[Rover]

Haha... I can totally see this thread going the way of the three recent ones on the 12/1.4 and 100-400.

[Klaus]

Well, it is 4x faster than a 25mm f/1.9 ... within the MFT scope. 

[JJ_SO]

Haha... I can totally see this thread going the way of the three recent ones on the 12/1.4 and 100-400.

 

You mean, it will become locked at the end because of another "equivalence"-olympics?  :ph34r: Well, that's the good thing about new lenses nobody asked for: They can always serve as training camp for our equivatlethes.  ^_^ Otherwise their pocket calculators would become rusty.

[Rover]

Except that these discussions never go anywhere (meaningful). 

[JJ_SO]

come on, it keeps us away from taking bad pictures...

[Rover]

IDK, but whenever the topic is invoked I'm feeling stuck in a Groundhog Day-esque time loop...

[JJ_SO]

Bill Murray learnt to play piano within the time-loops. 

[Arthur Macmillan]

I know it is a little annoying to point out 4x faster, but what I see is the hope that the achievements in lens design will lead to better designs in my native formats.  It wasn't that long ago that we had an EF 50mm F/1.  I suppose it was to expensive to produce as a practical matter.  But we are seeing a lot of very fast lenses coming out for APS-C and FF.  Not necessarily by Canon.  But the price and performance are breaking new ground.  You have to admire a lens design like this.  Even if the actual result might be a 50mm F/2...or F/4?  It doesn't diminish the cool design to me.

[toni-a]

Regardless of the format f0.95 is f0.95, all you are seeing is shallow DOF, but consider other aspects, like available light for the AF system, try using flash lighting and you will find it in another league.

Yesterday was doing a sunset photoshoot using flashes to light faces with sunset behind, DOF was merely  the same however 17-55f2.8 was by far more useful than 24-105f4 on full frame ( my 50f1.4 was in another world really)

[wim]

IMO, the whole thing is horses for courses.

 

Essentially we used to have different film formats with different lens ragnes for each, and really, the sam rules apply.

 

In the end it is about maximum noiseless/grainless magnification, and in both cases they can be used artistically.

 

As to shallow DoF, even that is possible with digital these days, unlike in film days: with adapters like the MetaBones Speed adapters you can actually create really shallow DoF by using large aperture FF klenses, no problem. Just that the advantages of smaller digital formats disappear in that case, as the lenses are as heavy . However, if you do have a few lenses liek that in your line-up, it is very convenient.

 

Another interesting point of discussion is of course EVF vs OVF, and electronic vs electromechanical shutter. At the moment it really is a choice when it comes to certain types of photography: action, sports and relatively fast moving subjects still require OVF/electromechinal shutters, but the days are nearign when this no longer is an issue. And generlly speaking, the latets incarnations of EVFs are really very good with their high resolution, all kinds of useful focusing aids, and even the option to make the image in the EVF look like the environment, from a brightness POV.

 

In short, use a specific type of system for a specific use you may have, like you already do with lenses etc. Personally I like MFT for its size, weight and options when travelling light. Since I do not do any sports etc. photography, the systems are almost interchangeable for me. IQ-wise, MFT is way better than my first DSLR for sure, a Canon 350D, and I used to make 90cm x 60 cm enlagements from the images regardless, with some careful shooting and processing. With more end better IQ this is easier with modern systems anyway.

 

Do also note that for average websites, 2 MP images are already overkill, thus giving plenty of leeway for any defects perceived at pixel-peeping levels, considering modern sensor MP-sizes.

 

Kind regards, Wim