Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 130

Thread: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

  1. #1
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    OK - this will probably astonish many, it is probably known in parts by most, but I haven´t seen this yet put into such a nice, stringent and logical explanation in one run. I am sure this should be posted to all the sections of GetDPI mostly for the smaller sensor cameras, but I post it to Sony now. Maybe the admins put it somewhere to keep as a basic point of start and information.

    Watch it ! It is really worth doing. I definitely knew everything in this video, but even I was astonished as of the connection to the advertisements and the actual amount of cheating. I was not "aware" of this......

    And finally: of course this works the same the other way upwards to medium format lenses with their bigger lens diameters. The exit pupil´s size defines the brightness of the image. And now you know why we at Hartblei use MF Zeiss glass for 35mm Lenses with very nice results.

    Are Sony, Olympus and Panasonic Cheating Their Customers (crop factor with ISO & aperture)? - CanonWatch
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    I have known of this for a while. A couple of caveats. Although the math is linear, when doing the comparisons to quality for a give iso, you need equivelent sensor architecture. Trying to compare IQ from an original 1Ds to a D7000 and it will fall down. It is also dependant on needing to compare quality from bigger sensors to smaller, in the real world where iso is now so good, at least with say APC crop, until a certain point, yes there is less light hitting the sensor and yes the noise would be less from a FF sensor but it's more than good enough. What he says is true, but it is not anywhere near as relevant as it used to be with real world usage for many people. The DOF issue is a constant of course but I believe that it is understood by most these days.

    In the world of GetDPI where we are so often striving for the cutting edge in the best of technology I think that video is relevant. For most buying a camera today whose images are rarely presented at anything more than screen size or A4 prints and whose cameras are not being used over iso 1600 where the difference becomes apparent and relevant for non pixel peepers, I'm just not sure that these fact matter any more. Of course it is true and yes the manufacturers are cheating with their iso values to give equivelent brightness images, but if the IQ is still good enough and to be frank these days for the majority it is, it just doesn't matter any more.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    I have a question, when is this information actually important? Ok, you shoot m4/3 or whatever and pretty quickly you will know your field of view, after all a 10mm lens is always a 10mm lens, regardless of format, you only have to know what you're shooting with and the field of view.

    ISO, what does it matter how ISO changes on different formats? Who cares if people think different sensors are more or less noisy at a given ISO? Surely, you are shooting your camera at its optimum setting, i.e lowest ISO for any given situation. Why do you need to know that ISO 400 on a full frame is different to ISO 400 on a different format? You're shooting with what you're shooting with. If you have all the settings on your full frame and your m4/3rds cameras exactly the same, the m4/3rd shot will be over exposed, but why would you, that seems crazy.

    If you have 2 systems side by side, do people really make a shot with 1 format and then feel it's important to replicate it exactly with another format? I can't see why, surely you just use each system at its optimum settings? Is anyone really going to say, if I was shooting this on a full frame it would need 400 ISO so if I'm shooting my m4/3's camera I need to multiply that 400 by some equation to know what ISO I need to set on my m4/3 camera?

    I don't get it. This video could be 5 mins long. Different formats have different crops, multiply the lens fl by the crop to know what its equivalent is on 35mm, done. ISO on different formats is equal when the amount of light hitting the sensor is equal.

    What am I missing?
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Workshops for 2018! http://www.matrichardson.com/workshops
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    OK - this will probably astonish many, it is probably known in parts by most, but I haven´t seen this yet put into such a nice, stringent and logical explanation in one run. I am sure this should be posted to all the sections of GetDPI mostly for the smaller sensor cameras, but I post it to Sony now. Maybe the admins put it somewhere to keep as a basic point of start and information.

    Watch it ! It is really worth doing. I definitely knew everything in this video, but even I was astonished as of the connection to the advertisements and the actual amount of cheating. I was not "aware" of this......

    And finally: of course this works the same the other way upwards to medium format lenses with their bigger lens diameters. The exit pupil´s size defines the brightness of the image. And now you know why we at Hartblei use MF Zeiss glass for 35mm Lenses with very nice results.

    Are Sony, Olympus and Panasonic Cheating Their Customers (crop factor with ISO & aperture)? - CanonWatch
    Well, I didn't like it. If this type of arguments are the only ones imagined by the traditional DSLRs manufacturers to counter the emergence of smaller mirror less cameras, then they won't do very well in the future.

    Recent MFT bodies have come a long way : they counter the ISO/less total light problem with improved stabilization, improved sensors and faster lenses. My Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 is an extraordinary lens and way lighter than my Canon 24-105mm F4.
    Also not everyone is looking for shallow DOF. Deeper DOF is an advantage in many situations.

    But above all : people aren't cheated by Olympus and Panasonic as the video maintain : if they ever owned a DSLR, they have the means to understand what they will get. If they are upgrading from a smartphone or a point and shoot, they will get better IQ anyway.

    I have both FF and MFT cameras and love MFT. Especially compared to my Canon FF, which aren't delivering much more than MFT.

