New Lenses. Z 28-75mm f2.8 and Z 800mm f6.3 PF..

Mary, what you say is true for equal subsegments of the sensor, but since the FX sensor has four times the area, it gets four times the light (if the aperture is the same and shutter speed the same), and at the image level this leads to lower noise. The dominant source of noise especially at high ISO settings is called photon shot noise and it is proportional to the square root of the number of detected photons. When making a final image for presentation at 400 mm from micro four thirds and from 800 mm from FX the images have the same angle of view, and depth of field and the total number of photons would be the same (i.e. nearly identical images apart from possible differences in color) if the apertures are f/4.5 for MFT and f/9 for FX. Since the 800mm lens is f/6.3, it has the potential for one stop more light cast on the whole sensor area which you can use if you need to. This will then lead to shallower depth of field. The ISO has to be set 1 stop higher on the FX kit to get the same shutter speed on both cameras but image noise (per area of the whole image) will still be lower on the FX images than the MFT.

In practice the FX will also produce more detailed images because of the longer focal length and higher-pixel-count sensors available (45 MP currently, likely in the future more than that). When working at small apertures, diffraction, however, limits and kind of equalizes the detail possible when aiming for the deepest depth of field. With the lenses set wide open the FX kit is likely to give better image quality. The zoom may still matter more in your application, though, if you have enough light to work within its parameters.

The ISO has to be set 1 stop higher on the FX kit to get the same shutter speed on both cameras but image noise (per area of the whole image) will still be lower on the FX images than the MFT.

Hmm.. not according to the guy on the video I cited. See the sample image-comparison with identical ISO. As far as noise is concerned, there are probably multiple variants contributing to it. Anyhow, I am not an engineer nor do I enjoy dissecting every explanation. I enjoy bottom-line photographic results. However, your posts have always been helpful in provoking thoughts. Thanks.

Hmm.. not according to the guy on the video I cited. See the sample image-comparison with identical ISO. As far as noise is concerned, there are probably multiple variants contributing to it. Anyhow, I am not an engineer nor do I enjoy dissecting every explanation. I enjoy bottom-line photographic results. However, your posts have always been helpful in provoking thoughts. Thanks.

The comparison you are showing is cropped FX vs. full MFT frame. This is a valid comparison if you have the same focal length on both systems. But when one has an 800 mm lens on FX, one would not need crop the image to get the same field of view than MFT camera with an 400 mm lens.

The comparison you are showing is cropped FX vs. full MFT frame. This is a valid comparison if you have the same focal length on both systems. But when one has an 800 mm lens on FX, one would not need crop the image to get the same field of view than MFT camera with an 400 mm lens.

I will do my own test some time since I have both systems. But honestly I hate to spend time to do equipment tests as any system can produce good images and normally I don't care about the minute background details unless they affect image quality. Good discussion anyway. I am putting my order on the waiting list.

It's not complicated, requires no tests:

- DoF: debated. Final magnification and f-stop are the only two determinants. Format is (dis-) counted in magnification.

- Illumination, or exposure: f/x @ shutterspeed y is the same, no matter what format, provided everything else is the same. What Ilka said is incorrect. At f/x, exposure (no matter how you want to express that) is the same, no matter what focal length or sensor size.

Yes, if you add up the exposure per unit of area, more area equals more photons. But spread out over more area, so the net result in photons per unit of area (which determines what aperture and shutterspeed at what ISO we need to set) is the same. I.e.: there is no need to drag in area as a factor.

- Noise: assuming same sensor technology and amplification, noise is the same per unit of area, i.e. more on larger sensors, but then spread out over more pixels too.

It's not complicated, requires no tests:.......

Not any test about exposure. I am curious (just mildly curious) about the difference is noise level, if any, between Nikon and Olympus given equivalent exposure criteria - in real-life practical situations, not just theories that people like to talk about endlessly. ;-)

Here is a good article on the topic of how compare products across different formats in a fair and practical way:

What is equivalence and why should I care?

Not any test about exposure. I am curious (just mildly curious) about the difference is noise level, if any, between Nikon and Olympus given equivalent exposure criteria - in real-life practical situations, not just theories that people like to talk about endlessly. ;-)

Noise depends on sensor technology, type and actual build. And on how much, and to what effect, is done during in-camera processing (both in amplification above base-ISO and noise reduction)

Sensor size may play a role, but i am not sure whether it really makes a difference at all.

Here is a good article on the topic of how compare products across different formats in a fair and practical way:

 

What is equivalence and why should I care?

That article is seriously confused when talking about "total light". That, and what they say about ISO confounding the matter, is completely nonensical. Those considerations, even if they would lead to a conclusion that is correct, are completely superfluous. F/4 is f/4. At the same shutterspeed and ISO, the same exposure will result, no matter how many square millimeters are exposed and how much light falls or would fall on surfaces not used. I can't think why anyone would think there is something to consider here that would make a difference. Nonsense. Not a good reference.

No, the author is very knowledgeable about the topic and the article is well-written.

Remember, the end result of photography is not an image on a sensor surface but rather a print on paper (or on a transparency material) or an image displayed on a monitor. The sensor image is just an intermediate step. Depth of field, noise, and sharpness are evaluated in the final presentation.

My test will be simple. The resultant image from either FX or M43 should have the same composition with identical F-stop, shutter and ISO. Perhaps test one in bright daylight and another at dusk. There will be a clear subject to simplify observation of variances.

PS Most likely after the new year.

FX will always 'win'.

Apart from the bill from your airline or chiropractor...... period.

DoF is trickier to judge....;)

No, Ilkka, The entire piece about ´total light´ is nonsense.

The main bit of the misconception is this: "And, because the more light [sensor area x intensity per unit] you capture, the less noisy your image, this is key to why large sensors generally give better image quality than small ones."

Noise would be better because you catch more light. Though he conceeds that light intentsity per area unit is the same. Which it indeed is.

More light, though same intensity, in the author's mind somehow equals to lower ISO, even though ISO is and remains the same. "You can't have equivalent sensitivities". Pure nonsense.

Or else, he stumbled upon something truly Magical noone else noticed before!

Nah... of course he hasn't.

It does not make any sense at all. Noise depending on light levels, depends on light intensity per pixel. And that is a simple equivalence, given same ISO, same f-stop, same shutterspeed. Not at all, in no magical way, does it depend on the size of the bundle of light relative to the size of the sensor.

His 'total light' considerations make no sense at all.

If you use your full frame Nikon, Ilkka, and set it to capture DX-format, you do not get more or less noise. Not using the same lens. Not switching to a lens of 'equivalent' focal length.

And no difference at sensor level is equivalent to no difference in the final print or monitor image.