от: doctor25
Точно. Аккурат про вас сказано :)))
Это не про меня. Хотя я с перевода смеялся... прикольно перевели!!!
А на самом деле никому нет дела до какого-то там американсокго автора заказных статеек... один день он поет о микре, второй день ему заплатит фуджи например, так он будет петь о фуджи и том какой кроп 1.5 хороший. и тд и тп..
Вот оригинальная статья
http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
тем кому интересно могут почитать отзывы внизу. А отзывы о многом говорят!!!
Например
Second, the article is wrong talkiing about the aperture, because it stops at the wrong point leaving a big part of equivalence untouched. With an 75mm f/1,8 on Micro-Four-Thirds you get the same relative amount of light as with an 150mm f/1,8 on Full Frame, thats correct. But you don’t get the same absolute amount of light. That is, of course, the answer of why full frame cameras have less noise, but it affects other points to. For example the wider range of usable apertures, or the higher level of details possible. Image a perfect lens and a sensor with infinite resolution: full frame will capture four times more details with the same aperture, just because the absolute amout of light is four times as high.
And that’s also why your given examples are wrong, because you forgot the relative nature of ISO. There are no benefits of a larger depth of field with the same aperture, so there are no benefits of smaller sensor sizes within macro or studio photography.
или вот
Where the difference really happens is shutter speed when hand-held. The 25/1.4 lens calls for the use of a shutter speed 4 times what would be used for 50/2.8. However, to prevent motion blur, the smaller sensor only needs to use shutter speed twice as fast. So, in a scene that the full-frame version would need f/2.8 1/30″, for example, can be shot with mFT at f/1.4 1/125″, producing the same field of view, depth of field, and background blur, but one-stop gain in motion blur. Or, we could do f/2.8 1/30″ ISO 400 in full-frame, vs. f/1.4 1/60″ ISO 200 in mFT, with the same motion blur and the same SNR. So, if mFT sensors can stay one stop behind full frame sensors in SNR (actually, your graph shows that it is a little less than 1.5 stop behind, not 1 stop), all things are basically equal. Unfortunately, E-M5 is actually two stops behind D800, so mFT remains one stop inferior in image quality to FF.
или
While I agree with your points in general terms, I think there is a resurgence of the equivalence discussion coming (if not already here) because the FF prices are dropping quickly and it is already very reasonable to choose between a D600 and an OM-D with grip, with only a 33% price differential. That brings up the dramatic difference in potential with almost 2 stops of SNR difference and definitely two stops of subject isolation difference at the same aperture. There is a sacrifice to be made for miniaturization, and there is no stopping the debate by sweeping it away with comments like “why bother looking at a format you don’t use?” The answer is “because you just might choose to use it at current prices so it pays to know what you gain versus what you lose.”
и тд и тп....
Все-таки люди еще думают и обсуждают. Я бы на такую статью даже и этого не делал бы...
