[wim]

1. He does indeed confuse blur and bokeh.

 

2. What you are saying about exposure time I do not understand. For a given amount of time, at the same iso and same aperture, exposure time is always the same, regardless of camera used.

 

3. If you are talking about noise, you may be right about the specific iso value, provided the sensor tech of the cameras compared is similar.

 

4. Smaller sensor tech, smaller within reason, is much more rapidly advancing than the larger sensor tech, and it appears to be resulting in noise leves which are less than before. F.e., the latest Olympus 20 MP sensors are a stop better noise wise than the older 16 MP sensors, despite having 25 % more pixels.

 

5. Apart from that, IMO it is horses for courses. Don't shoot over 3200 iso with the previous incarnations, and not over 6400 iso with the newer ones, and you don't see the noise at 45 cm x 60 cm prints unless you use a magnifier, or larger even when processed properly.

 

Kind regards, Wim

I added numbers to answer point for point.

 

1. Agreed.

 

2. Of course it is so that for the same ISO setting, the same f-value, the same exposure time is needed for a similar image exposure result. Are we actually talking about that? No. Because, with the same f-value we would get a different DOF. And this is not it, this is same settings to get a different result.

 

We want the same DOF (DOF is one of the 2 things a photographer can change to change the look of the image, the other being FOV). So what are we talking about? Equivalent settings to get a similar result. Equivalent focal length to get a similar FOV. Equivalent aperture to get a similar DOF. And, equivalent ISO setting to get similar exposure time. Nothing more, nothing less. So: NOT the same focal lengths, NOT the same f-value, NOT the same ISO setting. Simple.

 

3. No, I have not talked about noise. A Canon EOS 5D has more noise at for instance ISO 400 than a Canon 5D mark IV. An Olympus E300 has more noise than for instance an Olympus EM-10 mark II. Equivalence never is about noise, it is about 2 lens things (FOV and DOF), and, if one wishes a similar exposure time for whatever reason, also about equivalent ISO settings. For the exposure time. Now, if some equivalence denier will be silly about noise, indeed,one  can point out that that for similar sensor tech, the noise will be similar. And one can also point out that, indeed, for the same sensor size, noise is not similar across sensor generations. 

 

4. That does not appear to be true (the faster advancing part). It is more like MFT is finally catching up to FF Sony sensors, noise wise, when you look at equivalent ISO settings.

 

5. Can't argue with your personal preferences. So, agreed.

 

Ad 2. Somehow there is some weird auto-correct going on, or I didn't check my post carefully enough. The first time I mention "time" it should have been "light'. I'll correct that.

Regardless, you mention exposure time, and I was not talking DoF. DoF is a choice, the amount of light in an outdoor environment generally is not. If I need less DoF with a smaller sensor, I use a larger aperture, same with larger sensors actually .

 

Sorry for the confusion I caused regarding the word time instead of light.

 

Ad 3. Equivalence is about FoV, DoF, and equivalent noise levels. That people use "equivalent ISO" is just a convenient shortcut, generally speaking. ISO in itself is not a parameter in equivalence. IOW, there is no equivalent ISO.

 

What you mean, I assume is all about getting the same quantity of total light on a sensor. ISO is about quantity per area unit. A larger sensor has a larger area and therefore collects more light in total.

Furthermore because sensels on a larger sensor tend to be bigger, the noise levels tend to be less too, especially as larger pixels collect more light relative to noise.

Noise levels was what in this regard the original equivalence discussions were about, 10 years or so ago (apart from DoF and FoV).

 

Ad 4. Considering that the MFT sensors of the latest generation have noise levels at least 1 stop better than the previous generation with a sensel/pixel amount increase of 25%, I think they are advancing faster than the larger size sensors.

 

As to catching up, of course they do not, and never will if development of FF (and APS-C) sensors continues, as those are larger sensors, APS-C by a factor 2 area-wise, and FF sensors by a factor 4. By definition, generations staying the same, sizewise the APS-C sensors have a 1 stop advantage, and FF sensors have a 2 stop advantage.

 

Having said that, I do not think the advances made in APS-C and FF sensors are of the same magnitude as those currently made in MFT.

 

In the end, it really is a matter of choice. Considering MFT IQ is as good or better than APS-C sensors of a few years ago, and possibly about equal, I don't really care too much. As mentioned before, I printed several of my 350D images at 60 cm x 90 cm (24" x 36"), and I now hve 20MP instead of 8 MP at my disposal, and better pixels as well. I can shoot with MFT at iso 6400 at 20 MP and get way, way better images than I got with my 350D at 1600 iso. For me, that means it suffices, easily.

 

And if I do need "better", I will use my 5D II, which I will likely upgrade to a newer version the coming year, to give it a real edge, otherwise, considering the weight of the equipment, I might just stop using it without at least some significant additional advantage .

 

Kind regards, Wim