Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 17 Feb 2014 (Monday) 09:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

200mm 2.8 full frame = 100mm 1,4 on micro 4/3 ?

 
blue9
Member
211 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Europe
     
Feb 17, 2014 09:16 |  #1

I had a discussion with some one recently about photography in dim light and i stated that a 100mm 2,8 on micro four third would be like 200mm 2,8 on a full frame. Instead i was told that it would be correct to compare it to a 200mm 5,6. on a full frame, and that i would need a 200mm 1,4 on m4/3.

I have heard this before, but i don't know why some insist on claiming a 2 stop change. I am wondering if they are confusing it with depth of field?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
xchangx
Senior Member
507 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Mobile, AL
     
Feb 17, 2014 12:57 |  #2

No stop change, just a 2x crop factor.


Nikon D4s / 2x D3s / D3 / 17-35 2.8 / 70-200 2.8 / 600 f4
Freelance sports photographer for Getty Images Sports, Entertainment and News
Freelance sports photographer for Sports Illustrated
My Images with Getty (external link)
My Sportsshooter Page (external link)
My Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Feb 17, 2014 15:21 |  #3

blue9 wrote in post #16695955 (external link)
I had a discussion with some one recently about photography in dim light and i stated that a 100mm 2,8 on micro four third would be like 200mm 2,8 on a full frame. Instead i was told that it would be correct to compare it to a 200mm 5,6. on a full frame, and that i would need a 200mm 1,4 on m4/3.

I have heard this before, but i don't know why some insist on claiming a 2 stop change. I am wondering if they are confusing it with depth of field?

For exposure purposes, the f-stop is the same no matter what the sensor size is. The only time sensor size comes into play for the f-stop is when figuring out DOF at a given focal length.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Feb 17, 2014 15:44 |  #4

Part of the confusion comes from the misconception that f/stop controls DoF. In fact, it is iris diameter, NOT f/stop, which controls DoF.

So while a 25 f/2 lens on a m43 camera gives the same angle of view as a 50 f/2 lens on a FF camera, its iris is only 12.5mm, compared with 25mm on the latter. In order to make the lenses truly equivalent in terms of DoF and angle of view, you'd need a 25 f/1.0.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 594
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Feb 17, 2014 16:46 |  #5

blue9 wrote in post #16695955 (external link)
I had a discussion with some one recently about photography in dim light and i stated that a 100mm 2,8 on micro four third would be like 200mm 2,8 on a full frame. Instead i was told that it would be correct to compare it to a 200mm 5,6. on a full frame, and that i would need a 200mm 1,4 on m4/3.

I have heard this before, but i don't know why some insist on claiming a 2 stop change. I am wondering if they are confusing it with depth of field?

Let's suppose you take a picture with a FF camera at 200mm, f/2.8, ISO1600 and 1/200.

Now you want to take the exact same photo (standing in the exact same spot) with an m4:3 camera.

Focal length = 100mm, because the m4:3 sensor is 50% of the linear size of a 35mm sensor. So you need half the focal length.

Aperture = f/1.4. In this your friend is correct, you need to use an aperture that is two stops faster on the m4:3 format to have the same DOF given the same framing.

ISO = 400. So here is one point open to debate, is ISO 400 on some given m4:3 camera about the same as ISO1600 on some 35mm format camera?

Shutter speed = 1/200. If you can handhold a 200mm lens at this speed on 35mm, then you will get the same level of shake induced blur at 100mm on m4:3 as the angular motion will be the same relative amount.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Feb 17, 2014 17:10 |  #6

JeffreyG wrote in post #16697003 (external link)
Let's suppose you take a picture with a FF camera at 200mm, f/2.8, ISO1600 and 1/200.

Now you want to take the exact same photo (standing in the exact same spot) with an m4:3 camera.

Focal length = 100mm, because the m4:3 sensor is 50% of the linear size of a 35mm sensor. So you need half the focal length.

Aperture = f/1.4. In this your friend is correct, you need to use an aperture that is two stops faster on the m4:3 format to have the same DOF given the same framing.

ISO = 400. So here is one point open to debate, is ISO 400 on some given m4:3 camera about the same as ISO1600 on some 35mm format camera?

Shutter speed = 1/200. If you can handhold a 200mm lens at this speed on 35mm, then you will get the same level of shake induced blur at 100mm on m4:3 as the angular motion will be the same relative amount.

