Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH
#11
Quote:You may have written that f/1.4 is f/1.4, but that remains as meaningless as it ever was. F/1..4 merely means focal length divided by 1.4 = aperture size. If the f is different, f/1.4 != f/1.4.

 

f1.4 with ISO 100  Velvia != f1.4 with agfapan APX 400.

Using a different size aperture is just as valid a thing as using a different ISO setting. 

 

A famous Leica photographer said that a photographer only has two tools to determine the look of the image, aperture for DOF and focal length for FOV. To control exposure, that is what ISO and exposure time are for. Another famous Leica photographer only varied aperture to get an adequate exposure. That illustrates well the possible different ways one can look at the tools available.

 

Whether I am a fan of MFT or not is very not important in any way. It does not change a thing. I have had the same discussions about APS-C vs FF, FF vs APS-C, Nikon 1 vs APS-C, FF versus 6x9 MF.

 

Why I said it is a bad deal: mirrorless, and MFT in particular, have been supposed to have a weight and size advantage. With this particular lens, it does not have a weight, nor a size advantage. Nor does it have a price advantage. That you do not understand "that way of thinking" says a lot about you, not so much about me...
 

I am getting tired of these discussions, to be very honest, and it is one of the reasons why I have stayed away here for quite some time. looks like nothing has changed.

 

You don't seem t understand, or do not want to understand, what anybody else is saying, and you come with arguments that have no realtion to the actual discussion in the first place, other than pushign your own opinions, whether they are right or wrong.

 

Of course a 100 iso film of one brand is not the same as a 400 iso film from another brand, of course all photographers agree that the way to make one image look different from another, apart from composition and lighting, is DoF and FL. That is not the point.

 

And that MFT is a bad deal is your opinion, and you do not want to accept that others have a different opinon.

 

Funnily enough, if you really work it out, you get the following:

- MFT is smaller and lighter, whatever body or lens you choose, equivalent or not

- MFT is 4 x smaller wrt sensor size than FF, and therefore has 4 x the noise (that, BTW, is exactly the same issue as we always had with film)

- crop factor of MFT wrt FF is 2, therefore FL equivalents must be multiplied with 2 oto compare with FF

- crop factor of MFT is 2, therefore MFT has twice the DoF of FF for equivalent FLs

- F-stops are indepent of sensor or medium size, they are an indication of relative light levels (outside vs the camera obscura side of a photographic device); that they depend on FLs is neither here nor there, that is just a know fact.

- isos are isos, it is a defined standard

- different sizes and brands of sensors are not created the same, another moot point, we know that, and take that into account with our photography

- whether a lens and or camera system is a bad deal, is to be decided by the buyer, there si no need to bash whatever decision someone makes based on someone else's preferences

- MFT lenses have to be much sharper than FF lenses in order to get good results when images are enlarged to the same size as, e.g, those taken with a FF sensor

- MFT lenses, in order to be sharper, must have much stricter tolerances than FF lenses, and are therefore much harder to build

- MFT lenses are made in smaller series than FF (or APS-C) lenses because the market is smaller

- Since MFT lenses are harder to make than FF lenses, and because they are made in smaller numbers, they tend to be reltively expensive

 

Now, let's look at actual pricing. Currently, the Olympus 12-40 F/2.8 (which is a true F/2.8 lens, even if it has a DoF similar ot a FF F/5.6 lens), sells for 1000 euros over here, approximately. It is a truly excellent ens. Now let's compare that with a Canon 24-70 F/2.8, which is the FL-equivalence of it, more or less. That costs twice as much, 2000 euros. The Olympus weighs 382 grams, the Canon 805 grams, and is more than twice as big. teh same can be said about many other equivalently good lenses.

The only difference is the system, with MFT resulting in 4x  longer exposures to get the same noise, and resulting in twice the DoF for equivalent lenses, all compared to FF. Other than that, no difference, except that MFT is way smaller, lighter and cheaper than FF, generally a factor of 2 or more. And that is the point.

 

Now, because of all the adapters possible, one can use almost any lens from any manufacturer on an MFT body. However, that si not recommended witha glass-less adapter, because no lenses fro larger systems, sensor wise, are up to the task. The added benefit with adapters that do use glass, like the metabones ones, is that they also give one much larger f-stops. So, if I want to do any shallow DoF photography withan MFT camera, and do not mecessarily mind carrying heavy glass, I will use my Canon FF glass for that reason, or even my Canon FF camera with Canon FF glass. Other than that, my MFT glass is very sharp, and does all the things I need it to do.

 

A last few remarks: I have always been very nice here on Photozone, and I do want to stay nice, I find there generally is no need to be mean with people at all; the moderators can take care of those who are not so nice.

I do want to say one thing, however: to me you come over as one of the most arrogant people I have ever met on any forum. Only your opinion seems to be true, only your opinion seems to be valid, and you always need to have the last word. I am also sure I am not the only one who thinks that way. Think about that.

 

As to "That you do not understand "that way of thinking" says a lot about you, not so much about me..." I think it is about time you should start wondering why it is that so many people disagree with you, or feel insulted by you, and for Klaus and the team running Photozone, why so many people leave this place, and only visit for the articles and lens tests.

 

BTW, I will not reply to this topic any further, I have said what I wanted to say, in part, in a way, on behalf of those who do indeed feel slighted, not listened to, or insulted.

 

if you have anything to add to this, you can always contact me via PM if need be.

 

Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Messages In This Thread
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by Klaus - 06-15-2016, 09:52 AM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by Rover - 06-15-2016, 03:53 PM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by Rover - 06-15-2016, 08:29 PM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by wim - 06-15-2016, 10:07 PM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by wim - 06-16-2016, 08:17 PM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by Rover - 06-17-2016, 05:44 AM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by Klaus - 06-17-2016, 10:13 AM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by wim - 06-17-2016, 05:24 PM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by toni-a - 06-18-2016, 03:54 AM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by Guest - 06-18-2016, 05:32 AM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by Rover - 06-18-2016, 07:32 AM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by wim - 06-18-2016, 10:39 PM
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH - by wim - 06-19-2016, 12:20 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)