Field of View: F1.4 on Micro Four Thirds and Canon EF Full Frame

With all the rage over the Metabones adapter yesterday, we thought we’d give in to a long time reader request. What does 35mm look like at full frame and on Micro Four Thirds at the same aperture.

We headed to a desk to do a quick informal test.

Gear Used

Test Procedures

In this quick informal test, both cameras were set to the same exposure. The Canon 5D Mk II was set to f1.4. Then the OMD was, and then opened up to f0.95. This test was done three times and at three times, the results came out the same. The cameras were placed in the exact same spots despite having slightly different fields of view.

Results

Canon 5D Mk II with Sigma 35mm f1.4 at f1.4

Olympus OMD with Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 at f1.4

Olympus OMD with Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 at f0.95

Please Support The Phoblographer

We love to bring you guys the latest and greatest news and gear related stuff. However, we can’t keep doing that unless we have your continued support. If you would like to purchase any of the items mentioned, please do so by clicking our links first and then purchasing the items as we then get a small portion of the sale to help run the website.

Also, please follow us on Facebook, Flickr and Twitter.

Tagged as: 35mm, canon, EOS, metabones, micro four thirds, olympus, Voigtländer

Gabriel Canova

Nice. So this basically shows how you cannot attain the limited DOF possible on a Full Frame with a fast lens (f/1.4) even with a super fast (f/0.95) lens. I’ve been very curious about of the “crop factor” influence on aperture. I wonder if the Full Frame set to f/1.8 (roughly 2x f/0.95) would look the same as the f/0.95 wide open.

Cool post, thank you!
- http://www.facebook.com/davidpapp89 Dávid Papp
  
  “Nice. So this basically shows how you cannot attain the limited DOF possible on a Full Frame with a fast lens (f/1.4) even with a super fast (f/0.95) lens.”
  
  >To archieve the same amount of DOF, you’d need an F0.7 lens on MFT.
  
  “I’ve been very curious about of the “crop factor” influence on aperture. I wonder if the Full Frame set to f/1.8 (roughly 2x f/0.95) would look the same as the f/0.95 wide open.”
  
  >When it comes to DOF, it would be roughly the same (only slightly different – F1.8 vs F1.9), but since the F0.95 is still F0.95, if the MFT body is set to ISO100, the full frame body needs to be set to ISO400 the archive the same exposure. I’m not sure if it makes sense for you.
  - Charlie Matters
    
    This is something that has always slightly confused me. In the example above (FF at 35mm f1.9 versus MFT 17mm f0.95), the entrance pupil is still a touch larger on the FF camera (35mm/f1.9 = 18.4mm versus 17mm/f0.95 = 17.9mm). Surely it is letting in practically the same amount of light, so the sensitivity need not change? You say f0.95 is always f0.95, however the F number is related to the focal length which in this case is changing.
    - http://www.thephoblographer.com/ Felix Esser
      
      Charlie, the amount of light gathered is always corresponding to the f-number, not to the physical aperture size. The f-number is the ratio of focal length divided by physical aperture size. That’s why the same physical aperture size corresponds to different f-numbers on the full-frame and MFT lenses, despite the angle-of-view being the same (35mm).
    - G
      
      Think of it like this: a 24 1.4 has a smaller iris than a 35 1.4, but it also gathers light from a broader “field of view” and concentrates it onto the same area as the 35 (both lenses FF). F0.95 relates to the physical design of the lens which is still 17.5 even though the field of view is roughly 35.
      
      And to the writer of the article: this isn’t a comparison on of a 35 on FF and MFT. The lens on the MFT has fov equal to a 35 on FF, that doesn’t change the fact that the lens is still a 17,5mm though. Sorry to be so pedantic.
  - Gabriel Canova
    
    “To archieve the same amount of DOF, you’d need an F0.7 lens on MFT.”
    
    So just as I said, not possible. Never seen any f/0.7 lenses for MFT, pretty sure they will never be produced.
    
    Do you think the reason everyone always raves about MFT lenses being sharp wide open is because they really aren’t that large of an aperture? For instance, I have read “how sharp wide open” the 75mm f/1.8 is. Well considering it is actually f/3.6, maybe it isn’t so surprising it is sharp.
    
    I think most people have a general understand of crop factor’s influence on focal length, but don’t take it into account when looking at apertures. People think they are getting a fast lens when they buy the 25mm f/1.4 on MFT, but in reality it is the equivalent of a 50mm f/2.8…which is not very fast. Someone shooting a 50mm f/1.8 on an APS-C actually has a slightly faster setup with an equivalent 75mm f/2.7 lens…with the extra focal distance to further increase narrow DOF.
http://www.facebook.com/bjdelr Bj Del Rosario

Wow, the OMD + Voiglander still provides great DOF.

Does that Voiglander have hella C/A wide open?
Nick

best wb with omd