You need to drop the ISO because you have opened the aperture by two stops. Otherwise you'll be over-exposed by two stops.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 594
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Feb 17, 2014 17:16 |  #7

archer1960 wrote in post #16697064 (external link)
You need to drop the ISO because you have opened the aperture by two stops. Otherwise you'll be over-exposed by two stops.

Correct, I probably should have elaborated more. So what is open for debate is if the two sensors will deliver about the same noise in the final image given this difference in ISO values that are compensating for the aperture difference.

My experience with m4:3 sensors suggests that for similar ages of cameras, it will at least be relatively close.

My quite old 5D (the original) is better for noise at ISO 1600 than my much newer Panasonic GF-1 for example.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Feb 17, 2014 17:40 |  #8

JeffreyG wrote in post #16697086 (external link)
Correct, I probably should have elaborated more. So what is open for debate is if the two sensors will deliver about the same noise in the final image given this difference in ISO values that are compensating for the aperture difference.

My experience with m4:3 sensors suggests that for similar ages of cameras, it will at least be relatively close.

My quite old 5D (the original) is better for noise at ISO 1600 than my much newer Panasonic GF-1 for example.

No debate. The m43 image needs to be enlarged 4x as much as the FF image to give the same output print ~2x on each dimension). So for an equivalent generation of sensor (or, hypothetically, if the m43 and FF sensors were from the same fabrication), the m43 sensor at a given ISO produces equivalent noise as the FF sensor at 2 stops higher ISO.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blue9
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
211 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Europe
     
Feb 17, 2014 18:22 as a reply to  @ edge100's post |  #9

OK, i understand now.

However there is another factor and that is sensor age and cost.
So my 2003 1Ds does not outperform my 2012 Lumix g3, even if it has an area 4 times the m4/3 sensor. So he is right in theory but not in practis.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 594
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Feb 17, 2014 18:30 |  #10

blue9 wrote in post #16697282 (external link)
OK, i understand now.

However there is another factor and that is sensor age and cost.
So my 2003 1Ds does not outperform my 2012 Lumix g3, even if it has an area 4 times the m4/3 sensor. So he is right in theory but not in practis.

If you think about this, were you to compare just about any 2012 era 35mm format camera to your 2012 G3 then you would realize your friend is correct in both theory and practice.

Comparing a 2003 era 35mm camera to a 2012 era m4:3 camera is by definition a special case. You can't say that a rule is generally wrong in practice just by introducing a special case that is not going to be representative of what most people would consider a reasonable comparison.

Example - what's faster? A limited, low volume sports car or a pickup truck made for the masses? If the comparison is between a 2014 Ford F150 and a Delorean, the answer is that the pickup truck is faster. But I'm not sure that defines the 'correct' answer in theory or practice most of the time.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blue9
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
211 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Europe
     
Feb 17, 2014 18:46 |  #11

the 2003/2012 case is a special case, but i mention it because i think sensor size and type should be left out in the equation. By that i mean for me it's easier to compare a 100/2.8 with a 200/2.8 and just keep in back in my head that if the photographer with the full frame sensor is as new as the smaller m4/3, he can get the same result with a f5.6 lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blue9
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
211 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Europe
     
Feb 17, 2014 19:05 as a reply to  @ blue9's post |  #12

Then again, i can see that it's more correct to compare lenses with two stop difference especially if you also put the field of depth in to the Equation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Feb 17, 2014 19:17 |  #13

blue9 wrote in post #16697360 (external link)
the 2003/2012 case is a special case, but i mention it because i think sensor size and type should be left out in the equation. By that i mean for me it's easier to compare a 100/2.8 with a 200/2.8 and just keep in back in my head that if the photographer with the full frame sensor is as new as the smaller m4/3, he can get the same result with a f5.6 lens.

This is not a new problem.

I shoot a lot of medium format film. My standard lens is an 80 f/4 on 6x7 film, which has a little over 4x the area of FF 35mm (digital or film). So that 80mm is really about 35-40mm (it's not exact, since the aspect ratios aren't the same) on FF, and f/4 gives me the equivalent of about f/1.8 DoF on FF.

Similarly, a "normal" lens on 4x5 film is about 150mm. In large format, f/5.6 is fast.

Of course, when it comes to exposure, f/4 is still f/4, irrespective of sensor/film format.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 594
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Feb 17, 2014 19:18 |  #14

All I know is that the only Delorean worth owning is one that has been converted into a time machine.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,356 views & 0 likes for this thread
200mm 2.8 full frame = 100mm 1,4 on micro 4/3 ?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is reservengineer
926 guests, 343 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.