• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Panasonic G9 & Leica 200mm f/2.8 announced


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#41 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:26 AM

Why m4/3 200/2.8 would be expected to be cheaper than FF 200/2.8?

 

 

 Expecting it to be cheaper is one thing........... finding out that you've just had the skin removed from your backside is another.......

 

  there's a very nice AF-S 200mm F2.0 VR lens on ebay for £400 less than the Leica........



#42 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:58 AM

@Joju - my "we agreed" was targeting BC, not the whole world ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#43 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:13 AM

I see  ^_^

 

That bit - the quoted sentence why a µ4/3 lens costs more than a FF one (actually, they are hard to find theses days as there's always a zoom selling better) - I saw but didn't realize the direct connection. For the rest of it - small batches, yet high development costs and as MatjazO pointed out, tighter tolerances, I agree. And the Olympus 300/4 IS PRO is not that much cheaper



#44 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:42 AM

I wonder about the quality of the Pany 200's bokeh. This was the Oly 300 f4's Achilles' heel.

Also a comparison of the Pany + 1.4x TC vs Oly 300 f4 would be interesting, especially at f4.

I wonder which one would fare better IQ wise. Probably the Oly minus the bokeh.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#45 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 14 November 2017 - 06:48 PM

First of all - this thing has to be compared to a 400mm f/5.6 L IS - not a 200mm f/2.8. If we agreed on that logic in the past we should stick to it regarding price comparisons as well.

 

There is no modern FF prime with these specs but there are zoom lenses - the gang of xxx-400mm IS/VR/OSS.

They all cost between 2000 and 2500 USD.

The ancient 400mm f/5.6L doesn't count here - in the stone age lens prices were cheaper and we don't even know whether this one is still in production (rather than supplied from pre-produced batches).

 

Thus in this context 3000USD are not bizarre but "only" overpriced. Just like with the Oly 300mm f/4 there is, of course, a reason for this - the production volume will be tiny compared to CaNikon. They did a business case and this was the result. Super high-end prime lenses are no money maker in MFT land. Let's face it - Canon also has no business case for an updated 400mm f/5.6 L IS - because consumers are buying the 100-400L II in vastly higher volumes.

Thus it is commendable that Panasonic made the effort but it's not more than a halo lens for showrooms in my opinion.

Of course, the lens should be compared to an equivalent, when you look at what the lens actually does. However, production-price wise it is not at all strange to look at what this lens costs in comparison to a 200mm f2.8 FF lens.

 

Treating it as if both things are contradictory or not compatible is disingenuous.

 

Of course, the Olympus has many more lens elements (15) as the particular Canon (9) we mentioned before (of course, the smaller image circle means (some of those) elements can be smaller). That, and the Leica badge on it, and the introduction date, all make it "naturally" so that the price is higher. Too high still? Yes, I think we agree on that.

 

And to JoJu: "the ISO game" of course works, it always has and nothing has changed in physics the last year. :ph34r:



#46 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:35 PM

Yes, and the diffraction kicks in at f/8 no matter about equivalence, and the sensors are not shrinking or expanding in exactly the same proportions - if it keeps your life happy and simpler, fine.  :) I prefer to go Rover's "da wide" and "da long" way of lens determination.



#47 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:01 PM

Olympus is providing their MTFs at 60 lp/mm, Pana at 40lp/mm.

The classic gang uses 30lp/mm ...

 

That is, of course, normal because the pixel density is (usually) higher in MFT land thus the lenses have to be sharper.

For 20mp FF you can still have fairly relaxed quality requirements. As we've seen with the EOS 5Ds R that approach may not hold though ...

 

Anyway, higher MTFs come at a price - which is one reason why some MTF lenses are comparatively expensive.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#48 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:05 AM

Yes, and the diffraction kicks in at f/8 no matter about equivalence, and the sensors are not shrinking or expanding in exactly the same proportions - if it keeps your life happy and simpler, fine.  :) I prefer to go Rover's "da wide" and "da long" way of lens determination.

