Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MF vs MFT - interesting :)
Quote: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.

Messages In This Thread
MF vs MFT - interesting :) - by wim - 06-13-2017, 04:48 PM
MF vs MFT - interesting :) - by mike - 06-14-2017, 02:21 AM
MF vs MFT - interesting :) - by borisbg - 06-14-2017, 04:40 AM
MF vs MFT - interesting :) - by wim - 06-14-2017, 02:41 PM
MF vs MFT - interesting :) - by JJ_SO - 06-14-2017, 03:38 PM
MF vs MFT - interesting :) - by Brightcolours - 06-14-2017, 06:23 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)