M43 vs Full Frame (Same Focal Length Characteristics)

e.g. - M43 17.5mm vs FF 35mm

Does it look the same? Exactly the same? If so, is there really a "full frame look"? If not, what are the differences? Are we simply talking depth of field?


Note:
I've scoured the internet looking for this specific test and haven't found anything.

It will not look the same at the same f-stop. And then, every lens has its own characteristics.

is there really a "full frame look"? If not, what are the differences?

There is no such thing as a "full frame look" and the details why along with an answer to your question about the differences are here:

http://www.yedlin.net/191106.html

It’s simpler to dismiss the real world difference when the formats being compared are similar, S35 & FF. When you look at trying to achieve the same look with S16 or 2/3”, math is the only things that’s going to get you there because the glass does not exist.

Steve didn’t come from a 1/3” background so he doesn’t understand the term’s vernacular origin. When people talk about a FF look, they are referencing 5d 50mm WFO, not some long forgotten celluloid format.

Good Luck

e.g. - M43 17.5mm vs FF 35mm

Does it look the same? Exactly the same? If so, is there really a "full frame look"? If not, what are the differences? Are we simply talking depth of field?


Note:
I've scoured the internet looking for this specific test and haven't found anything.

Que,
I asked the same or very similar question (I think) here, 6 posts down:

viewtopic.php?uid=16&f=2&t=71816&start=50

You can see there were a couple of answers.

Steve

Here are some videos about the subject that can help shed some light. Warning, Tony Northup's conclusions are at times viewed as incorrect or using wrong reasoning, but nonetheless I think he provides something useful on this confusing and subjective topic:

The message that I get from the lenses and associated software on my iPhone 11 Pro Max is that questions like this will soon be quaint :)

Que,
I asked the same or very similar question (I think) here, 6 posts down:

viewtopic.php?uid=16&f=2&t=71816&start=50

You can see there were a couple of answers.

Steve

Steve, good to review the answers to your post #56 in that thread. Thanks.

Kays, I hadn’t seen either video by Tony. Both on the same topic and mostly spot on. The SpeedBooster impact deserved a little more detail I think. The second video where he switches to cameras with different sensor size is very good. Thanks for the post.

Yes, I agree Rick. All the Speed Booster does is change to AOV of a given lens on the smaller sensor cameras. It also adds more light, but does not change the f/stop in relation to DoF, so you can get a matching DoF with a smaller ISO change, which helps also.
Cheers

Kays, I hadn’t seen either video by Tony. Both on the same topic and mostly spot on. The SpeedBooster impact deserved a little more detail I think. The second video where he switches to cameras with different sensor size is very good. Thanks for the post.

Agree, Rick. I think he does a good job explaining the FOV and DOF differences for the various sensor sizes. He doesn't mention compression, i.e. shooting with a longer lens from further away to make the background appear larger and more cropped, https://photographylife.com/what-is-lens-compression. Would be interesting to see the following comparison (for example):

M43 camera with 25mm, f2 vs. FF with 50mm, f4, cameras same distance from subject (I assume) to achieve the same FOV and DOF.

M43 camera with 50mm lens vs. FF with 50mm lens, M43 camera further away from subject and aperture adjusted such that FOV and DOF are identical.

My understanding is that compression is distinct from DOF but correct me if I'm wrong.

Steve

I liked that Tony kept the distance to the subject identical as he changed focal lengths and so on. He was really proving the point that ‘crop factor’ needs to be applied to aperture as well as focal length to ensure the bokeh matches.

Perhaps he’ll illustrate compression and it’s affect on background bokeh in another video.

Very recently I saw a video showing the different shape a head can have as focal length and subject distance changes. It’s like blowing up a balloon and deflating it. And in a given video or film you don’t want to see your hero with a wide face in one shot and a narrow face in the next.

M43 camera with 50mm lens vs. FF with 50mm lens, M43 camera further away from subject and aperture adjusted such that FOV and DOF are identical.

