06-15-2016, 10:51 PM
Quote:I'm with Wim here.
ISO 100 on MFT is equivalent to ISO 400 on FF as far as the quality of the end result is concerned (for the same amount of pixels).
A FF camera has a 2 f-stop speed advantage over MFT - this is a baseline and it has to be taken into the equation when talking about speed equivalence. The characteristics of the end result are the only things that count in this discussion - thus field-of-view, depth-of-field and image noise.
Of course, a 10mm f/2.8 (MFT) has the same speed as a 20mm f/2.8 (FF) when you just look at the lens. However, a naked lens is merely good for a paperweight without a camera behind it. We are always talking about SYSTEM equivalence here.
Maybe one addition: it looks these days that pixel count, up to a certain point anyway (which we have not reached yet with 4/3 and larger sensors), is no longer all that important: with smaller pixels you get more noise, but averaged out over a sensor area it is about the same with the current state of sensors. In short, it is just the sensor size that therefore appears to affect image noise, due to the magnification required.
Obviously, this is an approximation or an average, and one can pixelpeep and measure to the n-th degree, but that is more or less what it amounts to, based on some of the stuff I have been reading lately.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....