They are not different because the metering system is tuned for the imaging pipeline. The number of photons captured per pixel given the same EV will not be the same, but the output (apparent) signal strenghth will be the same after amplification and ADC.
Oly E-510
- Thread starter dnaxe
- Start date
- Status
They are not different because the metering system is tuned for the imaging pipeline. The number of photons captured per pixel given the same EV will not be the same, but the output (apparent) signal strenghth will be the same after amplification and ADC.
Aiyoh drakon09, go use your Leica M??? to shoot lah... digital so leh-chay... all the proton(saga) is giving me a headache... I am a photographer, not a camera technician... wah lau... :nono: at the rate you are explaining... looks like we can "peng" satay with all the flame-building (wait... flame no good for satay... grill maybe?)... gee... this is making me hungry...
I'm not bashing Olympus. The "equivalence" serves as a common reference to compare FOV/DOF. I was just saying if one were to use the "equivalence", both focal length and the aperture get converted.
You're talking about the differences in sensor size, but I think you have come to the wrong conclusion on what crop factor means in practical terms. If one were to use say a 6 mp P&S and compare it with the 6mp K100D to shoot the same subject and lighting, the exposure would be the same. However the 6mp K100D will record better image quality because the the size of the individual pixels receiving the light coming through the lens has a bearing on image quality, producing images with subtle gradations and minimal noise compared to the P&S with a smaller sensor.
But this is what technical discussion's all about bro!
We're all level-headed people here, no worries about things boiling over.
Sometimes it is good to delve under the manufacturers' marketing-speak and get to what it is.
Sensor size is where all the mess of this "equivalence" comes from. What you said is true and I see nothing comflicting with mine.
I think I need to put everything together as there may be miscommunication by getting part of the message. :sweat:
Cool! While all this technical talk makes me understand the sensor size, light, amplification, etc better.... at the end, it is not only the sensor that makes the image look good... that is ONE PART of the many to produce a good image. If sensors are that important, then everything would have been full frame or medium format by now. The thing is, what is acceptable is the key.
PnS pictures are making it print too, from newspapers to magazines... so what does that mean? Photojournalists and professional photographers are just gear junkies buying expensive camera equipment to satisfy their lust for gear, or simply to make up for their lacking in photographic skills? I don't think so.
Food for thought. With all the 10mp cameras out there, the Pentax and Oly old models are still finding their images onto magazines... so... hmm...
PnS pictures are making it print too, from newspapers to magazines... so what does that mean? Photojournalists and professional photographers are just gear junkies buying expensive camera equipment to satisfy their lust for gear, or simply to make up for their lacking in photographic skills? I don't think so.
Food for thought. With all the 10mp cameras out there, the Pentax and Oly old models are still finding their images onto magazines... so... hmm...
And you're right on that count as well.
At the end of the day, it is the image that matters.
Yes, I agree with you, but - why does this matter?
How is the olympus 35-200/2 a 70-200/4?
Yup no matter what other camera brands says about Olympus system.. its' the picture quality that's more important to me ;p
That's why Hasselblad H3D still has its (tiny) market. Each system has its own advantages and I'm no less convinced that at present time a 1.5x or 2x system may be the best compromise for the majority of us enthusiasts.
It's curious how each technical discussion ends up into a markdown of the topic. :sweat: Well, anyway I was the one who started the OT.
4/3 System : Full Frame 5D
1. Sensor Area - 1:4
2. Assuming both sensor have equal pixels, noise level is inversely proportional to square root of sensor size (i.e. proportional to square root of pixel density),
3. Noise level for same ISO used - 2:1
4. ISO used to achieve same nosie level: 1:4
5. Equivilant 35mm focal lenth of Oly 35-100 on 4/3 system vs 70-200 on full frame - 1:1
6. Equivilant 35mm DOF of F2.0 on 4/3 vs F4 on full frame - 1:1
7. Shutter speed for ISO100 with F/2 and ISO400 with F/4 - 1:1
8. From the above comparisons, assuming 'No. 2', a 35-100 F2 on 4/3 body with ISO 100 will give the same image as a 70-200 F4 with ISO 400 on a full frame body i.e. 5D, using same shutter speed.