    Switching regularly between FF and MFT, I'm more amazed by the performance of MFT than by the one of FF (which we expect to be good anyway). The A7r is possibly a game changer in terms of weight and performance.. But we need to see what they will manage with lenses. Personally I prefer smaller and lighter lenses, but sharp.. I'm willing to exchange speed against diminished weight.

    I didn't like the way the video insists heavily that you have to multiply the ISO BY four : it is just the equivalent of two stops, but I guess that would sound less dramatic.

    Conclusion : we hare happy now, we can have FF offering performance equivalent to MF at incredible prices and MFT cameras at half the weight and size of the traditional FF DSLRs.
    Last edited by Annna T; 18th May 2014 at 08:28.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post

    I don't get it. This video could be 5 mins long. Different formats have different crops, multiply the lens fl by the crop to know what its equivalent is on 35mm, done. ISO on different formats is equal when the amount of light hitting the sensor is equal.

    What am I missing?
    Well the simple fact that an advertised f2,8 lens on an MFT is f5,6 actually ?
    And - Beni - the sensitivity of newer sensors may have been improved , but not by a square of 2 ? The number of Photons caught is still the measurement of quality. And THIS - and I fear MOSTLY this is the reason of the superiority of Medium Format. More Photons- more quality.

    Solutions so far - lenses like the Voiglaender with 0,95 and the Metabones Speedbooster. AS mentioned.

    I also have an Olympus e-PL3. Nice little camera. But - not a match for a larger format, equipped with wide open f-Stop lenses.

    Simply a different purpose and no pun intented. Just different.
    I think the Lens/Camera Makers should simply communicate that, the idea to spell focal lengths equivalents translated to 24x36 but leaving the f-stops on misleading absolute values is just...... fraud ?

    And yes- all the makers are involved in that. Nikon and Canon as well.

    Greetings from Germany
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    Well the simple fact that an advertised f2,8 lens on an MFT is f5,6 actually ?
    I'm not sure to get it : from what I learned, F=focal length/diameter of the aperture of the lens, it is a physical dimension. I don't see how they could cheat on that.

    I also have an Olympus e-PL3. Nice little camera. But - not a match for a larger format, equipped with wide open f-Stop lenses.
    The E-Pl3 still has the crappy 12Meg Panasonic sensor you find on the E-P1 in 2009. You should rather compare with the E-M5, E-Pl5 etc.. Which have a state of art Sony sensor to be fair.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Very good. There are only a few things the presenter does not understand:

    Focal Length
    ISO
    Aperture
    Depth of Field
    Bokeh

    It is amazing that one person can put so much nonsense in one video about photography. I stopped when he started bashing camera companies.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Therefore the explanation with the signal to noise level.
    Did you watch the full 10 Minutes ?

    Regards
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  9. #9
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Very good. There are only a few things the presenter does not understand:

    Focal Length
    ISO
    Aperture
    Depth of Field
    Bokeh

    It is amazing that one person can put so much nonsense in one video about photography. I stopped when he started bashing camera companies.
    Aha. This is of course a very detailed answer.
    Could you evaluate your superior findings to enlighten the rest of the world ?

    Regards
    stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    Well the simple fact that an advertised f2,8 lens on an MFT is f5,6 actually ?
    And - Beni - the sensitivity of newer sensors may have been improved , but not by a square of 2 ? The number of Photons caught is still the measurement of quality. And THIS - and I fear MOSTLY this is the reason of the superiority of Medium Format. More Photons- more quality.

    Solutions so far - lenses like the Voiglaender with 0,95 and the Metabones Speedbooster. AS mentioned.

    I also have an Olympus e-PL3. Nice little camera. But - not a match for a larger format, equipped with wide open f-Stop lenses.

    Simply a different purpose and no pun intented. Just different.
    I think the Lens/Camera Makers should simply communicate that, the idea to spell focal lengths equivalents translated to 24x36 but leaving the f-stops on misleading absolute values is just...... fraud ?

    And yes- all the makers are involved in that. Nikon and Canon as well.

    Greetings from Germany
    Stefan
    The f-number does not indicate depth of field, but luminance at the image plane.

    The size of the sensor is irrelevant in terms of exposure (as this speaker claims)--do you increase exposure if you crop your image? Pixel size determines the number of pixels gathered. But it is not a measure of noise as there are more factors that contribute to noise. Fuji X-trans sensors have much better noise suppression than Bayer sensors.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    Aha. This is of course a very detailed answer.
    Could you evaluate your superior findings to enlighten the rest of the world ?

    Regards
    stefan
    Focal length is not field of view. It is the distance form s' to the image plane. Field of view is a product of focal length and the image area. But sensor size does not change focal length.

    ISO (ey-es-oh) for digital cameras is not defined the same way for film. ISO has clearly specified what ISO for digital cameras is. And, surprise surprise, is linked to noise. Sensor size is irrelevant to exposure--it does not matter how many photons the entire area of the sensor intercepts. Pixel area is the important factor.

