Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV Telegram channel! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Why M4/3 is special size sensor
  • MFT format sensor.

    first size and cost and weight. No one can beat size performance. shape 4:3 perfect for multiaspect.

    the shutter 40 for 24p. it was all about cadence and motion blur. To properly emulate certain texture and movement. those topics are already understood and well documented.

    But the theory i have is more from the optical/sensor perspective. I said in a previous thread that m4/3 sensors are special for the human eye. You see, the usable human retina is about 21mm diagonal in diameter in a standard adult, The size of the retina is very similar to the m4/3 format sensor which is 22mm diagonal.

    For me this is very important, since the lens you use will behave very similar to your eye, if there was a lenses in front of it. there is something about from f2.8 to f3.5 that you can position your self when you use the EVF and connect only one eye to camera and immerse in video mode on your head. The characteristics of this size sensor and the way it behaves on camera is quiet similar on how you see on day to day.

    Yes Yes, each focal length at different apertures on different sensors can achieve similar effect. But no the one m4/3 does.

    is like the old battle from full frame to smaller sensor, there is some big bokeh to achieve on 5DMKIII or D800 that m4/3 would have to make a trick to achieve but the other way is also doable, but on each part the result always are not only different (they can look similar) but the characteristics are different. The behaviour is the key.

    So for me is a special sensor size, maybe i cant explain it very well, but for narrative purpose this format works for me better than super 35mm sensor.

    maybe im crazy, but super 16, super 35 look grate full frame excellent, but m4/3 its more real. human retina sensor size and optic characteristics brings an special look and feel not possible withe smaller or bigger sensors.

    for me sweet spot.

  • 4 Replies sorted by
  • other sources:

    http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-xiii-facts-and-figures-concerning-the-human-retina/

    32 mm from ora to ora along the horizontal meridian (Van Buren, 1963; Kolb, unpublished measurements). Area of the human retina is 1094 square mm (Bernstein, personal communication) calculated from the expectations that the average dimension of the human eye is 22 mm from anterior to posterior poles, and that 72% of the inside of the globe is retina (Michels et al., 1990).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina

    In adult humans, the entire retina is approximately 72% of a sphere about 22 mm in diameter. The entire retina contains about 7 million cones and 75 to 150 million rods. The optic disc, a part of the retina sometimes called "the blind spot" because it lacks photoreceptors, is located at the optic papilla, a nasal zone where the optic-nerve fibres leave the eye. It appears as an oval white area of 3mm². Temporal (in the direction of the temples) to this disc is the macula. At its centre is the fovea, a pit that is responsible for our sharp central vision but is actually less sensitive to light because of its lack of rods.

  • Any relationship between the size of the sensor and the size of a person's retina doesn't matter, because when you change the sensor size you also change the lens. A different lens scales the image differently for the sensor. What ultimately matters is which rays of light the lens admits. Stop down your Super 35 lens a bit, and it is equivalent to Micro Four Thirds. They'll admit exactly the same rays and take exactly the same picture. (except of course for all the advantages of sensors with bigger pixels: higher fill factor, better dynamic range)

  • Optics can't be change from a physical perspective. Light has certain rules.

    So is under your jugnent 1/3 sensors are enough only put a f 0.5 lens and is equal to other size.

    From my experience its not that mathematical equivalent.

    But as always I might be wrong

  • You are right that a small format can't always be equivalent to a large format, since we can't make lenses with arbitrarily small f-numbers. But a large format can always be equivalent to a smaller format just by matching the aperture shapes and sizes.