• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Great read on equivalence

S

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Really interesting read on equivalence over at DPReview

What is equivalence

We always talk about equivalence on focal length, but the impacts to aperture and ISO are never really mentioned. I found this article very informative and will help when friends ask why they can't just get a P&S or even 1" sensor camera and call it a day.
 
Equivalence is most visible when comparing focal lengths, so I understand why it is talked about there most.

The other factors are also pretty obvious, when you just think about it.
 
A 1" sensor or even smartphone camera is perfectly adequate for certain types of photography. You lose some control over depth of field and probably dynamic range as well, but as for noise, let's be real here, the VAST majority of people never print. Even among those who print, a 1" sensor can go to what, 16x20" or so before noise at base ISO is an issue? Maybe more.

I also think it's only a matter of time before software gets good enough to give credible depth of field to small-sensor cameras. It won't be for a while though, so for the next several years, if you want out of focus blur, you want larger sensor cameras.

That said, in addition to my smartphone and 1" camera, I also have an APS-C camera for situations that demand it, like astrophotography where you need fast lenses and big sensors (because bigger sensors are more tolerant of high ISOs, generating less visible noise) to ensure that shutter speed is fast enough to avoid star trailing. APS-C is also good for flashless low-light. Full frame would be even better, but I'm not willing to pay that much in money/size/weight, and from what I understand, PDAF on sensor becomes harder and harder as sensor size goes up.
 
blastingcap said:
A 1" sensor or even smartphone camera is perfectly adequate for certain types of photography. You lose some control over depth of field and probably dynamic range as well, but as for noise, let's be real here, the VAST majority of people never print. Even among those who print, a 1" sensor can go to what, 16x20" or so before noise at base ISO is an issue? Maybe more.

I also think it's only a matter of time before software gets good enough to give credible depth of field to small-sensor cameras. It won't be for a while though, so for the next several years, if you want out of focus blur, you want larger sensor cameras.

That said, in addition to my smartphone and 1" camera, I also have an APS-C camera for situations that demand it, like astrophotography where you need fast lenses and big sensors (because bigger sensors are more tolerant of high ISOs, generating less visible noise) to ensure that shutter speed is fast enough to avoid star trailing. APS-C is also good for flashless low-light. Full frame would be even better, but I'm not willing to pay that much in money/size/weight, and from what I understand, PDAF on sensor becomes harder and harder as sensor size goes up.
Click to expand...
You need 12MP to get decent 16x20 print, and 28MP for high quality print. And, not many smart phone sensors are going to give you that kind of MP. And, then there are there is such thing as ISO & noise, if you disregard the lens quality & aperture size.

That said, in good light and in the right condition a smart phone/1" sensor may produce good result for large prints, but IMHO most of the time it will not match a APS-C or full frame due to noise, lens quality/DOF control, and last but not least are speed lights and other accessories for fill flash.

IMHO, equipment shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying photography, or from producing good quality pictures, because one can still be creative if one learn the limitation/s of one equipment.

I own a 5D mkII, S95, and Galaxy S3, and I use both 5D & S95 as much as each others for differnt purposes, while the S3 rarely see any action.
 
Last edited:
To repeat what I wrote, I said that most people never print (not large anyway), and if all people are doing is sharing 2MP photos on 1080p screens, or even smaller than that on Facebook, that might be enough for them.

I then talked about people who do print and even for those who do print, 1" sensors can let you print 16x20. My RX100 Mark II (20MP) can certainly produce nice 16x20 prints. I was not talking about smartphones for printing 16x20.

Key word is "can." For some situations you are going to need more, as you said. Smartphones can't do ultrawides or long telephotos and suffer a lot in low light, and flashes are poor and can't go off-camera. Even at Facebook image sizes you can see some loss of detail and color due to noise.

My most used camera is my Nikon V1, ironically. It's not like it's that great, not even as good as my Sony RX100 II, in image quality. But since it has an electronic shutter, I feel free to take a LOT of photos with it since there isn't a mechanical shutter to wear down.

iGas said:
You need 12MP to get decent 16x20 print, and 28MP for high quality print. And, not many smart phone sensors are going to give you that kind of MP. And, then there are there is such thing as ISO & noise, if you disregard the lens quality & aperture size.

That said, in good light and in the right condition a smart phone/1" sensor may produce good result for large prints, but IMHO most of the time it will not match a APS-C or full frame due to noise, lens quality/DOF control, and last but not least are speed lights and other accessories for fill flash.

IMHO, equipment shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying photography, or from producing good quality pictures, because one can still be creative if one learn the limitation/s of one equipment.

I own a 5D mkII, S95, and Galaxy S3, and I use both 5D & S95 as much as each others for differnt purposes, while the S3 rarely see any action.
Click to expand...
 
I think the biggest thing about the original article I posted was the talk on ISO. It was really interesting to see how ISO400 on a Nikon 1 compares similarly to ISO3200 a Canon 1D X in lowlight conditions.

Having an RX100 and comparing to my Nikon full frame lenses, I was always disappointed that even well-exposed, native-ISO images made by the RX100 have more noise than equivalent photos I took with the DSLR's. Granted, there's the money gap and all that, but I've never been able to explain the disparity in noise other than saying oh well the FX gear is 5x more expensive... Larger sensor means more light, which means less noise even at the same ISO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top