[wim]

I'm sorry, but I can't leave this uncommented:



Right, and one other is ISO. Equivalency is about comparing the end result, the final image, and you can't ignore ISO, or to be more precise the level of noise in it.


So, in practical terms, with a 400/5.6, you'd just raise ISO by two stops and end up with the same DOF, same FOV, same shutter speed and same noise level as with the 200/2.8 on m43.

 

The question really comes down to what is acceptable to a user. Personally, I still shoot 5D II, and yes, you lose some detail from 6400 iso and up, although 6400 iso is almost acceptable. With the Pen-F and E-M1 II it gets to that level slightly above 3200 iso,. IOW, same ISO for both I will use when pushed, namely 3200 iso.

 

Personally, I do not care, I do not need crazy ISOs. I used to shoot at concerts just fine with Tri-X pushed to 1600 ISOo, and I can assure you it was a lot grainier and had much less IQ, let alone DR, than anything I have ever done with digital.

 

I also appreciate the fact that even the GF2, the MFT camera I started with 6, 7 years ago, was way, way, way better than the 350D I started with as a dslr 11 or so years ago.

 

In the end it is horses for courses, as it is all about what the prerequisites are for specific shooting conditions. In my case it often is about space available, IOW, size of package and weight. MFT wins hands down in that regard over FF. 12 lenses and 2 bodies for MFT take up about the same space as 1 FF body with 4 lenses, at least the stuff I tend to carry around. Do note: IQ is absolutely excellent with MFT, for real life purposes (i.e., say, 40 cm x 60 cm or 45 cm x 60 cm prints).

 

From my POV equivalency is only useful in the end in order to establish what aperture you need to get equivalent DoF, or to establish whether you are happy with the embedded noise. Personally, I took that decision, for myself anyway, years ago, because, again, it is about needs and conditions.

 

In short, equivalency is only part of all the practical terms, and only a minor part for that matter, and in the end is only a matter of tech geekery rather than actual photography. Photography has always been, for me anyway, to get the best about what you use. Photography to me is about art, realizing your vision, not to get the ultimate representation of reality (which the human eye cannot perceive anyway).

 

This doesn't mean we should not strive for (technical) perfection, because it always helps to have good tools, and they will allow for leeway when conditions aren't perfect, but the best tools also depend on the circumstances for which they are used. It always is a balance. For me that means I know when I should use FF, and to know when I am better off using a different format, like MFT. Funnily enough, considering the iQ the modern tools provide, most often MFT will do much better than just nicely.

 

Kind regards, Wim