smaller better or bigger better?? :think:
I can see where this is going...
it's not about the size but how you use it :bsmilie::sweat:
The 4/3 and m4/3 just wanna make themselves feel better by saying they have full frame dslrs, when in actual fact they have the smallest sensors compared to Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax...
so their processors take the image and process in-camera until it has FF qualities?
It's very simple, folks.
FF is for Canon and FX is for Nikon.
Anything else, we can just nod our heads, "ya .. olympus full-frame, sony full-frame, samsung full-frame etc"
ok. to keep this thread going, we refrain from comparing brands. Just comment objectively on whether those cropped size sensors should be called fullframe in their own rights.
I think it is okay to call whatever format whatever they want - it's all about marketing after all, even if it means hijacking a popular term and redefine it to make something look good.
My objection is rather with the often misquoted "equivalent" values, for example, a 4/3 or m4/3 35-100mm F/2 being said to be "70-200mm F/2" equivalent. More often, it's said to be "70-200" equivalent, with added emphasis that it's an F/2 lens.
Leave the physical values as they are and stop misleading people, or adopt a system of complete equivalent values: FL = FL * crop, FNum = FNum * crop, ISO = ISO * crop * crop.
Eg., D7000 @ ISO 100, 35mm, F/1.8 approximates D700 @ ISO 200, 50mm, F/2.8
Based on these equivalent values, we can talk about image quality, etc.. One will see that some cameras thought to have "poor high ISO performance" are rather strong in the equivalent terms.
The word equivalent is not misquoted. It often refer to FL comparison with 35mm. That's about all. As you have rightly pointed out, a 100mm FL in 4/3 is equivalent to 200mm in 35 film. Just like 304.8mm is equal to 12 in. Its just another way of putting it.
Of course one would agree the f2 in a compact cannot be "equal" to f2 in FF. Can't think of one has used it in that kind of analogy. Don't get confused, generalised or add something more to it than the intended above meaning.
Full frame or FF is as it is, full frame, regardless of how small or big the frame is. However, 135 is a standard where all photographic equipment is measured against, the de facto standard, so to speak. So if your sensor size is 36mm x 24 mm, than you comply with the 135 standard and therefore a 50mm lens is 50mm. Anything else that's measured against this can only be expressed in ratio. So 135 is 1:1. There rest will be different.
To me its like using different measurement scales. Some likes to use Feet , Metres , Inches as reference measurements. For all measurement basis you use , 1 unit , will always be 1 unit.
If you deem FT as your proper basis , then you are right to say 1 unit , refers to 1 FT.
In all due respect, since 135 is already the industry standard to measure sensor sizes, I think we should not add any further confusion to deviate from common understanding.
Whats factual and technical should remain as it is.
You are fast. Before I could complete my question.
ok, I am not trying to start a brand war. This is the first time I am hearing this so am curious. All the while the full frame I know of is 35mm with 1x factor. Then someone, not one but two (somemore nick is in red wor), says that full frame is something else.
4/3 is a different standard in which a 25mm lens is closest to the human vision of view, just like 50mm on the 135 standard. Because of its history, the 135 is still considered the key standard in photography. One day, if 4/3 and m4/3 becomes more popular and the key driver to this industry, then everything else may be pecked to this standard. If you have been in photography for long enough, then you will understand differences like Din and ASA until such standards were standardised to ISO. Will 4/3 become the de facto standard in future in the DSLR industry, will remain to be seen. But who knows, maybe, 4/3 is the way to go if it can prove that the total system package in terms of size, weight, cost and IQ can beat the 135 standard. Who doesn't want something of equal or better IQ that's smaller, lighter and cheaper?
Why the bashing about 'O' brand? They did not claim their FF to be as good as 35mm FF.