• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

MF vs MFT - interesting :)


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,131 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 13 June 2017 - 05:48 PM

A comparison between Medium Format and Micro Four Thirds.

http://www.superinfo...al-to-micro-43/

 

An interesting read for those interested .....

 

Kind regards, Wim



#2 mike

mike

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 June 2017 - 03:21 AM

Thanks for sharing Wim. I've rarely printed past 11x17".  :D



#3 borisbg

borisbg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 444 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 14 June 2017 - 05:40 AM

Win, thanks for sharing.
I find it very interesting... Prints ate more telling than highly compressed jpeg.
What the post is not explicitly sayint is that we need quality glass no matter the system.

#4 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,131 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 14 June 2017 - 03:41 PM

:D

 

What I found quite interesting is that although the MF image shows slightly more detail, the MFT image shows better contrast ....

Of course it is hard to say whether this is caused by differences in processing, but at first glance it looks like better microcontrast.

 

Also, the MFT camera used is a 16MP version. AFAIK, and IME, the latest, 20MP bodies are better in many respects; the sensors are better.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 June 2017 - 04:38 PM

One picture with f/16 and the other with f/5.6 - diffraction doens't give a shit about equivalence. Reducing the lens' resolution by stopping down like mad comes at a price.- 

 

"Shows slightly more detail..." haha, with a camera with a solid shutter slap and 2 seconds exposure time. Sorry, this trick only works in that kind of dull light. I came to very different results than this guy when I compared the Fuji GFx50 with a Nikon D810 and that was not 2.5× more Pixels.



#6 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 14 June 2017 - 07:23 PM

One picture with f/16 and the other with f/5.6 - diffraction doens't give a shit about equivalence. Reducing the lens' resolution by stopping down like mad comes at a price.- 
 
"Shows slightly more detail..." haha, with a camera with a solid shutter slap and 2 seconds exposure time. Sorry, this trick only works in that kind of dull light. I came to very different results than this guy when I compared the Fuji GFx50 with a Nikon D810 and that was not 2.5× more Pixels.

Of course, diffraction does give a shit, concerning equivalence.
Lets take a simple to calculate example, 25mm f2 on MTF and 50mm f4 on FF.

The aperture on the 25mm f2 lens is the same as the other lens:
25 / 2 = 12.5mm.
50 / 4 = 12.5mm.

Diffraction of the light at the aperture will be the same.
However, the distance of the aperture to the imaging plane will be bigger with the 50mm, most likely. So the softening of the diffraction will be worse, due to the extra distance.
However part II, when you print the images the same size, you will enlarge the image captured but the MFT system more, and so also the softness of the diffraction will become more clear.

The end effect on the printed images: the same softening from diffraction.

Ergo: diffraction does give a shit about equivalence.

However, if they shot f16 with the Fuji and f5.6 with MFT that is not quite equivalent.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de