![]() ![]() Which might be a big “if”-I’ve never seen any telephoto lens as enjoyable to shoot as the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 (415mm equiv) for Micro Four Thirds.īut wait-practically speaking, stopping down for equivalent depth of field means shutter speeds 1/4 as fast as on the 35mm full-frame format. Assuming the lenses are palatable in cost and size/weight. So unless shooting is always about maximum “reach” and not getting you out there, the equation quickly moves to favor of the larger sensor. But what if the lens has enough reach so that cropping all the way down to Micro Four Thirds size is not needed? Or we see an 80-megapixel 35mm camera? Then the megapixel counts rise rapidly in favor of the larger sensors. * Factor of 0.613 multiplier 1.36X assuming 23.5 X 15.6mm 24-megapixel sensor ** Factor of 0.261 multiplier 2.08X assuming 35.9 X 24.0 60/50-megapixel sensor *** Factor of 0.395 multiplier 2.53X, assuming 43.8 X 32.8 100-megapixel sensorĬropping delivers about 1/4 fewer megapixels versus a Micro Four Thirds sensor. Stopping-down for equivalent depth of field can be problematic: slower shutter speed.Ĭrop to Micro Four Thirds: Micro Four Thirds: 300mm f/4.5 20 megapixels APS-C: 300mm f/4.5 14.7 megapixels* 35mm Full Frame: 300mm f/4.5 15.7/13.1 megapixels** Fujifilmm MF: 300mm f/4.5 15.6 megapixels*** Rounding slightly and ignoring aspect ratio:įill the full frame width, equivalent DoF: Micro Four Thirds: 300mm f/4.5 20 megapixels APS-C: 408mm f/6.3 24 megapixels (typical) 35mm Full Frame: 622mm f/9.0 60 megapixels (Sony A7R IV) Fujifilmm MF: 760mm f/11.4 100 megapixels (Fujifilm GFX100S) Suppose you are 50 yards/meters distant from a bighorn sheep. Filling the frame on both formats vs cropping * Using the long edge of the frame, the factor is 17.3/35.9 = 0.482 for full frame (2.075 multiplier), and 17.3/23.6 =. ![]() That doubles the depth of field vs 35mm full frame. ![]() Practically speaking compared to Micro Four Thirds, one shoots at (about) half the focal length or twice the distance for the same field of view as 35mm full-frame*. For example, capturing an image at 300mm f/4 is identical in the APS-C portion whether the camera records a full-frame capture or an APS-C crop-capture.īut the foregoing is techno-babble that drops real-world context. Nor does cropping an image change its depth of field, whether the crop is the sensor, or Photoshop. and yes.ĭepth of field for a particular focal length and shooting distance and aperture is always the same the lens projects an image whose properties are invariant to capture area. More depth of field with smaller format? No. See Roy P’s latest comment on thinking through whether to go with Micro Four Thirds or instead crop 35mm full-frame (towards bottom of post).įunny how the format-size issue just never goes away-real reasons remain to embrace or reject Micro Four Thirds. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |