The angle of view of a 400mm lens on m4/3 is the same as that of an 800mm lens on full frame. It's using the full m4/3 sensor, so the resolution is still 20mp (or 25mp on a GH6) - although you can crop it down from that if you really need more magnification.
The OM 150-400mm at the 400mm end gives you the 800mm angle of view, activating the 1.25x TC increases that to 1000mm equivalent angle of view (EAOV), and if you add an external 1.4x TC on top of that, you get a 1400mm EAOV. If you use a 2x TC, you can reach out to a 2000mm EAOV.
The OM-1 has a 2.0 crop sensor. The sensor is the center 1/4 of a FF sensor and is 20MP. A crop of an 80MP FF sensor to 1/4 the size would yield the same image.
The equivalent FF reach of 400mm is doubled to 800mm. However, the equivalent F-stop is doubled also. A 300 F4 fixed OM Systems lens is a 600mm F8 FF equivalent.
Tom Reynolds wrote:
The OM-1 has a 2.0 crop sensor. The sensor is the center 1/4 of a FF sensor and is 20MP. A crop of an 80MP FF sensor to 1/4 the size would yield the same image.
The equivalent FF reach of 400mm is doubled to 800mm. However, the equivalent F-stop is doubled also. A 300 F4 fixed OM Systems lens is a 600mm F8 FF equivalent.
Tom
The lens aperture does not change with sensor size.
molson wrote:
The angle of view of a 400mm lens on m4/3 is the same as that of an 800mm lens on full frame. It's using the full m4/3 sensor, so the resolution is still 20mp (or 25mp on a GH6) - although you can crop it down from that if you really need more magnification.
The OM 150-400mm at the 400mm end gives you the 800mm angle of view, activating the 1.25x TC increases that to 1000mm equivalent angle of view (EAOV), and if you add an external 1.4x TC on top of that, you get a 1400mm EAOV. If you use a 2x TC, you can reach out to a 2000mm EAOV....Show more →
Before this goes sideways with an equivalency discussion this is a good read on what is is.
Lens characteristics remain the same, no matter what sensor size you put behind them.
Micro 4/3 has a 2x crop baked in relative to Nikon FF. The 150-400 can zoom out to compensate for this, but in essence the Nikon Z400mm f4.5 on the FF Z9 is a 200-400mm zoom relative to m4/3, only the zoom is by means of digital crop in post processing. The aperture remains the same for both lenses.
molson wrote:
The angle of view of a 400mm lens on m4/3 is the same as that of an 800mm lens on full frame. It's using the full m4/3 sensor, so the resolution is still 20mp (or 25mp on a GH6) - although you can crop it down from that if you really need more magnification.
The OM 150-400mm at the 400mm end gives you the 800mm angle of view, activating the 1.25x TC increases that to 1000mm equivalent angle of view (EAOV), and if you add an external 1.4x TC on top of that, you get a 1400mm EAOV. If you use a 2x TC, you can reach out to a 2000mm EAOV....Show more →
molson wrote:
The lens aperture does not change with sensor size.
No, the lens aperture does not change, but the equivalent aperture doubles along with the equivalent angle of view.
A 300mm f/4 lens has a 300/4=75mm aperture. A 600mm angle of view taken from a lens with a 75mm aperture will have the same characteristics (depth of field, light gathering) as a 600mm lens with an f/8 aperture, because 600/75=8.
ChrisMak wrote:
Lens characteristics remain the same, no matter what sensor size you put behind them.
Micro 4/3 has a 2x crop baked in relative to Nikon FF. The 150-400 can zoom out to compensate for this, but in essence the Nikon Z400mm f4.5 on the FF Z9 is a 200-400mm zoom relative to m4/3, only the zoom is by means of digital crop in post processing. The aperture remains the same for both lenses.
It’s a 200-400 f/2.75-4.5 micro 4/3 equivalent.
Shooting a 200mm f/4.5 lens on a full frame camera and cropping to 400mm will not give you the same depth of field and light gathering as shooting at 400mm f/4.5 and not cropping, it would look like a 400mm f/9 image. This same principle holds for cropping by using a smaller sensor.
Equivalent angle of view and aperture are strictly tied together in every metric.
Jesse Evans wrote:
No, the lens aperture does not change, but the equivalent aperture doubles along with the equivalent angle of view.
A 300mm f/4 lens has a 300/4=75mm aperture. A 600mm angle of view taken from a lens with a 75mm aperture will have the same characteristics (depth of field, light gathering) as a 600mm lens with an f/8 aperture, because 600/75=8.
Jesse Evans wrote:
It’s a 200-400 f/2.75-4.5 micro 4/3 equivalent.
Shooting a 200mm f/4.5 lens on a full frame camera and cropping to 400mm will not give you the same depth of field and light gathering as shooting at 400mm f/4.5 and not cropping, it would look like a 400mm f/9 image. This same principle holds for cropping by using a smaller sensor.
Equivalent angle of view and aperture are strictly tied together in every metric.
Thanks for pointing that out: when using the "zoom capability" of the Z9/Z400mm f4.5 combo, by means of using the whole full frame sensor area, the 2x aperture value and 1/4 of the light gathering of the m4/3 sensor area no longer applies. However, should you want to equalize the light gathering and depth of field (not sure why one would but still) you can stop down the Z400mm lens. e.g. when shooting in DX crop mode, you can stop down by 50%. The benefit here lies with the Nikon combo.
Sorry, internet expert, but aperture and entrance pupil are not the same thing. Jesse Evans uses "aperture" correctly, from the definition of f/number.
It's kind of amusing watching measurebator "science" at work trying to justify using a massive brick of a camera like the Z9 (which ironically weighs nearly twice as much as some medium format cameras) and then having to crop the image down to 10-11 megapixels to get the same angle of view as a 20-25mp m4/3 camera...
Fine to discuss technicals of the lens and format, but reasonable people would likely agree that it’s the ultimate results that matter more than anything else.
mitesh wrote:
Fine to discuss technicals of the lens and format, but reasonable people would likely agree that it’s the ultimate results that matter more than anything else.
molson wrote:
It's kind of amusing watching measurebator "science" at work trying to justify using a massive brick of a camera like the Z9 (which ironically weighs nearly twice as much as some medium format cameras) and then having to crop the image down to 10-11 megapixels to get the same angle of view as a 20-25mp m4/3 camera...
No measurebating, I don’t own a Z9. You just posted misleading info so I corrected you.
Jesse Evans wrote:
No measurebating, I don’t own a Z9. You just posted misleading info so I corrected you.
I wasn't singling you out - but since we're posting corrections, you didn't - you posted a different opinion. And if you're arguing about meaningless numbers instead of images, that's pretty much the definition of measurebating.
molson wrote:
I wasn't singling you out - but since we're posting corrections, you didn't - you posted a different opinion. And if you're arguing about meaningless numbers instead of images, that's pretty much the definition of measurebating.
What opinion did I post? I posted no opinion as far as I’m aware.
Jesse Evans wrote:
What opinion did I post? I posted no opinion as far as I’m aware.
You said I posted information that you said you had to correct - even though when I posted it, you agreed with me... you don't even seem to know what you're arguing about, so I can see why you're confused... I guess the best thing to do is hide you so this thread starts to make sense again.
