• Last Updated:
  • Dec 18th, 2014 3:13 pm
Tags:
None
Jr. Member
Feb 6, 2008
186 posts
20 upvotes
North York
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 9th, 2014 9:26 pm
I think Tony saying the equivalence marketing is a lie is too extreme, because full frame equivalence is only useful for determining focal length, DoF and comparison of total light gathering in terms of the arbitrary 35mm reference point. Yes the marketing might be a bit misleading to the person who takes the marketing at face value without understanding how different camera system render images, so that's why the article I posted is so important to understand.
If the marketing is misleading to people who don't fully understand the whole situation except to people with enough knowledge to do alternate calculations... then it's pretty much lying IMO. Posting full frame FL equivalents without posting full frame aperture equivalents makes it seem like smaller cameras can perform as good (or even better) than bigger cameras with those lenses, but it's simply not the case.
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 9th, 2014 9:26 pm
The issue the article points out is that full frame equivalence tends to be used to bash crop system cameras. It implies that a 2X crop factor means the camera is 2X inferior. Some people take it to a ridiculous level and say that a high end m43 lens with expensive glass elements is overpriced because it only gives the same equivalent aperture as some cheap slow full frame lens, which is the ultimate fallacy because equivalence doesn't apply to all other parameters of a lens' performance
The physics demands that a crop system camera be disadvantaged by the crop factor by exactly the math calculated. There is no doubting that. If your sensor is 1/4 the size, it will perform 1/4 as good because it is collecting 1/4 as much light. Any case where this does not follow would be differences in sensor technologies used, which differs from manufacturer to manufacturer. This doesn't mean that the calculations are flawed or unrepresentative. The article tries to say that calculations doesn't matter by comparing the newest Panasonic sensor with 3-5 year old Canon (the worst manufacturer) sensors, which is a bit misleading. The example of the D5300 vs D810 ISO scores clearly show that similar sensor tech will be almost exactly affected by crop factor by the calculations. Theoretically you could put a number to "sensor efficiency" too (and I think Tony does that in one of his other videos), but that's purely academic.
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 9th, 2014 9:26 pm
Re: the whole issue of DR vs pixel density. As your DP comparison numbers show, DR does not scale to pixel density when comparing different sensors, even though both are made by Sony in this case. That's why the OP's question of what formula can be used to determine which camera will perform better in low light is impossible to answer accurately. The author comparing the Canon to the Panasonic sensor was used to prove his point that equivalence of sensitivity is at best, loose due to different designs of sensors. You can never be sure there isn't something else masking the differences like a change in the fabrication/design process which produces different grouping of pixels or using a completely different diode material.
Low light performance is typically compared via the ISO spec, which generally favors bigger sensors. DR is usually more important for low ISO shots, which is more sensor tech/tuning dependent but still generally benefits from bigger sensors. I feel like with the D4S sensors they tuned the sensor performance for higher ISO by sacrificing some dynamic range, which would make sense given the D4S has slightly better ISO performance but worse DR than the D810. With the D810 being more of a landscape camera, the DR is more important. I agree there's a lot of factors to consider for low light performance, but I think in this case the D5300 will easily be the clear winner.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
12271 posts
3303 upvotes
Ottawa
antaholics wrote:
Dec 10th, 2014 1:29 am
If the marketing is misleading to people who don't fully understand the whole situation except to people with enough knowledge to do alternate calculations... then it's pretty much lying IMO. Posting full frame FL equivalents without posting full frame aperture equivalents makes it seem like smaller cameras can perform as good (or even better) than bigger cameras with those lenses, but it's simply not the case.
I guess it depends on the viewpoint, It's a partial lie or partial truth depending on how you approach the comparison, that's all. As I said, the real truth is that crop factors should not be universally applied to suit your agenda. The bashers (anti crop) and marketers are (pro crop) equally guity.

I don't actually disagree with the math, I'm disagreeing with the way the math is used for an agenda. The crop factor applied to the "value" of a lens is exactly one misuse.