    Aperture, f-number to be exact, is proportional to luminance at the image plane. It is not a description for depth of field. Also, f-number is based on the exit pupil size, not entrance pupil size as it correlated to the angular size and with complex optics, tho is important, but this is a nit pick over a nit.

    Depth of field is not an f-number while that is a variable. It is not Bokeh, which is simply the rendering of the out of focus area, which is at all apertures.

    Stefan, these are not my "superior" findings. Anyone with a basic foundation in photography should spot these.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    The f-number does not indicate depth of field, but luminance at the image plane.

    The size of the sensor is irrelevant in terms of exposure (as this speaker claims)--do you increase exposure if you crop your image? Pixel size determines the number of pixels gathered. But it is not a measure of noise as there are more factors that contribute to noise. Fuji X-trans sensors have much better noise suppression than Bayer sensors.
    ??? new laws of optics developed by you ?

    "...The size of the stop is one factor that affects depth of field. Smaller stops (larger f numbers) produce a longer depth of field, allowing objects at a wide range of distances to all be in focus at the same time...."

    Aperture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Regards
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  13. #13
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    Therefore the explanation with the signal to noise level.
    Did you watch the full 10 Minutes ?

    Regards
    Stefan
    Is that addressed to me ?

    I looked at the whole 39min and thought that it could be summarized in 5min and so I lost 34-35min.

    I know very well what concerns the relationship between total light hitting the sensor and noise, but I still don't see how Olympus et al. are supposedly cheating when they say that their lens have a max aperture of F2.8, because this is just a physical relationship between the focal lens and the aperture diameter.

    The total light reaching the sensor and the noise relationship is another story which you can bring out if you want to speak about "full"equivalence, but I still don't think that Panasonic or Olympus are cheating anyone.

    I'm sorry, but I think that with the recent sensor developments, MFDB will slowly become obsolete, just like 4x5 and 8x11 view cameras. Offering a small portable view camera able to mount an A7r in the rear standard could be a hit however.. Especially if that allows architecture photographers to rise and fall the rear standard. That Sony sensor in the rear standard and some sharp lenses with enough coverage on the front standard with everything working electronically and seamlessly and not over 2kg for the whole rig.... That would be great.

    Or may be we just need Zeiss to make a super TSE lens for the A7r.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    ??? new laws of optics developed by you ?

    "...The size of the stop is one factor that affects depth of field. Smaller stops (larger f numbers) produce a longer depth of field, allowing objects at a wide range of distances to all be in focus at the same time...."

    Aperture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Regards
    Stefan
    It is a variable in depth of field, but f/5.6 does not give a specific DOF in and of itself nor describes it. The f-number system is so you can get equal exposure among different focal lengths and allowed exposure to be standardized simply because luminance at the image plane is directly correlated.

    From your same Wiki article:

    The aperture stop of a photographic lens can be adjusted to control the amount of light reaching the film or image sensor. In combination with variation of shutter speed, the aperture size will regulate the film's or image sensor's degree of exposure to light. Typically, a fast shutter will require a larger aperture to ensure sufficient light exposure, and a slow shutter will require a smaller aperture to avoid excessive exposure.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    As the video said. If you corellate all factors - photon count per available area, f-stop and focal length you´ll end up with a reationship that shows it is NOT correct to just use the relative opening compared to focal lenght and exit pupil. The signal to noise ratio (collected Photons) comes into the calculation.
    Nothing else is said in the video.
    And yes, the sensors have become better, but so did the MF Sensors. I am pretty sure the new Sony CMOS Sensor in the Phase/Blad/Pentax is no worse than a modern MFT/APS-C or even smaller sensor.
    There may be backside illumination and special schemes to improve light collection. But the relative factor of enlargement in the end answers also your question about cropping. If you crop you will even loose more light/information+resolution.

    Regards
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    As the video said. If you corellate all factors - photon count per available area, f-stop and focal length you´ll end up with a reationship that shows it is NOT correct to just use the relative opening compared to focal lenght and exit pupil. The signal to noise ratio (collected Photons) comes into the calculation.
    ??? A pixel pitch of a given size collects the same number of photons at a given f-number. This has nothing to do with sensor size. Or are you saying cropping an image makes it noisier?

    Since we like math, this is the way of calculating the number of photons hitting a pixel. From CCD Arrays, Cameras, and Displays, Second Edition by Gerald C. Holst published by SPIE Press and JCD Publishing, page 34:

    n = (pi/4)(L*A/F^2(1+M)^2)To*Ta*t

    Where

    n is the number of photons striking the pixel
    L is the spectral photon sterance
    A is the pixel area
    F is the f-number
    M is the optical magnification
    To is the spectrally averaged optical transmittance
    Ta is the spectrally averaged atmospheric transmittance
    t is the integration time--shutter speed
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    "...??? A pixel pitch of a given size collects the same number of photons at a given f-number. This has nothing to do with sensor size. Or are you saying cropping an image makes it noisier?..."

    If you bring the cropped part of the image back to the same size - of course. The noise in this case will not be more per se, but as the percentage of needed enlargement will grow, the existing noise will be enlarged too ....

    Which is btw clear from the definition of M in your shown formula for the needed Magnification.

    Regards
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Stefan, no, the magnification in the equation is independent of the format size, but simply the magnification at the image plane. You need to account for focus distance.

    You are also very confused by noise. It is a property of the pixel, not the viewing distance, which is what you are saying if the making the cropped area larger or smaller changes that. Noise is not a subjective quality.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    This all has been discussed in length - e.g. here:

    Full Sized vs. Cropped Sensors
    .....
    1. The sensor size alone determines the maximum useful f-number (N); and, in fact, the maximum f-number for high-resolution photography is given by 0.5 times (sensor diagonal in mm).


    2. We can take an essentially identical photograph with any sensor size by scaling the focal length, the f-number, and the ISO sensitivity.


    3. The smallest sensor we considered (denoted 1/2.5”) achieves maximum useful DoF at an f-number of N=3.5 while the full frame 35 mm sensor requires N=21 for a factor of 36 difference in transmitted light. If the full frame sensor gives the same signal/noise ratio (S/N) at ISO sensitivity 1600 as the small sensor does at ISO 80, the small sensor can still use a higher shutter speed. A PS sensor that could give low noise at ISO 800 or 1600 would appear to have a real advantage over FF sensors.

    4. If maximizing the DoF is not the aim, larger sensors clearly win because of their ISO sensitivity advantage. A fast lens (N=1.4) with a full frame detector is impossible to match with the small sensor. Probably N=1 is the maximum aperture we can expect with a small sensor, and no company at present even offers N=2. The take home lesson is that small sensors should be coupled with large aperture lenses, i.e. small N values. Also, small sensors that support large ISO sensitivities should be sought. The vendors are showing some interest in higher sensitivities, but larger lenses are in conflict with their drive to smaller cameras. Unfortunately, none of the available PS cameras offer very high quality lenses......
    __________________________________________________ ____

    It is clear that a small sensor is not having the same signal to noise ratio like a larger one, both with the same resolution. the conclusions in the video are exactly stating that.

    there is another very good article
    Do Sensors ?Outresolve? Lenses?

    see

    Figure 2. Graphic representation of the MTFs of two hypothetical lenses and a sensor of 100 lp/mm (5 microns). Wavelength of the light is 0,000555mm.

    and:
    "...The signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot noise.
    ."

    Regards
    Stefan
    Last edited by Stefan Steib; 18th May 2014 at 10:40.
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    I didn't make it past the first five minutes. He states focal length is no longer useful because of different sensor sizes; so why was it useful with film that comes in different sizes? His comment about ISO variation for different size sensors is disingenuous; yes a small sensor gets less total light than a larger sensor at a constant f value, but the light/unit area is the same. Smaller sensors often has smaller photo sites which is a factor in light collected/pixel. This is when I stopped watching.
    I must admit I was already disposed not to like this presentation when I saw the author. He has a review of the 645Z up too and he clearly is unfamiliar with the Pentax 645 system, but that didn't stop him. I think he is trying to generate web traffic a la Ken Rockwell.

    Tom
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    This all has been discussed in length - e.g. here:

    Full Sized vs. Cropped Sensors

    Oh, an article on LuLa. Well, I don't have time to debunk this either...
    .....
    1. The sensor size alone determines the maximum useful f-number (N); and, in fact, the maximum f-number for high-resolution photography is given by 0.5 times (sensor diagonal in mm).
    Now, why you are bring diffraction and diffraction limit into this?


    2. We can take an essentially identical photograph with any sensor size by scaling the focal length, the f-number, and the ISO sensitivity.
    Well, not quite. You also need to have the same pixel resolution, which means that the smaller sensor also has smaller pixels and so each pixel is collecting less light. But if the sensors have the same pixel pitch, then each pixel has the same number of photons and then you don't scale the ISO. But you see the trick here, while you are matching those three attributes, you are not matching shutter speed and so the image will not be identical.

    But so what? Photographers don't go shooting identical pictures of some abstract ideal. All of these things are variables--there are no correct value for any of these, there is no correct product. What you need to learn is the significance of these variables. Just because the function of multiple variable can intersect, does not mean the intersect is a new law in photography--correlation does not equal causation.


    3. The smallest sensor we considered (denoted 1/2.5”) achieves maximum useful DoF at an f-number of N=3.5 while the full frame 35 mm sensor requires N=21 for a factor of 36 difference in transmitted light. If the full frame sensor gives the same signal/noise ratio (S/N) at ISO sensitivity 1600 as the small sensor does at ISO 80, the small sensor can still use a higher shutter speed. A PS sensor that could give low noise at ISO 800 or 1600 would appear to have a real advantage over FF sensors.
    Sensor size is irrelevant in regards to total light intercepted. It is pixel size that determines light gathered. You cannot determine S/N by sensor size alone.