Oh boy.

Diffraction kicks in at any aperture. Whether you see the diffraction depends on:

  • initial sharpness of the lens. There are lenses that are diffraction limited even wide open.
  • The size of the imaging sensor. 
  • The resolution of the imaging sensor.
  • The print size.

​Lets say you have a 20mp MFT sensor, and a 20mp FF sensor. Lets say you will make prints the same size, or look at 100% pixel size on a screen. Lets assume lenses of equal quality.

Lets assume you would see diffraction softening kick in at f8 for the 20mp FF sensor. You then WILL see diffraction softening kick in at f4 for the 20mp MFT sensor.

 

Same for 40mp MFT + 40mp FF sensors. Same for 10mp MFT and 10mp FF sensors. Diffraction softening will kick in at equivalent f-values. Diffraction softening will NOT kick in at the same f-value with a 10mp FF sensor and a 40mp FF sensor. The 10mp lower resolution masks the diffraction softening, where the 40mp higher resolution will show it sooner.

Yet, a 10mp MFT sensor and a 40mp FF sensor will show diffraction softening kicking in at the same f-value.

 

So, to correct your sentence:

"Yes, and diffraction kicks in at equivalent f-values, provided the sensor resolution is similar"

 

There is one note to make about diffraction and f-value. The amount of diffraction: size of the hole, and distance the light has to travel after it passes the hole. With different lens designs, the aperture is not always placed at exactly the same position (relative to the resulting focal length). If one says "diffraction softening kicks in at f8 with this sensor", it is a generalization.



#49 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:55 AM

Here, comes the equivalence talk again......

notice the excellent shallow DOF here ?

 

 

1355390605OH%20NOOOO.jpg



#50 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:09 AM

Can you stop the lame posts, Toni? It does not get you in with the cool kids, you know.

 

If you do not understand something, it does not make you cool trying to flame what you don't get.



#51 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 15 November 2017 - 05:35 PM

I will not waste more time into pointless equivalence discussions. I remain convinced it's only working fine in theory. In practice, it's not working and only kind of a crutch to roughly translate one giben FL on one sensor to another one. One cannot scale up or down apertures and FLs without scaling up or down tolerances of the used machinery and output.

 

That's very clear visible in wide-angle and ultra wide-angles - the closer FL goes towards 0, the more the lenses on smaller sensors struggle and show flaws everywhere. Be it corners, centers, CA, flares: For wide angle the sensor can't be too big. Opposite situation in Tele: The flaws are no longer in the lens or too big tolerances, but in it's user (shaking and needing high ISO to get shorter shutter speeds), the atmospheric conditions (wind, dust or mist).

 

The equivalencing game is working in theory - not so much in reality. Telling else is ignoring the limits of manufacturing and shooting conditions - no one is shooting in deep space, as no one gets close to absolute 0° K



#52 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:03 PM

I only explained that your notion on diffraction was wrong, JoJu. That you imagine all kinds of other things about equivalence is a separate matter.

 

Equivalence is just a sound and simple theory, and there is nothing about it that does "not work in practice".



#53 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:18 PM

Believe in what you like.

 

:lol:



#54 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:06 PM

Science is not a "believe" or faith. It is knowledge 


  • thxbb12 likes this

#55 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:56 PM

I promised not to waste more time on this subject.



#56 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 16 November 2017 - 01:06 AM

This post is exactly the kind of crap stuff that drives me nuts and that we see everywhere from MFT zealots (mind you, I shoot MFT):

 

https://www.43rumors...-image-quality/

 

How is a 200mm f2.8 MFT lens equivalent to a 400mm f2.8 FF lens? Let's convert the focal length, but omit the aperture. How convenient... 


  • Brightcolours likes this

--Florent

Flickr Page


#57 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 November 2017 - 07:31 AM

If you find a valve and a strong enough bicycle pump you can blow it up... With some luck and a really strong pump the black will turn into white.
 
