To get the same image with an MFT camera as a full-frame camera produces (in terms of framing, subject size, perspective, depth of field and photonic noise), using an MFT camera, you’d need a lens of half the focal length and half the maximum aperture used for the full-frame photo. To get the same narrow depth of field and angle of view a 70mm f/2.8 lens can deliver on a full-frame camera, you’d need a 35mm f/1.4 lens on the MFT camera. That’s because the 35mm lens at f/2.8 and the 70mm lens at f/5.6 have the same aperture diameter: 12.5mm. A 35mm f/2.8 lens used on a Micro Four Thirds camera produces the field of view of a 70mm lens on a full-frame camera, and the depth of field of an f/5.6 lens-not the depth of field of an f/2.8 lens. And on a Micro Four Thirds camera, a 35mm lens produces the field of view equivalent to a 70mm lens on a full-frame camera-actually, a short telephoto! This is why some wildlife and sports photographers prefer APS-C to full frame assuming equal pixel counts, APS-C provides 50% more “reach” with a given focal length, especially advantageous for extreme telephoto work. On an APS-C camera, it produces the field of view of a 52.5mm lens on a full-frame camera, considered a standard field of view. On a full-frame camera, it’s a wide-angle. And a 50mm lens delivers a field-of-view equivalent to that of a 100mm lens on a full-frame camera if you use it on a Micro Four Thirds camera (2X focal-length factor).Ĭonsider a 35mm lens. However, when used with a smaller APS-C sensor (1.5X focal-length factor), a 50mm lens will deliver a field of view equivalent to that of a 75mm lens on a full-frame camera. Note that the actual focal length does not change when you change the sensor size a 50mm lens is 50mm no matter what camera you use with it. Camera manufacturers generally list a focal-length factor in their specs, which lets you know how much field-of-view narrowing you’ll get compared to the same focal length used on a full-frame camera. A smaller sensor crops into the image produced by the lens, narrowing the field of view (see illustration). Sensor size also affects a given lens focal length’s field of view. More photons mean less photonic noise, and a better signal-to-noise ratio-less image noise. Due to its greater surface area, a larger sensor can collect more photons with a given exposure (exposure essentially being a measure of photons per square millimeter, and larger sensors have more square millimeters). There are digital cameras with smaller sensors (APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, “one-inch” and even smaller), and there are digital cameras with larger sensors (“medium format,” with sensors from 44x33mm to 53.9×40.4mm). The term “full frame” comes from the fact that these image sensors are the size of a full 35mm film image frame: 36x24mm. In fact, right now there are seven full-frame cameras selling for under $2,000. We now have three full-frame, all-in-one compact cameras, and where the first commercially successful full-frame DSLR cost $7,999 when it came out in 2002, today even the high-end Leica full-frame digital cameras sell for less than that. The downside is that full-frame cameras tend to be bulkier than cameras with smaller sensors, as well as more costly, but these drawbacks have diminished greatly in recent years. Larger sensors can also deliver narrower depth of field- important for selective-focus work and portraiture, and for “cinematic” video. Larger sensors also have room for more pixels of any given size, and more pixels mean the ability to reproduce finer detail in images. Digital cameras with full-frame sensors can provide better image quality than digital cameras with smaller sensors, and that’s their main attraction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |