ack of Equivalence is a Tool
Sept 29 (commentary)--Just as in the film world, we have a lot of people not fully understanding how format choice impacts photography. The usual way to get to understanding this is a notion called "equivalence." We're going to short cut the full description of equivalence with this one: essentially the same shot visually.
To get equivalence you need:
Same position relative to the subject (i.e. not closer or further away)
Same angle of view captured
Same DOF captured
You'll also hear people talking about photons in equivalence. Smaller sensors need faster lenses to capture the same number of photons and have the same signal-to-noise ratio as larger sensors. But I'm going to skip past this notion for this discussion and just assume that we're shooting at base ISO with very good sensors for their size (i.e. noise and dynamic range aren't going to really impact our image).
So, we take five photographers all shooting with different formats: FX, DX, m4/3, Nikon 1, Coolpix P7100. I'm going to round the numbers a bit in values, so don't get all picky on me here--I don't think the small amount of rounding is anywhere near as important as the basic concept. Again, we want equivalent photos as I've defined it above. So:
FX shooter is at 300mm f/8
DX shooter is at 200mm f/5.6
m4/3 shooter is at 150mm f/4
Nikon 1 shooter is at 110mm f/2.8
Coolpix P7100 shooter is at 64mm f/1.8
Of course, we already have our first casualty: the Coolpix shooter doesn't have 64mm or f/1.8, their fixed lens only goes to 42mm and f/5.6.
As we try to increase the angle of view, we start losing other formats:
FX shooter is at 50mm f/8
DX shooter is at 35mm f/5.6
m4/3 shooter is at 25mm f/4
Nikon 1 shooter is at 18mm f/2.8
The Nikon 1 shooter is down to some strange lens choices (14-24mm f/2.8 on the adapter, for example). Let's go into a lower light situation and even wider:
FX shooter is at 24mm f/2.8
DX shooter is at 16mm f/2
m4/3 shooter is at 12mm f/1.4
Nikon 1 shooter is at 9mm f/1
We've now completely lost the Nikon 1 shooter and we're losing the m4/3 and DX shooters, as they don't really have the lenses to come close.
So, if our goal is to take pictures "that look just like we took them with 35mm film," then the equivalence notion starts putting restrictions on us, especially as we go wider and faster. We just can't get to equivalent (and again, I'm not trying to bring photons and dynamic range into this discussion).
But the opposite is true, too. Let's turn things around and say that we want lots of depth of field:
Coolpix shooter is at 6mm f/2.8
Nikon 1 shooter is at 10mm f/4
m4/3 shooter is at 14mm f/5.6
DX shooter is at 18mm f/8
FX shooter is at 28mm f/11
Narrow the angle of view and try to keep a large DOF:
Coolpix shooter is at 11mm f/5.6
Nikon 1 shooter is at 19mm f/8
m4/3 shooter is at 25mm f/11
DX shooter is at 35mm f/16
FX shooter is at 50mm f/22
Hmm, the Nikkor 50mm lens only goes to f/16, so we're starting to lose the FX shooter.
The simple fact is that there are looks you can't get with small formats that you can with large formats, and vice versa. The trick is to pick the right tool for the right job, and therefore to understand the underlying differences of your tools. I don't use m4/3 to replace my FX equipment; I use m4/3 to supplement my FX equipment. Yes, there's sometimes overlap, in which case I can pick small/light or phenomenal dynamic range/noise properties (but not both ;~).
Today a lot of Nikon users are getting upset over a statement Nikon made on their Facebook page: "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses," which they subsequently apologized for with a further statement that included "...the right equipment can help you capture amazing images." That second quote isn't far from what I'm trying to say here: you choose equipment based upon what you want to do.
Everything in photography is about balancing decisions. Everything. You may make hundreds of decisions to get a single good photograph, and one of them is to choose the right tool for the job. I see the Nikon 1 as just another tool. I wish the tool were better targeted towards me (more direct control, for example), but it does potentially offer me some options I didn't have before, so it's welcome.
I think a lot of the heat in the discussions about mirrorless cameras is the "I want something that can do everything" notion. People want small, light, inexpensive, high image quality, flexible, robust, and a few other things all in one package. But there's a simple fact of life: the more things you require from a tool, the more compromised and/or expensive it is. Moreover, some combinations are impossible (or at least improbable): small, inexpensive, and high quality, for example.
Facebook
Twitter