M43, and why people are wrong about it

[Cagey75]

Equivalence is about creating an "equivalent image" in all aspects, to include ISO noise. If you accept that the relative aperture to sensor size affects the resulting noise, then you must realize that the aperture has to be factored for equivalence... they are the same thing.

Yes, it matters... because it affects the results. For instance the 100-300 you mentioned delivers not more than ~ 6MP on a 21MP 4/3 sensor (E-M1 MkII), and it can only deliver that much at 100/5.6... it only gets worse from there. There are a lot of reasons for that which include sensor size (MTF), pixel size (diffraction), and ISO noise (discernible detail).

Does that really matter? That depends on what you actually need. Do you need to know that? No, probably not; as long as it is delivering at least as much as you need. Would I use such a combination? Yes, probably... I'm pretty certain my Nikon1 V2 with it's CX 70-300mm isn't a lot better. But would I use it professionally? Not a chance...

That 100-300 lens still gathers plenty enough light for even dimmer winter evenings as I said already. I'm also only using a 16mp sensor. I also don't tend to get hung up on DXOmark numbers. I've had lenses that they listed as not being very sharp really surprise me, and there's nowt wrong with my eyes, 20/20. Sometimes numbers just don't matter. I'm not a professional, so I don't need to worry too much on it.

 

[snerkler]

Equivalence is about creating an "equivalent image" in all aspects, to include ISO noise. If you accept that the relative aperture to sensor size affects the resulting noise, then you must realize that the aperture has to be factored for equivalence... they are the same thing.

Yes, it matters... because it affects the results. For instance the 100-300 you mentioned delivers not more than ~ 6MP on a 21MP 4/3 sensor (E-M1 MkII), and it can only deliver that much at 100/5.6... it only gets worse from there. There are a lot of reasons for that which include sensor size (MTF), pixel size (diffraction), and ISO noise (discernible detail).

Does that really matter? That depends on what you actually need. Do you need to know that? No, probably not; as long as it is delivering at least as much as you need. Would I use such a combination? Yes, probably... I'm pretty certain my Nikon1 V2 with it's CX 70-300mm isn't a lot better. But would I use it professionally? Not a chance...

I always find it fascinating just how much/little details lenses can resolve. IF you could put that same 100-300mm onto a FF sensor would it resolve more than 6mp detail or is the 6mp a limit of the lens' optics?

 

[sk66]

I always find it fascinating just how much/little details lenses can resolve. IF you could put that same 100-300mm onto a FF sensor would it resolve more than 6mp detail or is the 6mp a limit of the lens' optics?

If it was put onto a larger sensor it would automatically produce a higher resolution... just because there is more area for it to project dots (airy disks/details) onto. But actually doing that would be a lot more complex or even impossible.

What most do not realize is that a human cannot even see more the ~ 12-14MP of detail with normal viewing (i.e. not magnified). That's probably why DXO stops plotting sharpness/resolution at 12MP. And it's not until resolution drops below ~ 6-8MP that it starts to become readily apparent IMO. That's probably why DXO's plot also starts going from green to yellow below 8MP.

Consider all of the 1-2MP images (1024x/2048x) images you see on the web... it doesn't matter how much resolution the image started with, it cannot possibly contain more than it is being displayed with. And consider macro type images... the camera isn't necessarily resolving any more detail/resolution. Rather the details are being made larger so that the sensor can resolve them at all. That's essentially what happens when you use a larger sensor... the details are larger on the sensor (equivalent composition, either taken from closer or w/ a longer FL) and therefore they are easier to resolve. Edit: also consider how little resolution there must be in a 2MP (2048x) image that looks soft/bad!

But having more resolution is always better, and having a higher resolution sensor always delivers somewhat more (just not nearly as much as one might think).

 

[sk66]

Sometimes numbers just don't matter.

This I can agree with!

 

[Deleted member 49428]

^^^ this. I think nostalgia plays a part at times, and I can fall into the trap of thinking that a shot looks more iconic or is more powerful etc just because it was shot on film. If you study the image rather than the format modern photos are probably equally as iconic or powerful, but they don't look it at first as they are too 'clinical' and don't have the wonderful 'haziness' of pictures of old. I think in years to come there'll be some photos of the last 10 years or so that will be deemed equally iconic.

Well I dont find McCurrys new Work Better than the older, Ive seenn some of his digital images next to his earlier analog onde and dont find the technical aspects make them Better. Same thing with Salgado.

 

[sk66]

One last point, using crop factor (or cropping in post) to simulate using a longer FL lens on a larger sensor reduces the DOF, exactly as using the longer lens would. Most get this wrong...

 

[Cagey75]

One last point, using crop factor (or cropping in post) to simulate using a longer FL lens on a larger sensor reduces the DOF, exactly as using the longer lens would. Most get this wrong...

I know this just from usage, could get complete blurred out back drops for birds, or the cats at f/8 without even trying

 

[snerkler]

Well I dont find McCurrys new Work Better than the older, Ive seenn some of his digital images next to his earlier analog onde and dont find the technical aspects make them Better. Same thing with Salgado.

I didn’t say that they would be better, what I said was that to an extent iconic images often have nostalgia attached to them, and sometimes older formats look more iconic. What I also said was that maybe some of the modern photos will be iconic in years to come.

I’m not saying I’m right, just an opinion

 

[Stephen L]

I didn’t say that they would be better, what I said was that to an extent iconic images often have nostalgia attached to them, and sometimes older formats look more iconic. What I also said was that maybe some of the modern photos will be iconic in years to come.

I’m not saying I’m right, just an opinion

Some certainly will, but in my opinion it will be more to do with the subject matter and context than the equipment used to create the image.

 

[snerkler]

Some certainly will, but in my opinion it will be more to do with the subject matter and context than the equipment used to create the image.

Agreed, and this has always been the case imo. There was a photo released recently with the world leaders or leaning over the desk towards Trump. I'm not sure if it was staged or not, but I've got a feeling that image has the potential to become iconic.

I think one thing that might go against modern images is social media and how much we are exposed to these days. Everyone and their dog take pictures, post online, view online etc etc, unfortunately images can get 'lost in the masses'. I don't think that images are any less powerful per se, or that anyone doesn't capture the moment like they used to, but I just think that we are exposed to so many now that we almost become a little blasé about them.

Just a thought

 

[Ste_S]

Sometimes I feel photography has lost its soul. It's become all about the technical exercises aiming for speed, low light performance and resolution and we have lost the ability to overcome obstacles and create. I can't help remembering Capas D-day pictures and think if they would really be better if they where in focus, sharp and very detailed. No, the mood, fear, agony and confusion would be lost (at least to me) if they had been done with a modern digital camera. I think people has become so obsessed with detail and resolution they have forgot to see the whole picture.

Only if you're looking in an ever decreasing bubble such as is found here. Everyone else is quite happy shooting on phones.
For me, digital tech has long ago passed the quality that I need - mostly print at A4, sometimes A3. I don't shoot sports, video or need to massively crop for nature shots.

Re the thread itself. How old are most people here ? At least 40+ I'd guess. Some people should be more secure in their choices now rather than needing validation of their peers, or alternatively belittling other peoples choices so they can feel superior. Playground level stuff really.