@onionbrain You can download the original files via the downloads section. The original -- unaltered -- .mov or or .mp4 container. You have to download it seperately.

Also f/2.8 is the same for MFT as full frame.

@John_Farragut

"Also f/2.8 is the same for MFT as full frame."

No, it's not.

@mpgxsvcd

"F2.8 is a lens specification and not a camera specification. Depth of field depends on the lens and the sensor size. Focal ratio only depends of the lens specifications."

All of which has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Gentlemen, it's pretty common knowledge at this point that an f/2.8 lens is going to be brighter on a full frame than on an MFT sensor/camera. This has nothing to do with my original point -- that offered possible reasons why no one had their mind blown with the video quality of those sample videos posted. If you'd prefer to go with the explanation that those videos sucked because the GH3 sucks -- well -- fine.

When you have F/2.8 at 35mm-Frame (it's NOT Full-Frame!), and F/2.8 and you exposure both with 1/500 sec. and ISO 200. Then it will be the same Brightness.

Of course, full frame has less noise and more dynamic range, so you can "boost" an underexposed image and still get the same quality as MFT -- I think. But my technical know how about sensors isn't that big. So maybe technically, you could underexpose FF compared to MFT. But in reality, both cameras with same F-Stop, exposure and ISO would still result in same brightness of picture, I believe.

@DealjagdLtd @Kristo_Ketis @John_Farragut

Please, stop this offtopic.

If you have questions then go to http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/camera-usage/general-camera-usage-faq

If this is not enough, google and read for few extra minutes.

@Onionbrain

f2.8 is NOT, I repeat NOT going to be brighter on a full frame than on a any other sensor size. It´s the same. The lens determines how much light that is transmitted to the sensor and a bigger sensor makes no difference in that. It´s just bigger. DOF is a different story, but that wasn´t the question in this case. (an f2.8 will be less shallow on a smaller sensor than on a bigger one)

IF there is a difference in terms of low light performance (between full frame and smaller) it´s because the bigger sensor (if equal to the smaller in constitution) will produce a bigger image, that in turn can be downscaled - which makes grain e.t.c. less apparent. If sensors are equal, images will be of exactly equal brightness at the same F stop. (on the other hand, you will need to stop down the lens more on a full frame to achieve a long DOF in comparison to a smaller sensor - and that can be a clear disadvantage in low light situations.

P.s. if you don´t believe me, ask yourself this: have you ever seen a light meter where you had to specify sensor / image size?

@onionbrain

Gentlemen, it's pretty common knowledge at this point that an f/2.8 lens is going to be brighter on a full frame than on an MFT sensor/camera.

You are quite mistaken in your "common knowledge".

Higher AVERAGE amount? That makes no sense. Higher total, yes - since a larger sensor covers more of the image circle. (the full amount of light that a lens transmits) The last line of your post seems correct, however I object to the conclusion of your first sentence.. (as described above). Obviously, at certain points there might be differences in average light (between different sensor sizes) too (like towards the edge of the image circle there is less light), but these differences would be too small to even take into consideration as a principle in normal circumstances.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Sorry, I must have missed it? Thanks for splitting it, though!

Maybe you could make a topic name that makes it more accessible though? As this is a very common misconception. I see people also thinking that a particular mount will make a camera behave differently.. again a different topic but there are so many misconceptions related to this, and many "experts" who do little to make it better, or worse: spread misinformation.

Obviously there are many topics on the matter so if you don´t want to do it - I understand completely.

(on third thought, maybe information on sensor sizes and behavior could be added to the FAQ – end of this topic)

@aki_hartikainen

Read definition of F stop, please. See my links above.

The cropped sensor needs more amplification for the same brightness.

It is not accurate statement. Bigger sensor from same manufacturer with same resolution collects more light, hence more electrons in each sensor well. Here we assume that exactly same ideal lens is mounted made for FF.

So many wrong assumptions here... You won't believe, but an M4/3 F2.8 lens will be as much bright as Canon EF 2.8 lens - just the second one is made for bigger sensor - therefore there has to be more glass.

So if you take a fullframe Canon EF 2.8 lens and put it on M4/3 camera, it WILL HAVE SAME BRIGHTNESS - just different "zoom factor". And now comes the big surprise - THE DOF will be the same as well!! (meaning same on FF and M4/3)

Only thing that will change is the ZOOM - FIELD OF VIEW.

It is common believe, that DOF is half as small on 2x crop than on fullframe - THAT'S NOT TRUE. DOF is same - it is just that you have more "zoomed" image than on fullframe - so you have to step back from the subject, and therefore, REFOCUS the lens - which obviously changes the BOKEH. You can try for yourself - try it on 5Dm2, then put the lens on GH2 BUT don't change the focus... the background blur will be the same - just the image will be cropped.

So to achieve the same field of view (zoom) on cropped camera - you have to use wider lens - which has longer DOF for obvious reasons - that's why the common belief of "longer DOF" on crop.

DOF depends on LENS.. nothing else... if you PUT smaller sensor behind the lens, you won't see any other image - its just that you will see only part of the image that the lens can produce.

This is not difficult concept at all. Just put a macro tube on the camera. Now you have cropped the image and the brightness falls. That is all there is to it. If the lens would focus as usual, it would be identical situation to cropping the film/sensor size.

I understand it would be simple for many people to say that there is no difference between cameras of different imager sizes, because that would be true also.

But when somebody clearly understands the basic principle of relationship between magnification and brightness, then there is really no need to insist that this does not exist at all, which is what several people in this thread try to maintain.

Then take a telescope and change the ocular magnification (=crop the field of view). The lens diameter and f-stop remains the same, the ocular would be the film/sensor size. If the brightness remained the same regardless of the ocular, one would just have won a Nobel prize for physics...