All the cameras are better than you are...

[laur1]

<p>Landrum, you are using the Nikon 28-70/2.8 zoom in the low light shots you uploaded on this site. With that lens, wide open means f/2.8. And if it doesn't have image stabilization, it will force you to higher ISOs just for that reason.</p>

<p>I am not going to get into whether f/2.8 is the right aperture for what you shoot. All I am saying is that <strong>on APS-C you can get the same FF f/2.8 result at proportionately lower ISO with an f/1.8 lens</strong> (that's why Sigma's new APS-C DSLR zoom is f/1.8 - that is an f/2.8 FF equivalent zoom) <strong>while on MFT you would need an f/1.4 lens</strong>. That is how you get equivalent results with smaller sensors.</p>

<p>It's all about <strong><a href="http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/">equivalence</a></strong>. I didn't make that up. If you disagree with my statement above, then you don't understand equivalence. Sorry, I cannot seem to be of more help to you in this area. If you'd explain what you don't understand, we could have a conversation, but you seem to contradict me just for the sake of maintaining an opposite opinion. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The interrelatedness of exposure variables is not a difficult concept to grasp, although it is certainly true that many do not bother to really apply what they know to real world shooting.</p>

<p>Yes, my Nikon lens collection is quite limited. A fast prime or two would be nice (in addition to my 50mm f/1.4).</p>

<p>As far as "helping" me, I was a chemistry-math-physics person before going into philosophy and politics. The concepts are not difficult, although an f/1.8 lens is an f/1.8 lens, regardless of the size of the box, since the ratio of the focal length to aperture is the same. Are you sure that you understand equivalence? Equivalence in quantum mechanics is quite another thing, but I am ignoring quantum effects for the sake of simplicity. If you are talking about equivalence with regard to framing or depth of field, that is yet another thing to boot--but that kind of equivalence is not aperture dependent. it is dependent on the size of the box containing the sensors, among other things. This is pretty elementary mathematical stuff, Laurentiu. In any case, I haven't asked for a tutor.</p>

<p>Thanks, in any case.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>By the way, Laurentiu, in case you are wondering, I do get the point of the math in going from 2.8 to 1.8 (1.333 stops), as well as going from 1.8 to 1.4 (.666 stops), for a total of two stops.</p>

<p>That is, if one does use the lenses with these relative stops, one can compensate for the noisier sensor by simply shooting with a faster lens. This goes back to your saying that the Olympus E-5M is two stops behind FF. (I rather doubt that it is that far "behind" some full-frame cameras, but it might be that much behind the very best ones.)</p>

<p>Thanks again. This has been quite interesting. I am sorry that you feel that I simply enjoy contradicting you. That really is not the case, and I have enjoyed the technical discussions. Most persons who use these things have no idea why something works as it does, and I appreciate your efforts to communicate on this level.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, Laurentiu, in case you are wondering, I do get the point of the math in going from 2.8 to 1.8 (1.333 stops), as well as going from 1.8 to 1.4 (.666 stops), for a total of two stops.<br>

That is, if one does use the lenses with these relative stops, one can compensate for the noisier sensor by simply shooting with a faster lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was my point, yes. With that knowledge one can look at systems and at their requirements and figure out if a smaller sensor system would work for them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This goes back to your saying that the Olympus E-5M is two stops behind FF. (I rather doubt that it is that far "behind" some full-frame cameras, but it might be that much behind the very best ones.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I was comparing with the top current FF sensor tech - the D4s/D800 stuff. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks again. This has been quite interesting. I am sorry that you feel that I simply enjoy contradicting you. That really is not the case, and I have enjoyed the technical discussions. Most persons who use these things have no idea why something works as it does, and I appreciate your efforts to communicate on this level.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm glad we got to this point. All the best!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you, Laurentiu. The best to you as well.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[unangelino]

<p>So, can we summarize by saying it's now well-proven that M4/3 is the way to go, pretty much for everyone and pretty much forever?</p>

<p>I'm glad that's settled.</p>

<p>Q.E.D.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>M4/3 is the way to go</em><br>

At last the voice of reason! But of course only if made in Wetzlar in a month with a "r" in it.</p>

[andrew_spence1]

<p>Yes it is a good article and i think its pretty accurate too in many parts<br>

To me its not the latest DSLR that represents advancement if you want to put it that way in photography, but the camera and equipment choices we now have in the year 2014<br>

this would include film too it just depends what you are into<br>

When i take my digital cameras out my film cameras of various shapes and sizes come too<br>

and the most important piece of camera equipment i have is a car <br>

regards Andrew</p>

<p> </p>