4/3 vs fullframe

[Hitz]

The 35-100mm/f2 is an f2... it is NOWHERE equivalent to an f4 or a f2.8.

If you can't figure that one out, then try to imagine what a Canon 35-100mm/f2 would weigh.

No, 35-100 f/2 on 4/3 is effectively 70-200 f/4 on FF.

Because, 100 mm lens @ f/2 on 4/3 produces identical image in terms of perspective and depth of field as 200 mm lens @ f/4 on FF, as 400 mm lens @ f/8 in the 6x7 format, or as 50 mm lens @ f/1.0 in 2/3 video format.

You might argue that f/2 gives you four times more light than f/4. That's a misconception, because 4/3 has four times smaller sensor, and therefore each photodiode is four times smaller and therefore receives four times less light (assuming both 4/3 and FF cameras have same MP count). That means Signal/Noise ratio is four times worse. Which in layman's terms means that noise performance of 4/3 at say ISO 400 is equivalent to the noise performance of similar FF sensor at ISO 1600. This fact alone diminishes any f/2 exposure advantage. Whatever 4/3 user can shoot @ f/2 at say ISO 200, can be shot by FF user @ f/4 at the same shutter speed using ISO 800, with about the same amount of noise.

 

[microcosm]

Aiyoh, you guys... don't get us real FULL FRAME users of medium cameras get started ok? tsk tsk tsk... and I smell gunpowder in the air... hopefully it is not from this thread... thanks.

Educational discussion is one thing... trying to twist facts is another. I think most of you are matured enough to discern. Many thanks for your attention. Cheers.

 

[microcosm]

No, 35-100 f/2 on 4/3 is effectively 70-200 f/4 on FF.

Because, 100 mm lens @ f/2 on 4/3 produces identical image in terms of perspective and depth of field as 200 mm lens @ f/4 on FF, as 400 mm lens @ f/8 in the 6x7 format, or as 50 mm lens @ f/1.0 in 2/3 video format.

You might argue that f/2 gives you four times more light than f/4. That's a misconception, because 4/3 has four times smaller sensor, and therefore each photodiode is four times smaller and therefore receives four times less light (assuming both 4/3 and FF cameras have same MP count). That means Signal/Noise ratio is four times worse. Which in layman's terms means that noise performance of 4/3 at say ISO 400 is equivalent to the noise performance of similar FF sensor at ISO 1600. This fact alone diminishes any f/2 exposure advantage. Whatever 4/3 user can shoot @ f/2 at say ISO 200, can be shot by FF user @ f/4 at the same shutter speed using ISO 800, with about the same amount of noise.

I don't get what you are trying to say because you are obviously coming back in here again after a long while to "state your physics". So well, point noted on your observations, but I think it serves no good for anyone to come in and state Full Frame versus 4/3 format... when, at the end of the day, we let the picture do all the talking. Everyone has their preference. You like your teh tarik sweet while I like mine with less milk... so let's end it here before I have to change from a fellow forumer and wear the moderator's hat.

Time to close this thread because it really serves no purpose. It is a subjective matter. And personally,... I shall keep my personal comments to myself.