[Brightcolours]

I sense a bit of a lack of unity in opinion in the monastery St. Equivalencia: One dude tells me, FF gains 2 stop compared to µ 4/3. In the scientific equation of that matter sensor age didn't play much of a role... Now the other dude comes jumpin' and talks about a difference between a stone age Nikon D70 and a D500, less stone age. Hmmm.

 

I just was looking for some kind of visible proof since every equivalence monk here keeps on swinging the rosary but doesn't put much effort in delivering samples - okay, to be fair, you could deliver what you want. If there's already a clearly visible weakness in the ISO theory, I just turn my back and go on with funnier things. Like tax declarations or so The equation is alright. In theory. And in reality, it's one of these "in ideal conditions" constructions which just don't meet reality. And reality appears to sho no interest in meeting the equation so I just like to keep both happy and continue with not caring. 

How many stops does the OM-D E-M10 mk II gain compared to a E-300? Both have same sized sensors. You are just looking for straw man arguments...

 

Lens equivalence is not about ISO settings and noise. It is about the FOV and the aperture.

And when someone, for some valid reason or just for the sake of trolling about how lens equivalence does not compute, needs to have exposure times also the same, you can just set an equivalent ISO setting. Setting equivalent ISO settings accomplishes two things: similar exposure times, and similar amount of light captured by the sensors.

 

And when you set an equivalent ISO setting, what Markus points out comes in: similar sensor technology sensors will give similar noise with equivalent ISO settings.

 

And when someone brings up how "diffraction always sets in at f8", we try to explain how that is wrong on any way you look at it, and that also diffraction adheres to the laws of physics, and also scale with the crop factor and don't collide with lens equivalence theory.

 

And then, anti-equivalence trolls will think of something else again to troll. Does not make the simple theory of lens equivalence any less valid