Larger sensor just a luxury?

[EchoingWhisper]

If I may ask the initial question differently. Micheal say's he's only talking about the sensor but keeps making up virtual lenses.

So, to those who have experience with both formats, is there a combination of existing camera and lens that would allow one to take the exact same pictures with both sensors. And how much would that cost new ?

I'm referring to the final product and existing equipment.

From reading this topic, it seems that the FF will have the advantage in low light and close range.

Yes, I'm talking about the sensor, but you guys aren't making the comparison fair because the lenses you guys used for comparison doesn't have the same entrance pupil.

The world is not fair.

If a company sold two different cameras with lenses for each that had the equivalent FOV and both had the same IQ, DOF, and ISO peformance, then it would be a luxury to own a FF sensor than provided nothing over a cheaper APS-C sensor. The problem is, that's not the case. That'll probably never be the case.

I'm not afraid to use 4000 ISO on my FF camera. Can you can the same on your APS-C camera?

You're totally not getting it. 4000 ISO on FF is equal to 1000 ISO on M4/3, if both M4/3 and FF lens has the same entrance pupil diameter, then M4/3 and FF would have equal exposure, and equal SNR, so your argument isn't valid. I agree that it's not a luxury to own a FF system, because the FF system is more complete professionally compared to others, but a smaller sensor wouldn't change too much if they were as complete as the FF system.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

My pseudo-scientific mind has a hard time comparing two sensors without projecting the same image on them, hence canceling the effect of the lens.

But I'll admit that a "real life" comparison would make for different lens selection and as such I think the whole system needs to be taken into account. But "real life" has to use real lens that exist. Not virtual lens.

Standing from a given spot, can we obtain the same picture with different sensor size.

Given that we have two lens with similar design and same entrance pupil diameter, one for M4/3 and one for full frame. At the same subject distance, same entrance pupil diameter, same equivalent focal length, we will obtain the same signal noise ratio, depth of field and field of view. The foreground size in relation to background size might be different, and the larger sensor would get more sensor resolution and lens resolution. The only real reason you need to get a system with larger sensor is more resolution.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?

No cropping.

Michael, the OP, asks if the FF is a luxury.

If a camera with an APS-C sensor could take the exact same picture in the same condition (position, lightning etc) with any type of existing optic, then we could say the FF is redundant.

It think this would boil it down to the base of the whole topic.

It would be redundant if your FF camera purchased was based solely on the size of the sensor and not any of the other advantages of a professional piece of equipment.

That's why I said, full frame sensor may be irrelevant for those who don't need lots of resolution. But a full frame camera system is normally much more professional that it isn't the sensor we're going for, but the entire system.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Standing farther is not an option as it changes the perspective. It's not the same picture anymore.

Use a zoom lens and adjust the focal length ?

I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?

No it doesn't. You don't need to crop. Just use an equivalent lens. Example, the equivalent lens of 70-200mm f/2.8 in M4/3 is 35-100mm f/1.4.

 

[Austin Greene]

A lot of actual technical talk, with minimal drama? I think its safe to say,

 

[o hey tyler]

Standing farther is not an option as it changes the perspective. It's not the same picture anymore.

Use a zoom lens and adjust the focal length ?

I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?

No it doesn't. You don't need to crop. Just use an equivalent lens. Example, the equivalent lens of 70-200mm f/2.8 in M4/3 is 35-100mm f/1.4.

A 35 - 100mm f/1.4 would be thousands of dollars. Wouldn't that make it a luxury if the practicality lies with a full frame?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I would say no, as zooming changes the optics. Maybe crop the FF image to match the crop image then do a comparison?

No it doesn't. You don't need to crop. Just use an equivalent lens. Example, the equivalent lens of 70-200mm f/2.8 in M4/3 is 35-100mm f/1.4.

A 35 - 100mm f/1.4 would be thousands of dollars. Wouldn't that make it a luxury if the practicality lies with a full frame?

A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.

 

[Kolia]

A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.

Well, a quick search on B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders didn't produce any 34-100 f/1.4 sense for the 4/3 format.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.

Well, a quick search on B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders didn't produce any 34-100 f/1.4 sense for the 4/3 format.

Because there's no/little market for it.

 

[zcar21]

It's like comparing apples and oranges, or worst because the equivalent lenses he's talking about don't actually exist.

 

[Kolia]

It's like comparing apples and oranges, or worst because the equivalent lenses he's talking about don't actually exist.

Exactly.

 

[usayit]

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/telephoto.html#i_035-100mm_f020_olympus

 

[usayit]

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/telephoto.html#c=OLYMPUS&i_090-250mm_f028_olympus

 

[Dao]

No it doesn't. You don't need to crop. Just use an equivalent lens. Example, the equivalent lens of 70-200mm f/2.8 in M4/3 is 35-100mm f/1.4.

A 35 - 100mm f/1.4 would be thousands of dollars. Wouldn't that make it a luxury if the practicality lies with a full frame?

A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.

If someone can make a 35-100mm f/1.4, it is going to be 5 to 10 times more than 70-200mm f/2.8 (assume the same optical quality)

 

[Dao]

A 70-200mm is thousands of dollars too. If the 35-100mm 1.4 sells as much as 70-200mm, it wouldn't be much more expensive than 70-200mm anyway.

Well, a quick search on B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders didn't produce any 34-100 f/1.4 sense for the 4/3 format.

Because there's no/little market for it.

No market since it is going to be too expensive.