My understanding is that compression is distinct from DOF but correct me if I'm wrong.

Steve

Anytime you change the subject to camera distance it's properly called perspective and not 'compression'.

Yes, I agree Rick. All the Speed Booster does is change to AOV of a given lens on the smaller sensor cameras. It also adds more light, but does not change the f/stop in relation to DoF, so you can get a matching DoF with a smaller ISO change, which helps also.
Cheers

A 'speed booster' just reduces the focal length of a lens and is technically in optical terms a 'focal reducer' As the aperture value has a direct mathematical relationship between the focal length and the aperture's physical size this value changes as well as the image circle. Introducing ideas like 'adds more light' (or my personal most irritating phrase 'light gathering') and 'F/stop in relation to DoF' are I think confusing. As long as there is a sufficient image circle to cover the format a 35mm 1.4 lens will create an identical image to a 50mm 2.8 + 0.7x speedbooster.

Here's a fun one, all these shots have the exact same DOF.

Good Luck

Depth of Phil.jpeg (405.21 KiB) Viewed 3436 times

Here's a fun one, all these shots have the exact same DOF.

Good Luck

Thanks, Howard! Very interesting.

(Say hi to Phil for me.)

Steve

Here's a fun one, all these shots have the exact same DOF.

Good Luck

Depth of Phil.jpeg

Clearly not true as DOF is related to print / image size.

Here's a fun one, all these shots have the exact same DOF.

And what's the claimed figure? How many feet? Presumably the two figures are quite a long distance apart?

The usual counter-intuitive notion is that DOF is the same, regardless of lens, if the framing is the same in each instance, on any single sensor.

So on any particular camera, a 12mm has the same DOF as a 300mm, if it's the same shot. But in the example above, the framing changes in each shot, even as the central character remains the same size. So I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove(?)

The framing changes, the composition does not. A conversation about the look of FF vs M43 is pointless without considering the effects of composition. Without, it's a bunch of old guys showing how good they are at 4th grade math.

Good Luck

Phil Comp.jpg (657.54 KiB) Viewed 3401 times

That's some strange distinction you're making. The framing of one item is the same in all shots. The composition is different in all shots. Both the framing (the totality of it) and composition is different in each shot.

Again, I don't know what this is supposed to prove.

Thanks! I didn't expect this much response, I appreciate it. This test is exactly what I was looking for, my eye doesn't register much (if any) difference. I'm pretty sensitive to these things so... This all started because I was thinking about selling my Voigtlanders to move back to FF lenses (w/XL Speedbooster on Pocket 4K). I just feel like I'm kind of restricted because all I have are M43 lenses.

So... Another question. Is it the sensors? What I mean by that is... Are the FF sensors better? Larger photosites? Why are people going to LF sensors? Can a M43 sensor look as good as the Arri sensor? Is it possible? Is it mostly calibration, color science and software or is it the physical hardware?

The framing changes, the composition does not. A conversation about the look of FF vs M43 is pointless without considering the effects of composition. Without, it's a bunch of old guys showing how good they are at 4th grade math.

Good Luck

Phil Comp.jpg

Optics are pure maths. 'Framing' is subjective and what the originator of these images is doing is actually changing another pure mathematical definition which is perspective by moving the camera. The composition does actually change as evidenced by the unflattering distortion of the subjects face where the camera is close and the reverse when it is further away. If this is evidence of a young person's grasp of the basics of camera operation then leave it to the 'old guys' and go back to school......

That's some strange distinction you're making. The framing of one item is the same in all shots. The composition is different in all shots. Both the framing (the totality of it) and composition is different in each shot.

Again, I don't know what this is supposed to prove.

The one item being the subject, Ahoy Mate!

The framing changes, the composition does not. A conversation about the look of FF vs M43 is pointless without considering the effects of composition. Without, it's a bunch of old guys showing how good they are at 4th grade math.

