Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #18 · Anyone ever heard of Noktor? | |
Jman13 wrote:
Which is totally irrelevant for the results. There's no "DOF advantage" since you get the same noise level, the same DOF and BETTER sharpness with a longer lens with smaller aperture on a larger sensor.
What is your problem?? You have just proved it yourself with your pictures. The 50 on MFT just sucks compared to the 100 on FF, and it would even if you used the same shutter speeds with higher ISO on the larger format.
We've interestingly enough been talking in circles since I missed a few key points in your early posts, and you missed key points in my early posts. You said what I said was wrong with respect to DOF. It wasn't. I said NOTHING about noise in any of my posts (except when agreeing with you)...I talked about how DOF changed with aperture and focal length on a smaller format. That's it. I mistakenly used your 'advantage' wording in my first response to you, which I should not have, as I was simply taking your response to mean that DOF is not different between formats (my mistake). My first post I simply said that DOF on a 50 f/1.4 on m4/3 is the same as 100mm at f/2.8 on full frame for the same framing. And it is. Period....Show more →
Fair enough.
Second, the results above look much better for full frame because they were taken handheld quickly to get a quick idea of exposure level and DOF, not to show lens sharpness. On full frame I used the sharpest lens I have ever owned, that also happens to have a 4 stop image stabilizer. On m4/3, I used a 20 year old manual focus lens, which, at f/1.4 is not as sharp as the 100L macro, obviously, and at f/2.8, there's noticable camera shake in the full image. I wasn't concerned about sharpness here. The Rokkor 50/1.4 is a very good lens, but it isn't going to challenge the 100L, epecially when I'm pushing well past the E-P1's stabilizer capability. ...Show more →
And that's why you should have used a higher ISO on the FF camera.
And of course full frame's going to have higher image quality...I never said otherwise. I never said it wasn't cleaner at the same ISO... You are the one who said that ISOs are not comparable, which for some reason, you assumed everyone would be talking about noise, when ISO is not a noise measurement, but a sensitivity measurement. That's like saying a 100 foot tall building made of solid concrete uses different 'feet' than a 100 foot tall building made of an aluminum lattice because they have different pressures on the ground. The higher the building, the more pressure on the ground, just like the higher the ISO, the more noise (and the construction could be the different formats), but that doesn't change what feet measure...and it doesn't change what ISO measures, which is sensitivity, NOT noise.
...Show more →
So, it's more important to you to maintain a low ISO than to get low noise? Why care about sensitivy if you at the same time DO NOT care about sensor size? That's like saying 100 mph is equally fast as 100 km/h just because the numbers are the same. Not too clever if you ask me.
alundeb wrote:
Jman, in you second example where you demonstrate equal exposure and equal DoF to the first, both the shutter speed and noise are different. In one image, you have an apparent "shutter speed advantage" and in the other an apparent "niose advantage", but this can easily be equalized. This effect is a tradeoff you always have to consider regardless format.
I think the most meaningful way to compare across formats, is to maintain DoF and shutter speed the same, even if that means you have to increase the sensitivity and reduce the exposure for the larger format.
This is exactly what I've been trying to say.  At the same DOF and the same shutter speed, the formats will give as equal pictures as they can. ISO will have to be different because of the different light gathering areas. The total amount of gathered light is the same, and there is no advantage for the smaller format what so ever.
|
