>>4266400>Thing is, you don't shoot a Hasselblad to minimize noise, precisely because of equivalenceEquivalence doesn't even apply to professional photography at the level that requires a hasselblad.
>BUTProfessionals. Control. The. Light.
If you have a $50,000 camera you are not shooting anime dolls and huskies by screenlight in your basement, sorry. You're shooting celebs on fully lit studio sets. Or huskies on fully lit studio sets, since it's you.
#MeTooAwoo
The people hasselblad is for complain that they sometimes need ND filters for portraits.
"Equivalence" ONLY applies if
1: DOF and FOV are being matched to a smaller formats lens. That's the foundation of calcualting equivalence at all - matching the DOF and FOV without changing the shutter speed or the brightness of the exposure.
1.3: Both lenses are stopped down or both lenses are wide open. This isn't relevant to noise but even good lenses are much uglier wide open. Add a third condition for both lenses being equally stopped down relative to the system's diffraction limited aperture if we're shooting for big prints. Otherwise who gives a fuck about the noise when you're dealing with 2 entirely different looks?
1.6: Both systems have the same number of megapixels. It is possible to include downsampling with the appropriate level of gaussian anti-aliasing as a noise reduction step, and equivalence doesn't really even matter if camera 2 is shooting with more linear resolution. They're not comparable systems.
2: Shutter speed is non negotiable, as stated.
3: The light level is low, and can not be increased by any means available without significantly changing the picture in an undesired way.
In real life this covers surprisingly little photography, except for wildlife and event photography (which is really just short range wildlife photography), where to no ones surprise full frame has the fastest zooms to break equivalence, and still, half the time you're stopping down and still at ISO 100.
