mawz wrote: alundeb wrote: mawz wrote:
Because most people care more about equivalent exposure than DoF. They\'re comparing exposure at a given ISO setting, and then it\'s the equivalent of a 150/2, not a 150/4. It\'s only in terms of DoF and total illumination that the equivalent is 150/4 and most don\'t really care about the first and don\'t even know about the second.
Frankly with today\'s sensors total illumination is next to irrelevant until you\'re above ISO 1600 even with m43. Things are different when you\'re riding the ragged edge of ISO capability, but most people are going to spend most of their time shooting at low to mid ISO\'s and down there total illumination is irrelevant.
Again, at low to mid ISO, when you use a higher ISO on the larger sensor, the results are CLOSER than when you use the same ISO.
And if illumination doesn\'t matter we can use an even higher ISO setting on the larger sensor. Why should \"the difference doesn\'t matter\" always be used to excuse more noise on the smaller sensor, and not more noise on the larger sensor?
Because at low/mid ISO\'s were dealing with \'damn near no noise\' for the most part and there are other concerns such as shutter speed. Very few people will go from shooting f8 at 1/500 and ISO 100 on one m43 camera to f16 at 1/500 and ISO 400 on a FF camera. Chances are they\'re going to match the exposure at base ISO. And quite frankly, most photographers always use the lowest ISO possible due to habit. Personally I\'m not one of them, but my habits were formed shooting film where ISO 400 was my go-to choice rather than digital where for most it\'s base ISO unless forced off.
The reality is that aside from DR concerns there\'s just very little difference in IQ from a FF body and a m42 body of equivalent resolution at low ISO\'s and only a mild one at mid ISO\'s. Total Illumination only really becomes relevant once we\'re getting into the ISO range where the smaller sensor starts struggling and today that\'s above the mid-ISO range.
I hate to bring DxO Mark into this, but I just quickly compared the GX1, 5N and 5dii, and ISO 160 = 400 = 800 in SNR 18%, roughly, and ISO 160 = 1200 = 2000 in DR, roughly.
I don\'t see how it isn\'t all relative, whether at base ISO or higher with m4/3, even if these DxO Marks are taken as a rough guide. When switching between various formats, I still calculate various DOF and noise differences with lens equivalents, and tell myself, \"This 35mm lens at f2 on my 5N at ISO 200 will be roughly equivalent to my 50mm lens at 2.8-ish at ISO 400 on my A900.\" Of course, I know that apertures aren\'t exactly a stop apart in equivalence, and things like sensor technology can vary things a bit, but I still think it works as a rough guide.
p.s. that might be the most times that I\'ve typed the word \"rough\" in the same post. talk about trying to cover my butt.
mawz wrote: alundeb wrote: mawz wrote:
Because most people care more about equivalent exposure than DoF. They\'re comparing exposure at a given ISO setting, and then it\'s the equivalent of a 150/2, not a 150/4. It\'s only in terms of DoF and total illumination that the equivalent is 150/4 and most don\'t really care about the first and don\'t even know about the second.
Frankly with today\'s sensors total illumination is next to irrelevant until you\'re above ISO 1600 even with m43. Things are different when you\'re riding the ragged edge of ISO capability, but most people are going to spend most of their time shooting at low to mid ISO\'s and down there total illumination is irrelevant.
Again, at low to mid ISO, when you use a higher ISO on the larger sensor, the results are CLOSER than when you use the same ISO.
And if illumination doesn\'t matter we can use an even higher ISO setting on the larger sensor. Why should \"the difference doesn\'t matter\" always be used to excuse more noise on the smaller sensor, and not more noise on the larger sensor?
Because at low/mid ISO\'s were dealing with \'damn near no noise\' for the most part and there are other concerns such as shutter speed. Very few people will go from shooting f8 at 1/500 and ISO 100 on one m43 camera to f16 at 1/500 and ISO 400 on a FF camera. Chances are they\'re going to match the exposure at base ISO. And quite frankly, most photographers always use the lowest ISO possible due to habit. Personally I\'m not one of them, but my habits were formed shooting film where ISO 400 was my go-to choice rather than digital where for most it\'s base ISO unless forced off.
The reality is that aside from DR concerns there\'s just very little difference in IQ from a FF body and a m42 body of equivalent resolution at low ISO\'s and only a mild one at mid ISO\'s. Total Illumination only really becomes relevant once we\'re getting into the ISO range where the smaller sensor starts struggling and today that\'s above the mid-ISO range.
I hate to bring DxO Mark into this, but I just compared the GX1, 5N and 5dii, and ISO 160 = 400 = 800 in SNR 18%, roughly, and ISO 160 = 1200 = 2000 in DR, roughly.
I don\'t see how it isn\'t all relative, whether at base ISO or higher with m4/3, even if these DxO Marks are taken as a rough guide. When switching between various formats, I still calculate various DOF and noise differences with lens equivalents, and tell myself, \"This 35mm lens at f2 on my 5N at ISO 200 will be roughly equivalent to my 50mm lens at 2.8-ish at ISO 400 on my A900.\" Of course, I know that apertures aren\'t exactly a stop apart in equivalence, and things like sensor technology can vary things a bit, but I still think it works as a rough guide.
p.s. that might be the most times that I\'ve typed the word \"rough\" in the same post. talk about trying to cover my butt.
Feb 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Previous versions of douglasf13's message #10341601 « New Olympus OM-D announced »
