problem with the AoV + Entry Pupil definition is that AoV changes depending on which camera you put the lens on...
Like Canon and Nikon that have two (three) separate lines of cameras, where lenses made to work on the largest format sensor (FF/FX) camera also works on the smaller format (APS/DX) cameras.

So the universal truth that most µFT people will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is that the important parts of knowing "how a photograph will look in the end" can be whittled down to two simple things:

1) how big the entry pupil of the lens is
2) how big the field of view when using that lens on a certain camera is

There's hardly ever any need for anything more elaborate than these two point if you're going to try to explain the basics of "how and why" you get a certain look with the equipment you have.
There's a clear distinction between this and being a "good photographer", which of course involves stuff like being a good salesperson, a good people person, timing and having a good sense of what will work visually in a certain type of shot.

But: Trying to deny physical facts will never improve a photographer, which is why saying stuff like "F1.8 is always F1.8" without including the necessary ramifications of that statement is not only misleading the audience - in the construct of what you're trying to explain it's a blatant lie and will only serve to promote old misconceptions into the future talents.

I don't give a crap if this is "semantics" or not. It is the truth.

Feb 04, 2013 at 06:04 PM

Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #11 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

theSuede wrote:
But: Trying to deny physical facts will never improve a photographer, which is why saying stuff like "F1.8 is always F1.8" without including the necessary ramifications of that statement is not only misleading the audience - in the construct of what you're trying to explain it's a blatant lie and will only serve to promote old misconceptions into the future talents.

I don't give a crap if this is "semantics" or not. It is the truth.
One common lacking in modern man is the ability to prioritize or sort concepts in terms of importance or significance. It's like the guy who the new guy who walks around the photography club meeting asking everyone there "What do you shoot with?" rather than "What do you shoot?"

With neophytes one needs to focus on functional or applied knowledge, when it comes to aperture, it's best to teach it as a range or a relative value, not the precise numerical value or exactly what the signifies in physical terms (as we could spend days debating that very topic). I teach aperture as an applied concept, that working that range from wide open, to one to two stops down, to stopped down farther and so on; generally when you want to use each range.

Feb 04, 2013 at 06:51 PM

Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #12 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Edited on Feb 04, 2013 at 07:05 PM · View previous versions

Feb 04, 2013 at 07:04 PM

Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #13 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

eosfun wrote:

Universal standards though could be based on

* [snip]
* the circle of confusion
* [snip]

Working with this kind of standards would avoid all kind of confusion

U - uhm.

Feb 04, 2013 at 07:04 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #14 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Access wrote:
I teach aperture as an applied concept, that working that range from wide open, to one to two stops down, to stopped down farther and so on; generally when you want to use each range.

That makes sense to me. Of course, this would assume that all of your students use the same format size. If not, the "range" may differ between students.

Feb 04, 2013 at 07:07 PM

ISO1600
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #15 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Smaller sensors have a different look vs bigger sensors. I'm guilty of using the term "Full Frame", and I'll admit I hate that term, but it's the best way to describe 24x36mm. To most photographers that have any roots in film at all, that is and will always be their native format.
The fact that it takes a $1000 25mm f0.95 to get the "same" look as a $50 50mm f1.8 has on FF is enough for me to not really worry much about M4/3.

Feb 04, 2013 at 07:13 PM

Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #16 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

douglasf13 wrote:
That makes sense to me. Of course, this would assume that all of your students use the same format size. If not, the "range" may differ between students.
The "range" differs between lens to, but all I'm teaching is how to get the most of what you have.

Most people starting out today are using a rebel with the kit lens. Many will never buy another lens at all, or another camera (until it stops working). They didn't come from film, but they are 'moving up' from a smartphone or compact digital camera. Their mindset is of someone who is trying to take photography more seriously and wants to take photos that look more like 'real photographers'. They have a normal social life and most of their photos are of their friends, kids, pets, etc. They might have some casual interest in landscape, macro, sports, or such. Other than the kit lens, the first lens they buy is often either a cheap telephoto zoom or a cheap 50mm prime.

Aperture is just another setting that the camera lets you control.

So the basics are that a higher AV (as shown on the camera) means relatively less light and also increases the depth of field. Wide open for situations where you want to have the highest shutter speed, lowest ISO, most background blur, etc. One to two stops down for when you want the best sharpness on a typical lens. And f/8, f/16 when you want to have everything in focus.

Shutter Speed (TV), ISO, etc. should be covered similarly (since they are also things the camera lets you control).

Feb 04, 2013 at 07:41 PM

philip_pj
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #17 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

'it's the best way to describe 24x36mm.'
ISO1600, Zeiss refer to it (24mm x 36mm) as 'miniature format', lol.

Most people are so befuddled by the intricacies of the equipment that it is best to just stick to the stuff on the camera, like aperture. It's a control, the other arcane stuff is not.

How many potentially great photographers (the art I refer to here, the important side of it) has the world lost due to well-intentioned insiders wanting to inflict this techno-speak on newcomers? It scares them off.

Some people enter the circle of confusion and never get out.

Feb 04, 2013 at 09:06 PM

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

p.7 #18 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Yes, 135 format is called Kleinbildformat in German, which means "small picture format". This is a reference to what came before, of course.

I agree, tech shutter speed, aperture, ISO and talk very briefly about where the camera does best, and leave it at that. I love would to see such a camera.

Feb 04, 2013 at 09:28 PM

alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #19 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Ha ha, format comparisons, the taboo of photography?
It really isn't that complicated.

Feb 04, 2013 at 10:11 PM

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

p.7 #20 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Well, format comparisons are fine among geeks and freaks, but for newbies, let's spare them that headache

Feb 04, 2013 at 10:15 PM

1 2 3 … 6 7 8 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 end