9. Price of 35-100 F/2 vs 70-200 F/4 - 3:1
1. Sensor Area - 1:4
2. Assuming both sensor have equal pixels, noise level is inversely proportional to square root of sensor size (i.e. proportional to square root of pixel density),
3. Noise level for same ISO used - 2:1
4. ISO used to achieve same nosie level: 1:4
5. Equivilant 35mm focal lenth of Oly 35-100 on 4/3 system vs 70-200 on full frame - 1:1
6. Equivilant 35mm DOF of F2.0 on 4/3 vs F4 on full frame - 1:1
7. Shutter speed for ISO100 with F/2 and ISO400 with F/4 - 1:1
8. From the above comparisons, assuming 'No. 2', a 35-100 F2 on 4/3 body with ISO 100 will give the same image as a 70-200 F4 with ISO 400 on a full frame body i.e. 5D, using same shutter speed.
9. Price of 35-100 F/2 vs 70-200 F/4 - 3:1
Yes we understand all that.
And again I say, that is merely comparing the sensor, not the lens. Even that's assuming the 4/3 sensor is built exactly like the CMOS, albeit with higher pixel density.
And since the ZD 35-100/f2 is purpose-built for the 4/3-format, it is all academic at best.
(I think I should first say that I do think that alot of the olympus glass is overpriced - but that's not my objection to the 35-100/2 = 70-200/4 comment.).
As has been pointed out, No. 2 is rather crude.
And - even accepting No. 2, the No. 8 still requires another crude assumption similar to No. 2 - that all other attributes of the images (apart from FOV, DOF and noise, which have already been dealt with specifically) will be identical.
Even if we assume that (or rather, just assume that No. 8 is correct) - that's where the problem starts.
No. 8 is basically irrelevant.
All you've managed to show is that if you increase ISO (and have good noise control), you can work with a smaller aperture lens with no real disadvantage. No ****, sherlock.
So this is all about the sensor, right?
The lens is still a real f/2 in the most important sense - that it lets in 3 stops more light than an f/4 lens.
As an economic argument it might be more interesting (ooh. which is better, an E410 + 35-100/2 or a 5D + 70-200/4) but that's completely not what's interesting about the lenses.
It is good you bring this up, but this has been discussed to death and for us old birds in the forums, it just get a little tiresome... I also hope to have your understanding to the matter.
Yes we do... we just got tired from being a parrot/broken record player. That's all.
The photon shot niose (that #2) is a function of the number of photons captured only, assuming the absence of readout noise. This assumption is generally biased to the advantage of smaller sensors. More information may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
Sadly a lens on its own never captures an image, and the sensor cannot be taken out of the process. So it is the sensor and the lens attached. Olympus does have their point that it's about "the system".
Had there been a better way than using "the equivalence"... well..
Shall rephrase my sentences, although it might sounds a bit rude:
It's not a big deal that Olympus is making a 35-100 F/2 considering it's for such a small sensor. And for that, I believe the lens is overpriced.
It's not a big deal that Olympus is making a 35-100 F/2 considering it's for such a small sensor. And for that, I believe the lens is overpriced.
No its not rude.
Its no big deal that McClaren makes the F1 or Bentley built the Continental. Toyota also makes cars. Hell, a trolley also has 4 wheels. As long as it moves.
See the analogy now?
And like drakon09 said... "there are a ton of f2 zooms out there with edge to edge sharpness and great contrast and colour capture". Sure, the Bentley Continental and Louis Vitton bags are overpriced. Guess you have yet to handle one.
No, I am not an Olympus fanatic. But a fan who appreciates the way the Olympus Super High Grade lenses are built. But I will never buy them... because like the Bentleys, they are overweight.
The High Grade class 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is the most usable lens that I have ever laid hands on... but hey, there are equal numbers of BMWs on the road in Singapore. Just that there are some M5s engines and many are 318/320s. (Sensor is liken to the engine capacities of the cars)... but like the BMWs which is a great drive regardless, the Olympus is a great camera system.
Hey, I am not here to start a flame, but I have yet to laid hands on the Pentax... so it is All Oly for now.
- Status
