#Micro four thirds vs full frame full#
#Micro four thirds vs full frame pro#

Fortunately, it seems to be easier to design lenses for small sensors that accomplish that. Relative to the sensor size: by that, I mean that you need a sharper lens to resolve as much detail on a 24MP small sensor. The differences will boil down to the quality of any particular lens attached. At low ISOs (up to 400) the max print size tends to depend on resolution at high ISOs, it tends to depend on sensor size, and in between, a mix of resolution and sensor size. I've seen this in looking at the 'print analysis' portion of reviews on imaging-resource.

#Micro four thirds vs full frame full#

Jwilliams.at 100-200 iso, 20-24 mp cameras from m4/3 to full frame, noise values and acuity will be essentially the same, at 400 there is a slight difference which becomes more noticeable as iso values rise.

If there is a 1 stop difference between APSC and FF, then the FF lens is better. If there is a 1 stop difference in M43 and APSC lenses, then the M43 lens is better. More accurate and easy to do in your head. 0.7 Stop, 2 Stop' don't you think?Ģ/3rds stops.

Besides '1 Stop, 2 Stop' makes a much better title than 'Approx. I knew the m43 to APSC and APSC to FF was not exactly 1 stop, but close enough to do quick math in your head when comparing formats. Besides, '1 Stop, 2 Stop' makes a much better title than 'Approx. Theoretical difference is visualized here: That is correct, the theoretical performance between FF and APS-C is bigger than between APS-C and MFT. An m43 camera with an F2.8 zoom should be a little better than an APSC camera with an F4 lens.Ĭonversely, and ASPC camera with an F4 zoom will not be as good as a FF camera with an F5.6 zoom. So ISO200 on M43 should be slightly better than ISO400 on APSC. That is the theoretical difference, which is usually not quite accurate, but on average close enough. Since we typically use 1/3rd stops, the difference between m43 and APSC is about 2/3rds of a stop (~.7), and the difference between APSC and FF is about 1 and 1/3rd stop (~1.2). Looking at the big picture there's a lot of other tradeoffs to be discussed as well.Įxcept you are wrong, and spreading misinformation. I can understand why people want to quantify the tradeoff so long as the conversation doesn't end up in another E war. I'm not overly concerned with DOF right now. That's the compromise I pay attention to, not whether the 300 Oly is really a 600mm lens. However using a FF 600mm f/4 would allow me to keep my camera out later in the evening.

#Micro four thirds vs full frame pro#

A 300 Pro +EM1.2 is much smaller than a FF 600 f4 for the same field of view.

What I care about is what compromises I make to get what benefit. Honestly, I never really cared about the semantics of equivalency. One English new penny is equivalent to 2.4 old pennies - it doesn't help anyone to keep reiterating that equivalence. The sooner people stop using equivalence, the sooner the confusion will go away - it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot to anyone unless they were brought up on FF and who have moved over to m43rds but can't think. That is f2.8 on m43 is equiv to f5.6 on ff because f2.8 + ISO200 on m43 = f5.6 + ISO800 on ff. But that's NOT the definition of equivalency.Įquivalency is the combination of the size of sensor + aperture on lens. You are right about f2.8 is f2.8 is f2.8 in terms of light gathering. It is simple - What you really need to know is that f2.8 is f2.8 is f2.8 irrespective of sensor as it is a lens parameter NOT a sensor one - the only time the dreaded equivalence BS comes in is in DOF (depth of field). F2.8 on m43 is like f4 on APSC and f5.6 on FF. Many try to complicate the matter unnecessarily. ISO 200 on m43 is like ISO 400 on ASPSC and ISO 800 on FF.