1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

m43 vs aps-c @ 28mm FOV (kit lens comparison)

Discussion in 'Open Gear Talk' started by Yeats, Oct 3, 2013.

  1. Yeats

    Yeats SC All-Pro

    Jul 31, 2012
    New Jersey, USA
    Chris
    Just figured I'd post a comparison between the Oly 14-42 lens vs the Pentax 18-55 lens at widest angle. The point of this little exercise is to demonstrate the differences in view between the 2 formats, not an image quality comparison. For PP, I just let ACR use it's "Auto" setting.

    Oly @ 14mm (28mm FOV equiv)
    [​IMG]

    Pentax @ 18mm (28mm FOV equiv)
    [​IMG]

    And, just for kicks, the Oly @ 14mm + WCON-P01 (0.79x), so 22mm FOV equiv

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    I still struggle to love the 4:3 ratio in landscape orientation, although I do prefer in it portrait. It's all dependant on the scene, of course. Panasonic's multi-aspect sensors gave the best of both worlds but it seems that post-GH2 they are no more.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Yeats

    Yeats SC All-Pro

    Jul 31, 2012
    New Jersey, USA
    Chris
    I agree with you 100%, Nic. Yet, I can't help but find it ironic that medium format is square-er than m43 and yet is considered "the" landscape camera system. I think in my case the issue is visualization.
     
  4. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Yeah, I absolutely agree with this. I much prefer 3:2 to 4:3 for landscape oriented shots, with the exception of street shots, where 4:3 works well for me and makes for a cleaner 1:1 crop, which I end up doing a fair amount with street. But for everything else, I greatly prefer 3:2. In portrait orientation, I tend to shave any 3:2 shots down to 4:3. But in landscape, as demonstrated above, there's a big difference between a TRUE 3:2 and 3:2 cropped down from 4:3, which just doesn't have the same field of view. The multi-aspect sensor is wonderful, but other than the GH2 and LX7, they don't seem to exist. I'd pay extra for that, as long as it has a handy external control like the LX7.

    I think this preference is the biggest reason I've been moving steadily away from m43 into APS and full frame. The IQ differences between m43 and APS seem negligible to me, but the format isn't...

    -Ray
     
  5. Djarum

    Djarum SC All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2010
    Huntsville, AL
    Jason
    Personally, I like even wider for landscapes. But cropping doesn't change the fov unless using a multi aspect sensor.
     
  6. bartjeej

    bartjeej SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 12, 2010
    bart
    I find 3:2 dreadful in nearly every situation; 4:3 doesn't force the eye in any particular direction while still being horizontally based, and I much prefer that. Or 16:9 / 2:1 / 2.4:1, aka, proper panorama. 3:2 is neither fish nor fowl to me, regardless of subject matter.

    Djarum: focal length equivalency is typically measured over the diagonal of the image, so that the aspect ratio doesn't matter; a 14mm m43 has the same diagonal FOV as an 18.66mm APS-C, but if you crop the m43 image down to 3:2, the diagonal becomes smaller and therefore the equivalent focal length becomes longer. It's true that horizontal FOV doesn't change if you crop down a 4:3 image to a 3:2 one, because you only take some off the top or bottom, and nothing from the sides, but that's not how focal lengths are usually compared.
     
  7. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    I think that when it comes to images in landscape orientation I find a squarer format less dynamic. A wider format like 3:2, 16:9, or 2:1 tends to draw your eyes across an image whereas a squarer format doesn't "lead" you in any particular direction. I like this trait to establish a "direction" in which to view the image in conjunction with the composition itself. Conversely I find 3:2 sometimes looks too thin when viewed in portrait orientation, and going even narrower requires a very specific type of image to make it work. When I shoot with Micro 4/3 or my G1X in landscape orientation it is often in the knowledge that I will crop them down to 3:2, the same as I might be inclined to crop my Samsungs down to 4:3 when I shoot them in portrait.
     
  8. Ace

    Ace New to SC

    2
    Oct 4, 2013
    I like 4/3 for the "room" to crop either towards square, or 3:2. Cropping 4:3 to 3:2 shouldn't affect anything in terms of the horizontal FoV. I was trying to figure out why the two photos have such different FoVs- some basic maths with what I (think I) know about the sensors tells me that the mu43 sensor has an effective "crop factor" of 2.08 (only 17.3mm of the 18mm width of the sensor captures pixels). According to http://www.digicamdb.com/compare/pentax_q10-vs-pentax_k-01/ the Pentax has a CF of 1.52

    14x2.08 = 29.12
    18x1.52 = 27.36

    The GH2 sensor in 3:2 mode has 4752 pixels vs 4608 in standard 4:3. I guess with a bit of maths that equates to 17.84mm physical width, which rounds out to about 2.02 Crop Factor.

    So a 14mm lens on the GH2 in 3:2 should give a 35mm equivalent FoV of
    14x2.02 = 28.25

    Certainly that little bit wider that, if you dig a little wider view you'll appreciate it.

    cheers
    John
     
  9. Yeats

    Yeats SC All-Pro

    Jul 31, 2012
    New Jersey, USA
    Chris
    Hi, Ace, welcome to SC!

    FOV is calculated on the diagonal, so it makes perfect sense that, at a given focal length, the 4:3 image will have less horizontal coverage but more vertical coverage than a 3:2 image, as the 4:3 ratio is "more square".

    Any other slight anomalies can be attributed to lens corrections automatically applied in software, I think.
     
  10. Yeats

    Yeats SC All-Pro

    Jul 31, 2012
    New Jersey, USA
    Chris
    Oddly enough, when I had a Panny LX7 with the multi-aspect sensor, I shot 16:9 only occasionally... :confused:

    Like you and Ray, I often crop my vertically-oriented shots to 4:3 - or even 5:4 or square - because 3:mad: just looks too damn tall sometimes...
     
  11. Ace

    Ace New to SC

    2
    Oct 4, 2013
    Ah, OK. I've always worked (incorrectly) on the basis of how much I have to step back/forward to fit things in the frame, usually horizontally. :)