As the article points out, once you picked your system knowing its limits, you never have to think about equivalence, so the whole exercise is academic. You don't walk around with a Nikon APSC camera with a card that has the crop factor table of aperture or mentally multiplying the numbers by 1.6 every time you change a setting

edit: LOL at somebody applying equivalence http://forums.redflagdeals.com/olympus- ... st20849911
He doesn't even realize that the Tamron on the m43 body gives a differnent field of view and the same DoF.....blindly applying equivalence wrongly
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2006
3533 posts
824 upvotes
antaholics wrote:
Dec 8th, 2014 10:30 pm
F2.8 on a 1" sensor receives the same TOTAL amount of light as F5.04 on APS-C. Meaning if you shot a F2.8 shot on a 1" sensor and a F5.04 shot on APS-C, they should theoretically look very similar.
f2.8 image on a 1 inch sensor camera seems to have a much shallower depth of field than an f5.0 image taken on an APS-C camera in all my experiences. I am looking at 2 images side by side now at these apertures and visually, it's not the same when it come to depth of field. At least in close proximity when shooting food. Forget the math and the total amount of light. Can anyone else confirm that these images should NOT look similar?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
12271 posts
3303 upvotes
Ottawa
F2.8 should have the depth as f5.6 full frame. You also have to make sure your distance matches the 2X equivalence factor, and your focal length is exactly 2X
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2006
3533 posts
824 upvotes
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 10th, 2014 1:46 pm
F2.8 should have the depth as f5.6 full frame. You also have to make sure your distance matches the 2X equivalence factor, and your focal length is exactly 2X
At this point, I am not taking any math into consideration. In the real world, a 1 inch camera at f2.8 is brought close enough to frame the subject. The APS-C camera is brought into the same frame around the subject at f.5.0-f5.6. Image is not the same to me. Technically, the math may be true but in the real world, people point a camera, frame and shoot. I am comparing an image with the same subject size in the frame at f2.8 and f5.0.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
12271 posts
3303 upvotes
Ottawa
yeah, the math says that all three variables have to be the same for the depth of field, since we're dealing with small distances with food, being off by a few inches and the zoom betting set differently will affect things

The aspect ratio being different also throws things off a bit if you're framing with width and height
Jr. Member
Feb 6, 2008
186 posts
20 upvotes
North York
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 10th, 2014 7:19 am
I guess it depends on the viewpoint, It's a partial lie or partial truth depending on how you approach the comparison, that's all. As I said, the real truth is that crop factors should not be universally applied to suit your agenda. The bashers (anti crop) and marketers are (pro crop) equally guity.

I don't actually disagree with the math, I'm disagreeing with the way the math is used for an agenda. The crop factor applied to the "value" of a lens is exactly one misuse.

As the article points out, once you picked your system knowing its limits, you never have to think about equivalence, so the whole exercise is academic. You don't walk around with a Nikon APSC camera with a card that has the crop factor table of aperture or mentally multiplying the numbers by 1.6 every time you change a setting

edit: LOL at somebody applying equivalence olympus-12-40-f-2-8-640-a-1625269/#post20849911
He doesn't even realize that the Tamron on the m43 body gives a differnent field of view and the same DoF.....blindly applying equivalence wrongly
I guess I've seen less discussion of "value" of lenses because I don't follow m43 very much haha. It's a good way to compare lenses of different formats, but you're right, I think people like the one you linked to are taking it too far and doing it wrong :facepalm:
warpdrive wrote:
Dec 10th, 2014 1:46 pm
F2.8 should have the depth as f5.6 full frame. You also have to make sure your distance matches the 2X equivalence factor, and your focal length is exactly 2X
1" is smaller than m43 (crop factor of 2.7 vs 2), so F2.8 on 1" is actually F7.56 on full frame :)
bowmah wrote:
Dec 10th, 2014 1:41 pm
f2.8 image on a 1 inch sensor camera seems to have a much shallower depth of field than an f5.0 image taken on an APS-C camera in all my experiences. I am looking at 2 images side by side now at these apertures and visually, it's not the same when it come to depth of field. At least in close proximity when shooting food. Forget the math and the total amount of light. Can anyone else confirm that these images should NOT look similar?
Do you have an example picture of what you're talking about? Keep in mind that this has to be at the same focal length and same shooting distance, and as warpdrive says, a few inches can make a big difference close up. I haven't done direct comparisons but Tony's video shows that at portrait focal lengths, the math holds almost exactly. In my experience shooting food, this roughly holds between using my FF sensor and using my 3.93x crop factor Lumia 1020
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
12271 posts
3303 upvotes
Ottawa
ah, sorry I thought you were using a comparing something else, by you get the idea about the variables. The crop will be 1.8 difference so the above math was actually correct, not 2X and f/5.6 as I said

