unfocused said:neuroanatomist said:Are we going to have to discuss equivalence yet again? :...
I'd rather not. This topic has been beat to death and I would be more than happy if people would just stay away from simplistic claims.
To be accurate, the quote said "Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 f5.6-10 FF?"
Sensor noise was never part of the discussion.
But, if we must talk about sensor noise, I will once again, use the 5D S vs. 70D example, since they have very similar pixel size and density. Are you saying that the pixels of a 5DS have more light gathering ability than the pixels on a 70D, if we assume that the 5D S is simply an upsized 70D sensor (I know that the jury is still out on whether that is truly the case, but for purposes of this example, let's assume it is)?
It is all about the amount of light. Not light intensity, which is what the F-number represents.
More light = more information = better image quality.
Different DoF and ISO noise are just the obvious consequences of comparing different amounts of light gathered by different sensors. Equivalence makes everything equal for different format systems - similar DoF, similar noise, similar size, similar weight, etc. Except the price and those exposure numbers you get on your crop toys. FF ISO400 = crop ISO160. Same settings on both FF and crop do not produce similar images.
FF 200mm F8 ISO400 ~ crop 135mm F5 ISO160. If you crop FF 200mm F8, you get 320mm F12 equivalent image and FF 320mm F12 is equivalent to crop 200mm F8. Capeesh? You need faster and shorter lens for crop to produce the same image and that's where the rip-off begins. Because m4/3 12-35/2.8 ~ FF 24-70/5.6 in everything - similar FL, similar DoF, similar noise, similar size, similar weight. People are buying expensive F2.8 m4/3 zooms just to resemble small and cheap FF zooms. Isn't that silly? (OK, maybe for videos it's not, I'll give you that, Panasonic, but only because we have no choice.)
Upvote
0