It's because you get with both lenses the same shutter speeds at f/2.8 or any other aperture. That's what you equivalence preachers ignore in big style  :D DoF is only one thing in a picture.
 
I like Nasim's ideas to that subject: "Everyone's right, Everyone's wrong". And I requite his quote of a reader (who plays sort of same role as some of us here, me included":
 

And I loved this quote by our reader Betty, who summed up a lot of what I have said in this article: “As soon as you start using different cameras (!), with different processing engines (!), different sensors (!) and different pixel densities (!), and then start zooming a lens (!) to achieve or compensate for different crops, all bets are off. Your ‘results’ are meaningless”. What a great way to describe what a lot of us are sadly doing.


It all comes down to the fact that even if one has different cameras with different sensor sizes, we will not carry them and their lenses around but take the picture with what's at hand. With a bit of luck and (even non-scientific) knowledge, the tool will be decent enough.

Btw. the Earth was a disc for quite a while according to scientists, bumblebees can't fly and homeopathy can't help. Using science to explain non-scientific, incomparable things because the differences do matter, leads to wrong assumptions. Which doesn't matter more than ignoring them and use "da wide" and "da long" lens.



#58 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 16 November 2017 - 07:42 AM

If you find a valve and a strong enough bicycle pump you can blow it up... With some luck and a really strong pump the black will turn into white.
 
It's because you get with both lenses the same shutter speeds at f/2.8 or any other aperture. That's what you equivalence preachers ignore in big style  :D DoF is only one thing in a picture.

No, you don't get the same shutter speed.

 

If you shoot an Olympus 200mm f2.8 on an Olympus OM-D EM10 at f2.8, ISO 800, and an Olympus 200mm f2.8 on an Olympus OM-D EM10 at f2.8, ISO 100, and let the camera figure out the exposure with the same metering method, do you get the same exposure time? Of course not.

 

Guess why.

 

And yes, homeopathy can't help, indeed. 

 

And that the earth was considered a flat disk by scientists is a myth.



#59 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 16 November 2017 - 08:10 AM

​Lets say you have a 20mp MFT sensor, and a 20mp FF sensor. Lets say you will make prints the same size, or look at 100% pixel size on a screen. Lets assume lenses of equal quality.
Lets assume you would see diffraction softening kick in at f8 for the 20mp FF sensor. You then WILL see diffraction softening kick in at f4 for the 20mp MFT sensor.


You scale up two things and the third and fourth you leave equal, You don't define equal quality, simply because there is no - machinery will not polish a µ 4/3 2 times more precise or mount it 2 times more precise.

 

Great. So much for your "scientific" experiments. Of this flock of assumptions, you will not see two or three coming together in reality fulfilling the condition of "exactly scaled". So, fantasizing about theoretically perfectly scaled conditions doesn't lead to any single better picture. Therefore posts like this have no value in reality. With your many assumptions you don't do science a big favour. In fact meeting a badly tempered scientists who read your posts could end up painful.

 

Not for the scientist.



#60 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 16 November 2017 - 08:33 AM

There is no reason what so ever to mount a lens "precise".

And you wanting to not accept "equivalence" and therefore introducing "equal quality", that is just funny. In your world, one can't compare a Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.4 mounted on a Nikon D750 and a Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art mounted on a Nikon D750, because... the lenses are not of equal quality, don't do everything the same.

In your wold, we can't call that Nikkor 50mm f1.4 mounted on FF equivalent to that Sigma 50mm f1.4, because "they don't render the same", "they don't have the same sharpness". 

 

Funny how equivalency, which touches on the two fundamental aspects of lenses (FOV and DOF) in your world starts to be about everything except what it is about.

 

And equivalency certainly is not about "better images". Another straw man from you.

 

And yes, diffraction softening really is the same with similar sensor resolutions and equivalent f-stop values. With above mentioned caveat. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de