Jordan: Do you think you could go back and check the shutter speeds for the three comparison shots in the original post please? See the later part of this post for reasoning.
Other: And regarding diffraction, most of what you hear \'on da net\' is pure BS.
Smaller formats have a small advantage for very deep DoF\'s in reasonable, but not extremely low (or \"unlimited\") light. But not for any reason even remotely close to how most people (even otherwise seemingly knowledgeable people) seem to want to \"explain\" it as being responsible for the effect.
The simple fact is that most small, new sensors are most of the time better per square mm² of sensor real estate. They are better, more exact, at handling medium small [absolute] amounts of light, and turning it into an image.
ISO1600 on an µFT sensor is (should be, if not Oly cheated the ISO spec with about a full stop) almost exactly the same absolute amount of light energy going into the image as ISO6400 on a FF sensor. But since the pixels on the µFT sensor will most of the time be smaller, they are inherently better at handling small charges of converted energy since their FWC values and read noise values are also lower.
So in the medium-high (not extreme-high or base ISO due to other losses) ISO range, smaller sensors will often be better when shot at equivalence settings.
Sep 13, 2013 at 03:15 PM
Previous versions of theSuede's message #11804907 « Spot the Format! »
