11-17-2017, 11:37 AM
In the screenshot I showed I used DPReview's comparison tool. Olympus OM D-E M1 MkII and Sony Alpha 7 and I saw a pretty big gap in the noise behaviour. Now, as Olympus is not making FF anymore and we are not in a special equivalence thread (although a lot of threads show this unpleasant kind of pointless nerdiness) I just set one to 1600 ISO and the otehr 2 steps above. Panasonic GH5 and Canon 6D are confirming the "two steps higher ISO - no problem" theory, the Oly and Sony combination less so.
A theory which needs so specific conditons to work as posted - is that practical?
Especailly cross comparing µ 4/3 and FF worlds where lenses are very different, aimed at a different audience? And reasoning with not even available 400/5.6 lenses, to what will that lead? If the answer is not "to a better picture", you really can keep that knowledge and frame it to hang it somewhere.
For what is a comparison good if there are no alternatives? One who has a µ4/3 system will not go and run for a non-existing tele-lens and buy a body for it as well. The lens is not made to compete current 400 mm FF lenses. It is one for the needs of µ 4/3 owners. To degrade it the way "it is only equivalent to blabla..." and compare it's price to extremely outdated glass is throwing a lot of fog and a lot of blurb. If the lens is not good, it's too expensive. If it's good, then it has a price which is still a lot cheaper than 400/4 FF lenses. Depending on the compared cameras, it will not look worse than some FF stuff. That's bascially all what one needs to know. Everything else about equivalence is a waste of time.
A theory which needs so specific conditons to work as posted - is that practical?
Especailly cross comparing µ 4/3 and FF worlds where lenses are very different, aimed at a different audience? And reasoning with not even available 400/5.6 lenses, to what will that lead? If the answer is not "to a better picture", you really can keep that knowledge and frame it to hang it somewhere.
For what is a comparison good if there are no alternatives? One who has a µ4/3 system will not go and run for a non-existing tele-lens and buy a body for it as well. The lens is not made to compete current 400 mm FF lenses. It is one for the needs of µ 4/3 owners. To degrade it the way "it is only equivalent to blabla..." and compare it's price to extremely outdated glass is throwing a lot of fog and a lot of blurb. If the lens is not good, it's too expensive. If it's good, then it has a price which is still a lot cheaper than 400/4 FF lenses. Depending on the compared cameras, it will not look worse than some FF stuff. That's bascially all what one needs to know. Everything else about equivalence is a waste of time.