edit: ah damn, anthaolics already corrected me.
[OP]
Member
Apr 24, 2012
466 posts
535 upvotes
Vancouver
Just wanted to add to what @warpdrive already said. The reason that @bowmah could perceive different DOF is this: http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-v ... -of-field/
[QUOTE]One obstacle here is that the two lenses display different optical qualities. For example, a harsh bokeh might make the background look sharper or crisper than a lens with smooth bokeh. And this might affect our perception of the DoF![/QUOTE]
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2006
3533 posts
824 upvotes
So is it evident that this "F2.8 on a 1" sensor receives the same TOTAL amount of light as F5.04 on APS-C. Meaning if you shot a F2.8 shot on a 1" sensor and a F5.04 shot on APS-C, they should theoretically look very similar" may not be completely true? Or is it still up for debate?
Jr. Member
Feb 6, 2008
186 posts
20 upvotes
North York
bowmah wrote:
Dec 10th, 2014 5:33 pm
So is it evident that this "F2.8 on a 1" sensor receives the same TOTAL amount of light as F5.04 on APS-C. Meaning if you shot a F2.8 shot on a 1" sensor and a F5.04 shot on APS-C, they should theoretically look very similar" may not be completely true? Or is it still up for debate?
Can you show us an example?
Jr. Member
Jan 20, 2013
154 posts
13 upvotes
I have been trying to wrap my head around the conversion and aperture and sensor as well. This thread has all the answers I need, if I could just wrap my head around it. There seems to be some very knowledgable people on here and I'm looking at a similar (but cheaper) camera and issue and don't mean to high jack the thread but its been dead for over a week so.... Can anyone give there opinion on the Panny FZ200. I was going to go with the sony 5000 but I really can't afford the extra lens I would need for zoom. I really need to keep everything under 500. Im not good with manual shooting and the sales guy kinda talked me into the fz200 as it seems to have a couple features that work for me. I have always loved taking the up close insect and nature shots. Now about to have twins in the next 2 weeks. I want something that is good in low light. Something with good stabilizers (my old camera had terrible noise and blur in low light) Good macro. Zoom and fast shutter speed for kids in a couple years. I compared with the Nikonp530 and the CanonSX50. Both reviews have the Nikon and and Canon coming out as the favoured but when I read the specs the FZ200 seems to do better. Now reading about how f2.8 might not really be equal to a 600mm the Leica lens isn't as popular in canada as other places and not so loved? It looks like it takes great low light and fast moving and long distance shots but once you get those up on a comp how clean are they going to look? Seems low on pixels but not sure that matters? and dosnt have wifi which would be nice. Thoughts!? Would be nice from someone other then the sales guy. Thank you
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1768 posts
454 upvotes
North York
You sacrifice the mega-zoom for low light. There's no way around it unless you spend $20K on professional gear. The FZ200 is great for what it is; a mega-zoom point and shot. Compared to a camera with a bigger sensor; no, the FZ200 will not be as clean as what you'd get on a mirrorless like a Sony a5000 or a DSLR like a Nikon 3200. But that's because mirrorless and dslr focus more on image quality rather than zoom. You can't get the 24x zoom on the FZ200 on bigger sensors.

Remember, a DSLR lens like the popular professional 24-70mm f/2.8 only gives you 3x zoom! That's the trade off.
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1768 posts
454 upvotes
North York
Most people can't tell the difference.

Here's an example. One image is taken with a Full Frame DSLR with a f/50mm 1.2 lens. The other is with a micro 4/3rds camera with a 25mm f/1.4 (50mm f/1.4 equiv.) They were both taken at relatively low light conditions with a high ISO setting.

Can you tell the difference? Even if you can, it's so minor. One of the only image quality differences in shooting with a bigger sensor is not having to use a higher ISO. Because of additional light you are getting with a bigger sensor, you don't have to use as high of a ISO in the same shooting conditions.

IMAGE A
[IMG]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/651 ... 3002_z.jpg[/IMG]

IMAGE B
[IMG]https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4035/469 ... 0ca1_z.jpg[/IMG]
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2006
3533 posts
824 upvotes
It's difficult to tell but let me take a guess. Image B was taken with the full frame camera?

Top