    4. If maximizing the DoF is not the aim, larger sensors clearly win because of their ISO sensitivity advantage. A fast lens (N=1.4) with a full frame detector is impossible to match with the small sensor. Probably N=1 is the maximum aperture we can expect with a small sensor, and no company at present even offers N=2. The take home lesson is that small sensors should be coupled with large aperture lenses, i.e. small N values. Also, small sensors that support large ISO sensitivities should be sought. The vendors are showing some interest in higher sensitivities, but larger lenses are in conflict with their drive to smaller cameras. Unfortunately, none of the available PS cameras offer very high quality lenses......
    You are simply cheery picking your variables to chose a winner. No one is disputing different optical qualities or performance. I am simply saying the presenter's equivalency scheme is just a whitewash of "factoids" to try to win an argument. The problem is that is it rubbish.
    __________________________________________________ ____

    It is clear that a small sensor is not having the same signal to noise ratio like a larger one, both with the same resolution. the conclusions in the video are exactly stating that.
    I did not see the presenter state anything about an equal pixel resolution. He certainly does not discuss equal pixel pitch. Obviously, he is either ignorant or being purposefully deceptive. He certain does not understand ISO nor f-numbers.

    there is another very good article
    Do Sensors ?Outresolve? Lenses?

    see

    Figure 2. Graphic representation of the MTFs of two hypothetical lenses and a sensor of 100 lp/mm (5 microns). Wavelength of the light is 0,000555mm.

    and:
    "...The signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot noise.
    ."

    Regards
    Stefan
    It might be clear to you, but the argument presented in the video is factually incorrect. No one is saying different systems don't give different results. But what the presenter is stating is simply wrong.

    BTW, aren't you the guy that was bashing MFD digital because that smaller sensor D800 was "better"? So, I guess you don't believe the presenter either because 35mm does not gather more light than MFD, or so he claims...
    Last edited by Shashin; 18th May 2014 at 11:15.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    A guy who does not know that P divided by squareroot of P simply equals squareroot of P is telling us how to do the math with measurements
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    I have never stated something like the D800 being better than MFD globally.
    Show this to me and tell me when I have written ANYTHING like this.

    I keep saying on and on that MF needs to innovate and I was demanding a MF CMOS for years now. It happened.

    I further demand that the industry needs to adapt to the changed market by pricing - this is also happening - see Pentax 645Z.

    And as nice as MFT is and the cameras do deliver an amazing quality, for a higher resolution than maybe 25-30 Mpix they have hit a wall.
    And I am definitely not the only one who says this:

    Pros and Cons of Four Thirds & Micro Four Thirds Cameras

    Regards
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    2 apples +/-/:-/x 2 oranges ... still = no cigar
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Or are you saying cropping an image makes it noisier?
    Cropping it does not make it noisier but it may be noisier than if I shot it with the more telephoto lens to start with.

    Example: I shoot a scene on my D800 with my 50mm lens at 1/100 sec, f/2 and ISO 800. Then I crop it to a FOV equal to a 100 mm lens.

    The next day I return to the scene and shoot it with my 100mm lens at 1/100 sec, f/2 and ISO 800. I carefully focus on the same point. My 50mm and 100mm lenses are of very similar quality.

    The light is identical both days and I use my best tripod.

    I make a 24" x 36" inch print from each day. I use the identical settings in my software.

    What difference is there between these prints?

    The print from the second day has much less DOF.

    The print from the second day also has less noise.

    If I wanted my print from the second day to look nearly identical to my print from the first day I would have to shoot my 100mm lens, 1/100 sec at f/4 and ISO 3200.

    Then the equally sized prints would have similar DOF and noise.

    So, does cropping make my prints have more noise?

    I'll just say that shooting tighter with a longer, equally fast lens will make my prints have less noise.

    -Bill
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by ohnri View Post
    Cropping it does not make it noisier but it may be noisier than if I shot it with the more telephoto lens to start with.

    -Bill
    To continue -

    Cropping an image does not make it have more noise.

    Cropping an image and printing it to the same size as a print from the uncropped image does make the print from the cropped image have more noise.

    Basically, printing bigger makes prints noisier.

    Also, bigger sensors, all else being equal, make prints with less noise at the same exposure and print size than smaller sensors.

    I found about a 2 stop difference in noise between my Nikon D4 and Olympus OMD EM5. That is pretty much what you would expect based on sensor size.

    That does not mean that smaller sensors are lousy or always have inferior IQ because, in real life, there are many determinants of image quality besides noise.

    But it does mean that saying a 20mm f/2 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a 54mm f/2 lens on a FF sensor is not telling the whole story.

    I'm also not sure it matters.

    -Bill

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    I got in three minutes. It's the same tired hogwash that I've read on DPI a thousand times, and 99% bullpucky.

    Shashin has it just right:

    There are only a few things the presenter does not understand:

    Focal Length
    ISO
    Aperture
    Depth of Field
    Bokeh

    It is amazing that one person can put so much nonsense in one video about photography.
    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    I think it boils down to the following, for a focal length you will get more DOF on crop and for a given ISO you will have more noise. If the sensors are of the same efficiency and generation. None of that is in any way news or controversial. Whether it is at all a problem has always been an argument, it's hugely subjective and far less likely to be an issue today than say in 2007...
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    (...)

    And as nice as MFT is and the cameras do deliver an amazing quality, for a higher resolution than maybe 25-30 Mpix they have hit a wall.
    The real question is : who need more than 16Mpix ? And also, every camera system (body, lenses etc.) is the result of a compromise. The real question is whether the compromises made for a given system are meaningful or not. Personnally I think that MFT is a great place to be. It allows much smaller bodies and lenses than FF or even APSC, while the compromises on IQ aren't that big. Plus the technology has advanced a lot, the new EVFs have more advantages than disadvantages IMO (this is true for Sony too).



    And I am definitely not the only one who says this:

    Pros and Cons of Four Thirds & Micro Four Thirds Cameras
    I followed that link in order to learn more about the resolution wall. But found nothing about that at that link, just a dated analyse, written in 2011 while we are now in 2014. Even for 2011 the authors got many things wrong. Because the analyse has a pro and a cons column doesn't make it impartial. It seems to contain all the prejudices of traditional DSLRs shooters.

    It doesn't even name the numerous advantage of an EVF. Even more ridiculous it staates that there is no true wide angle lens for mirrorless system ?? the 7-14mm F4 Panasonic is a very well regarded zoom, extremely sharp and is available since 2009 or 2010. There is a 12mm F2 Olympus, a 14mm F2.5 Panasonic pancakes and a 9-18mm Olympus zoom. Are those not truee wideangle ? Nowadays there are more than 30 native lenses available for MFT.. so the least one could say is that this page is not particularly well informed.

    I wonder why you even quoted it (may be you goofed with the link ?). It doesn't even speak a lot about the Mpix wall you are talking off in your post (I went there to read more about it, but there is nothing more).

    There is a place for each camera, a task for each camera. What is clear for me is that apart of focus tracking and billboard printing, the small MFT bodies are able to achieve as much as DSLRs were not so long ago.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    This is starting to get tiring. I don´t want to attack anybody´s camera system. If you are happy with it - so may it be. But facts are facts.

    And of course some people will never believe it but well, here is another link from DigLloyd. Loyd says exactly the same. Now I can already hear: "oh he doesn´t have a clue....." ???? Really ? Come on....It´s becoming boring.

    "....The smaller lenses with Micro Four Thirds are smaller mainly because they cheat by being one or two or even three f-stops slower than the format equivalence...."

    Micro Four Thirds vs APS-C: Lens Size

    Greetings from Germany
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  31. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    what is the point You are trying to make Stefan Stieb ?
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,298
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Yawn!
    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by kapil Syal View Post
    what is the point You are trying to make Stefan Stieb ?
    That it might be helpful if some people read the text above and don´t ask funny questions ...?
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  34. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    That it might be helpful if some people read the text above and don´t ask funny questions ...?
    read the text ... wasted precious moments'
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    My Micro-FourThirds lenses have f/2.8, f/1.4, f/2.8, f/1.8 maximum aperture. I've measured: they're all exactly what they're labeled to be.

    So what point ARE you trying to make, Stephan? Neither Panasonic nor Olympus are lying about the size of the lens opening. Only people who don't understand anything and want to equivalence this to that and that to this and the other thing to whatever they prefer make a big deal of this.

    I've been impressed that the Olympus E-M1 16Mpixel sensor responds virtually the same, with the same noise appearance, as the Sony A7 24 Mpixel sensor right up to the ISO 6400 setting. The A7's sensor can hold the same dynamic range and noise another stop or so. Not bad for a sensor with 1/4 the area and 1.5x the photosite density. Both formats produce the photos I want to make very nicely and print beautifully (if I've done the right things) up to gigunda sizes.

    The only mystery I get out of this whole kerfuffle is how some no-little yutz on YouTube is getting sensible folks like you to post and promote his regurgitated pap.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    I love it when people on threads like this complain about wasting precious seconds.

  37. #37
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Okay folks everyone calm down please. Thanks Im trying to setup my new A6000 and your all noisy. LOL

    Seriously this can all be looked at in several ways. One thing I did see was on some buying websites they do give you the equivalent FF focal lengths and they also do give you the effective aperture as well. Just depends where you are shopping
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    ................"....The smaller lenses with Micro Four Thirds are smaller mainly because they cheat by being one or two or even three f-stops slower than the format equivalence...."

    Greetings from Germany
    Stefan
    Stefan,

    At the risk of piling on and , Lloyd is referring to depth of field equivalence with the same angle of view; e.g., from his table: a 14mm f/1.4 on m43 has the same AOV and DOF as a 28mm f/2.8 on FF.
    A given f stop is transmitting the same amount of light regardless of the size of the image circle and format. Ask yourself the following question: When you use an external light meter and it indicates an exposure of f/8, do you need to adjust for format size?

  39. #39
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Guy - this will be my last post in this thread.

