06-15-2016, 10:28 PM
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.
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.