My first digital camera was a Canon 300D. I was vaguely aware that it had a 1.6 crop sensor, which apparently meant that my 50mm lens would show a different field of view to that shown with the same lens stuck on a full frame camera. My response to this was “so what?”; I was very familiar with the field of view of this lens on my camera and I really didn’t care how it worked on another camera which I did not, and would never, own.
I then moved to a 30D and eventually a 1D which has a 1.3 crop. I never bothered calculating the full frame equivalent of my expanding lens collection on these cameras; it was completely irrelevant. Thankfully, other camera owners never seemed interested in the topic either. 5D owners never walked up to me to belittle my sensor for being smaller and having some apparent deficiency caused by “equivalence”. Just as well they didn’t, or else I would have advised them that my camera knocked out ten frames a second, which was about the time it took their camera to acquire focus for a singe shot; so could they please just bugger off.
Then came MFT, and we all knew the implications of the size of our sensor in terms of field of view, depth of field, high ISO performance etc., and it wasn’t important because we loved our little cameras and the images they produced.
Panasonic GF1 with 20mm F1.7 lens
But in the last year or so, as M43 has progressively been knocking on the door of DSLR quality (and in some cases kicking down the door and strutting round the front room smoking a cigar - I’m not sure this analogy is really working), there has been a resurgence of the equivalence debate; and most of it is bollocks.
You can’t mention an M43 lens in an on-line forum without some wanker wading in with rubbish along the lines of “yeah, but that’s the same as a 137mm F9.6 lens on full frame”; usually without the slightest idea of what he (or she, I don’t wish to be sexist when criticising people) is on about. It’s bad enough in the M43 forum on DPReview; but even worse on the main page where the snipers (who probably don’t even own a camera), feel less threatened and can really let loose. The comments on the announcement of the Olympus 17mm samples gallery contain good examples of the almost hysterical response to any M43 product.
It’s all very unnecessary and probably best ignored; but should you feel the need to join the slanging match debate then I recommend a read of “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter by Jordan Steel on Admiring Light.
Having read the article just after acquiring my E-M5, I was all set to rebuff any equivalence nonsense. First weekend out with the camera and I was standing in the street trying to understand making some critical adjustment to the menus, when I was aware of a man stood next to me with a Nikon Bigfullframe and a hamper full of lenses. He was staring at the E-M5. “Here comes the equivalence onslaught” I thought and prepared my response “It’s a 75mm F1.8 lens with an equivalent field of view to 150mm on full frame”. I decided to drop a closing “so please bugger off” because he was substantially bigger than me.
But he just smiled, stuck out an upturned thumb and said “good camera”. I was straight back at him with “It’s a 75mm F…oh, yes, well, thanks. Yes it is a very good camera”.
Never mind, I’ll be ready the next time.