Good Luck

Phil Comp.jpg

Optics are pure maths. 'Framing' is subjective and what the originator of these images is doing is actually changing another pure mathematical definition which is perspective by moving the camera. The composition does not change either as evidenced by the unflattering distortion of the subjects face where the camera is close and the reverse when it is further away. If this is evidence of a young person's grasp of the basics of camera operation then leave it to the 'old guys' and go back to school......

So other than that hack at the end we agree completely.

The framing changes, the composition does not. A conversation about the look of FF vs M43 is pointless without considering the effects of composition. Without, it's a bunch of old guys showing how good they are at 4th grade math.

Good Luck

Phil Comp.jpg

Optics are pure maths. 'Framing' is subjective and what the originator of these images is doing is actually changing another pure mathematical definition which is perspective by moving the camera. The composition does not change either as evidenced by the unflattering distortion of the subjects face where the camera is close and the reverse when it is further away. If this is evidence of a young person's grasp of the basics of camera operation then leave it to the 'old guys' and go back to school......

So other than that hack at the end we agree completely.

I don't think so - see my edited post.

Are the FF sensors better?

Some are better than others... just like sensors in any other size. Also, all sensors are full frame - they just happen to have frames that are different sizes. Is a medium format sensor fuller than full?

Larger photosites?

That depends also on the resolution of the sensor. A 60MP 135-format sensor (the format commonly mis-marketed as "full frame") would have smaller photosites than a 12MP M4/3 sensor, for example.

Can a M43 sensor look as good as the Arri sensor? Is it possible?

It might look better, depending on what you point it at and how the camera is set up. Or it might not.

Is it mostly calibration, color science and software or is it the physical hardware?

Yes to all four. It all comes into play. The sensor size is one factor among many that comes into play when determining how the image will look in the end... and I would argue one of the lesser factors. I would put forward that the size of the photosites on the sensor is more significant than the size of the sensor itself in determining the quality in the end, but the sensor technology is also very important. Newer sensors can have higher resolution (and thus smaller photosites) but still perform better in low light because the underlying technology has improved since the older sensors were made.

So are we saying there is essentially no difference?

A larger sensor is just that... Plain and simple.

Focal lengths are strictly 4th grade math equations and the equivalent focal length will look the same on any sensor?

So are we saying there is essentially no difference?

A larger sensor is just that... Plain and simple.

Focal lengths are strictly 4th grade math equations and the equivalent focal length will look the same on any sensor?

Essentially the differences are not related to sensor size but to the different lens designs required on each format to achieve the equivalent geometrically matched image. It’s easy to scale a sensor by just adding more pixels but lenses don’t scale by just making the glass bigger.

Here's a fun one, all these shots have the exact same DOF.

Good Luck

The attachment Depth of Phil.jpeg is no longer available

Clearly not true as DOF is related to print / image size.

pCam thinks it's true.

Good Luck

pCam.jpg (194.66 KiB) Viewed 3167 times

M43 camera with 50mm lens vs. FF with 50mm lens, M43 camera further away from subject and aperture adjusted such that FOV and DOF are identical.

My understanding is that compression is distinct from DOF but correct me if I'm wrong.

Steve

Anytime you change the subject to camera distance it's properly called perspective and not 'compression'.

John,
Found this and I think I understand your point now.

Not trying to unnecessarily prolong this discussion, just continuing my search for understanding what someone means when they say “they’re aiming for that S16 look” or that “they prefer the S35 format for aesthetic reasons”.

Cheers,
Steve


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Not trying to unnecessarily prolong this discussion, just continuing my search for understanding what someone means when they say “they’re aiming for that S16 look” or that “they prefer the S35 format for aesthetic reasons”.

That's pretty much how the discussion began... My assumption is that it's only really relevant when using film.

Well, on film the main difference might be grain: 35mm has just finer grain for the same type of film.
Electronic sensors will have some more noise if there are as many pixels on a smaller area, but sensor generation and in-camera denoising make a lot of difference.