    To the naysayers: Why do you think Metabones has made the speedbooster ? Do you also think this is nonsense ?

    I understand that this is a discussion with some people who insist the world is flat and it is only 6000 years old.

    It is impossible to speak on such a base, especially when some start doing comments like the Gentleman from India.

    I wish you all fun and good photography.

    Good evening.
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    475
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    Why do you think Metabones has made the speedbooster ?
    To extract money from the wallets of people who don't understand technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    I understand that this is a discussion with some people who insist the world is flat and it is only 6000 years old.
    Your posts suggest that you fall into that category, given your lack of knowledge on the subject under discussion.

    - Leigh

  41. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    vienna/austria/europe
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    ..maybe there are things i did not get right..but what strikes me about this video is that no matter how big the sensor involved is what matters is the size of the photosites and therefore their ability to gather photons..so i think he tries to condense things in a way that 'the smaller sensor doesnt gather that much light' which is wrong..what matters is how big the sites are..

    ..i think most of the members involved here talk about and mean the same thing but nomenclatura divides them..

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    About as interesting and informative as the Leica T polishing video. At least it was 5 minutes shorter but I lost interest after about a minutes viewing

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Maybe we can have a separate "Tech Talk" forum where the intricacies of the sensor size, photo-diodes, S/N ratio and such can be discussed - I do see that it could be fascinating for some members. That will be all so far my contribution to this thread is concerned.

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quite amazing the passion that erupts around the alchemy of photography.

    It'd be interesting to hear from someone that actually knows what they are talking about … like a real live optical designer for example.

    Me? I hated higher math classes, just squeaked by mostly because I used the time to draw rather than memorize theorems and axioms. I didn't have to pass a math test to get into Art School, my drawings got me in.

    I'm a visual person … seeing is believing. I started using a FF sensor the minute they became available, and MFD the minute I could afford one. I like the way they look, I don't like the way dinky frames look. Technology hasn't changed that. What it has changed is the bigger sensors can now be had in a smaller camera … that's the sort of math I like.

    - Marc
    Likes 9 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    I have not seen the video yet, will have a look later, but I read this thread and a question came to my mind why it so quickly develops to a point that the original poster feels he has to leave it.

    Hence I was wondering wether this is a chat about religion/politics/sex, all three forbidden subjects to talk about in real Irish pubs, or a chat about the art of capturing electromagnetic radiation?

    Well as Guy is around the corner, and has nothing else to do , he could present the video to About OSC | College of Optical Sciences | The University of Arizona and ask about their take on it.

    Stefan is making the somewhat bold claim that Olympus and MFT are lying about their lenses, I am going to have a look at this video.

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Georg Baumann View Post

    … Well as Guy is around the corner, and has nothing else to do , he could present the video to About OSC | College of Optical Sciences | The University of Arizona and ask about their take on it.

    Stefan is making the somewhat bold claim that Olympus and MFT are lying about their lenses, I am going to have a look at this video.
    My point exactly. Someone whom can speak to the subject with reason and logic, and has no dog in the hunt. Even a university senior majoring in optical sciences should be able to shed light on the subject

    I took the implication to be "Lies of Omission" … that an equivalent translation from 35mm FF size to a sub-35mm sized sensor should not only speak to the focal length equivalent, but also the "effective" aperture and its influence on the image.

    The "standard of common understanding" is based on the 135 film format that dominated for most of photographic history. Digital started with crop frame sensors, and most photographers already had lenses for FF coverage. Thus the base of confusion was established.

    Those who say "who cares" may be the only ones that are right.

    - Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #47
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Northrup is what? The brother of the Dog Whisperer or
    In June, 2000, Northrup won the Sexiest Geek Alive contest.
    Well, apart from that, he is regurgitaing Microsoft manuals, wrote 32 books about MS products and is a selfproclaimed tech expert. I can follow his logic that marketing departments make claims that do not reflect the reality of any given product, of course.

    But he goes further and states Olympus, Panasonic and Sony are lying, while Canon, Nikon and Fuji are stating the truth. Right. Then at the end of his selfpromotion video something struck me. He refers products from Voiglander, Sigma, Metabones, etc. and shows a link to follow like:

    sdp dot io slash booster.

    Dot io? Yeah right, here is what happens when I follow these links. I end up at the amazon product page.

    Personally I do not have a good impression of this chap. In my view it is a covered up product evangelist video, a business.

    To use his own words at the end of the video and frame them in my own statement, "So don't get tricked by a sleezy selfpromoter."

    Last edited by Georg Baumann; 20th May 2014 at 02:00.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #48
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    I took the implication to be "Lies of Omission" … that an equivalent translation from 35mm FF size to a sub-35mm sized sensor should not only speak to the focal length equivalent, but also the "effective" aperture and its influence on the image.

    The "standard of common understanding" is based on the 135 film format that dominated for most of photographic history. Digital started with crop frame sensors, and most photographers already had lenses for FF coverage. Thus the base of confusion was established.

    Those who say "who cares" may be the only ones that are right.

    - Marc
    Personnally I find it way too exaggerated to say that mirrorless manufacturers are lying to their clients and cheating them. I was also thinking to the beginning of DSLRs. There were no FF for several years, but as long as the big two manufacturers were producing APSC DSLRs heavier than the FF film SLRs, none of them was accused of cheating their customers.

    It is only since the the beginning of the small and light mirrorless (Panasonic, Olympus and Sony Nex, etc.) that people have brought that accusation forward. Those cameras have a big advantage in matters of size and weight. They are using the newest technology (EVF, mirrorless, focus peaking, magnifying, WISIVIG view of the pictures, state of the art sensors etc..) and all this is clearly creating a shift in the camera manufacturers' world (along with smartphones) and some who are in danger due to this evolution don't like it.

    The debate has mostly dwelt with MFT versus FF in this thread, but the initial remark of Mr Steib - and probably the one he is most interested in - is that the same analyse is also valid when comparing FFs like the A7r and D800 to MFDB. IMO, the price difference, more than the size, is threatening for the MFDB industry. Of course those experienced photographers who uses MF or the D800 are fully aware of what the differences between the two kinds of systems will be; insinuating that they are cheated or that they are ignoring facts is rather insulting for them.

    The question isn't whether the manufacturers of smaller sensors are cheating them, the question is whether the price/size advantages are big enough to compensate for the IQ differences, an IQ difference which is getting smaller and smaller.

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    wow, based on that video, I should sell all my micro four thirds gear in favor of fullframe, and full frame camera manufacturers should manufacturer smaller slow aperture tele zooms f8.0 or even f11 for those who want lighter kit. I guess Sony as done it right by releasing f4.0 zoom lens variants for the A7 and A7r as it keeps the lens size down rather than making 2.8 versions.

  50. #50
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Do the math - focal length and Format demystified

    Quote Originally Posted by Annna T View Post
    Personnally I find it way too exaggerated to say that mirrorless manufacturers are lying to their clients and cheating them. I was also thinking to the beginning of DSLRs. There were no FF for several years, but as long as the big two manufacturers were producing APSC DSLRs heavier than the FF film SLRs, none of them was accused of cheating their customers.

    It is only since the the beginning of the small and light mirrorless (Panasonic, Olympus and Sony Nex, etc.) that people have brought that accusation forward. Those cameras have a big advantage in matters of size and weight. They are using the newest technology (EVF, mirrorless, focus peaking, magnifying, WISIVIG view of the pictures, state of the art sensors etc..) and all this is clearly creating a shift in the camera manufacturers' world (along with smartphones) and some who are in danger due to this evolution don't like it.

    The debate has mostly dwelt with MFT versus FF in this thread, but the initial remark of Mr Steib - and probably the one he is most interested in - is that the same analyse is also valid when comparing FFs like the A7r and D800 to MFDB. IMO, the price difference, more than the size, is threatening for the MFDB industry. Of course those experienced photographers who uses MF or the D800 are fully aware of what the differences between the two kinds of systems will be; insinuating that they are cheated or that they are ignoring facts is rather insulting for them.

    The question isn't whether the manufacturers of smaller sensors are cheating them, the question is whether the price/size advantages are big enough to compensate for the IQ differences, an IQ difference which is getting smaller and smaller.
    While I appreciate the POV, I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss alternative forms of photographic tools in favor of the smaller wonder-cams.

    IQ seems to be a constant source of debate, and IMO has become somewhat narrow in definition … personally, I've expanded IQ to mean "Image Qualities" because that is what I am FAR more interested in as opposed to anal-yzing pixel peeping resolution measurements … which most digital cameras/premium optics now deliver to one degree or another, and most of us would certainly agree isn't lacking in most.

    My Sony A7R is a 35mm full frame 36 meg camera, and my Leica S2P is a larger sensor 37 meg camera … given the much touted 55/1.8 Zeiss FE lens and the excellent Leica S optics … they should be quite similar, but aren't.

    In short, I see Image Characteristics from my Leica that I favor well above the Sony, even in an 8X10 print. Why? I haven't a clue, I'm not a scientist nor pretend to be one. In all honesty do not I care why and wouldn't spend the time to figure it out just to win some forum debate. It is just a "visual fact" for me.

    The method of measurement I use are my experienced and critical eyes … which I trust more than endless e-words and images of brick walls and test charts. Sometimes I feel we are collectively becoming "tech drones", and have forgotten the vast variables of making an image that meets our creative sensitivities and vision. How does some tool match up with us as visually creative individuals?

    I could rationally go on about the Leica being a dual shutter camera, and that it shoots to two cards, and has a simple interface that seems to escape the Sony designers and other "swiss knife" entries in the smaller cam category, but the real reason is the Image Characteristics … because in the end THAT is all that counts to me.

    Others may feel the same about the camera they favor whatever it may be, and I respect that. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with my preferences, nor does it invalidate my choice of tools irrespective of price, or any other aspect, do-dad, size … other than Image Characteristics.

    - Marc
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •