[borisbg]

Since we were going the subject matter again :
Is there a difference of how many lumens per square millimeter hit the sensor of mtf f4 lens ff f4 lens?

[wim]

Since we were going the subject matter again :
Is there a difference of how many lumens per square millimeter hit the sensor of mtf f4 lens ff f4 lens?

No. Exactly the same. As mentioned, the difference is the image circle, which with FF is 4x the area compared to MFT. This area size difference is what makes the 2 stop difference in total light captured.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

---

Wim - I use MFT privately. I prefer it over other systems. Yet I do accept the realities and I do not have any issues with them.

If you have any interest in the FACT that the 12-100mm f/4 has a TRUE aperture of f/4 - well, Ok. That's perfectly fine and I do not dispute this at all.
However, for me, that's just a number in EXIF data and something that I choose to achieve a certain DoF in the final image.
That number (to achieve the desired DoF) differs depending on the sensor format. As such the number alone is of no special interest to me - at all.

Within the scope of this discussion, it's DoF and image noise that counts in images - and that's a combination of lens and sensor capabilities.

When I watch a photo, I don't think - oh, that's f/4. I think - that DoF is nice (or not) and the image noise is fine (or disturbing). And I will think of many other aspects, too ... which is why I prefer MFT. ;-)

FACT is that 12mm, 1/100s, ISO 100, f/4, 20mp on MFT gives me the same DoF, FoV, exposure, shutter speed and noise as 24mm, 1/100s, ISO 400, f/8, 20mp on FF.

Hi Klaus.

I have been saying exactly the same. However, some will let us believe that the 12-100 F/4 Oly is an F/8 lens, which it isn't.

As you know, I also shoot MFT. I basically shoot MFT and FF, depending on what I want to achieve (which includes a decision on how much I want/need to carry ).

Personally, I look at an image in the same way you do, and that is in the end all that counts.

Kind regards, Wim

[Klaus]

The current hype around FF is silly anyway. Fuji G has a superior image quality, for instance.
It just shows how much tradition is dictating over reality.

And e.g. why do sensors have a rectangle shape? It doesn't make any sense in the year 2019, it's a legacy concept.
Or in other words - why not a square sensor combined with a dial for selecting the ratio? Is that so difficult?
For landscapes, I'd prefer 16:9, maybe even 2.35:1 whereas for portraits 4:3 would be more appropriate (if I did portraits) - and a square sensor could give you the maximum potential here.
With a square sensor, the days of holding your camera in a silly vertical layout would finally over.

[JJ_SO]

In film days, we had 120 and 127 rolls. Their rectangular format cameras didn't exactly rule the world...

Is our memory of these times dictating the manufacturers fear to risk something? Or is it the further use of pictures (in magazines, books, on movie/tv screens) dictating the form of the sensors?

You're right, it can't be that hard, so why isn't it happening. 

How many buildings with 1:1 ratio like the Kaaba in Mekka do you know? How often do you use the other ratios in the camera menu? And why so rarely? For me it's something new to think of (next to aperture, ISO, AF-mode...) and I would continue to forget to switch that ratio to another? No, not if it's shown properly in the finder as a frame - The Z 7 or the X-T2 don't do show a frame, they black out the "lost" area or they just enlarge the picture and since APS-C has the same ratio, I keep using it and am surprised how noisy the pictures became...

Even saying, "for birds I switch to APS-C" can cause a massive shitstorm in a forum. "They behave unpredictably, You need the full sensor (even in the corners where no DSLR-AF cell ever came to...). Birds are predictable in flight, humans are a bit slow to follow them with a lens.

Back in the day I could buy a 135 magazine for my Mamiya to shoot in panoramic ratio. I like panoramas, but for the extra cost of that magazine I could buy an develop a lot of 120 rolls and just use a crop. Also, the holder for the negatives then would have been the one with two 6x7 cm glasses which claimed to be Anti-Newton (as coatings claim to be flare-reducing, haha) and collected dust for 4 more surfaces.

Same today for printing readily cut photo paper and put it into a standard frame... Individual sizes of output format would be costly

[wim]

The current hype around FF is silly anyway. Fuji G has a superior image quality, for instance.
It just shows how much tradition is dictating over reality.

And e.g. why do sensors have a rectangle shape? It doesn't make any sense in the year 2019, it's a legacy concept.
Or in other words - why not a square sensor combined with a dial for selecting the ratio? Is that so difficult?
For landscapes, I'd prefer 16:9, maybe even 2.35:1 whereas for portraits 4:3 would be more appropriate (if I did portraits) - and a square sensor could give you the maximum potential here.
With a square sensor, the days of holding your camera in a silly vertical layout would finally over.

A square shape would indeed be convenient . Having said that, it would require quite a bit of redesign of camera bodies, and would mean we have to crop a lot. Personally, I prefer to not crop at all if I can help it, just frame exactly what I want to see in the frame.

BTW, there is a good reason why 24x36 (2:3) became so popular, other than the smaller format compared to MF and LF way back when, namely the fact that humans roughly tend to see the world in 2:3 format when not particularly focusing on anything special. It feels more natural. The 4x5 print papers etc. really came into existence prior to 135 film, catering for LF and MF film/cameras.

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

It would be interesting to learn about the reasons for the various ratios. I think, sometimes it was just availability of manufacturing machinery and a lot of coincidence involved.

However, a squarish sensor would indeed demand some redesign of sensors, LCD (!) and EVF first and then it could lead to hardware with not only interchangeable lenses, but also - you mentioned Fuji, Klaus - to better, tiltable EVF. Exchangeable sensors, maybe. Kind of Hasselblad/Rolleiflex style (Zenza Bronica I don't know much about).

But this hasn't happened during the past ¼ of a century, Victor Hasselblad is dead and todays brands fight with other troubles...

[Brightcolours]

....

It is equivalent to an FF f8 lens, Wim.

That may be true when it comes to DoF, aperture wise, but it still is an F/4 lens. As mentioned before, the difference is the image circle size. It still is F/4.

However, I'd like you to stop dissing lenses because of this.  It still is as complex to design and manufacture as a FF lens, and requires even higher precision to get the most out of it.

You could actually tackle this from a more positive way than you normally do, just list pros and cons.

The main thing is that because of the smaller sensor and therefore limited image circle you will have more noise, as total light collected cirstumcances being the same is less, and therefore there is a limit to what iso you can use to get similar noise levels.

However, any crop type camera shooter accepts this, along with the increase in DoF.

MTF isn't actually any worse, because F/4 is F/4 with any lens, as mentioned before. Optical diffraction is limited by absolute aperture, not by equivalent aperture. Therefore, a 12-100 F/4 MFT lens is not the same as a 24-200 F/8 FF lens. All you can say is that it behaves from an FL and DoF POV as a 24-200 F/8 lens. However, light gathering is the same as any F/4 lens, just over a smaller image circle.

Kind regards, Wim

I did not "diss that lens" (nice rapper lingo there, dude), I just placed it in the correct perspective.

[wim]

Dissing is not rapper lingo, as I mentioned once before. I lived and worked in the UK for 5 years, which is 20 years ago already, and it was a word in general use. So no need to call me dude either, which I do not particularly like being called.

[quote="Brightcolours" pid='47880' dateline='1562741596']
....
Besides that, the Olympus is a sharp lens of course, that is apparent. In FF terms, a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens. A slow lens that weighs 239 grams less than the faster Canon 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens. A slow lens that is weather sealed, and $200 more expensive.

The last 3 lines of the above quote I was referring to.

The Canon is not a faster lens. It just has less DoF on a FF sensor that the Oly on an MFT sensor.

Kind regards, Wim

[Klaus]

Now we are back to zero again ;-)

Yes, the Olympus is a faster lens but the Canon is a faster system. The lens alone is irrelevant.

[wim]

Now we are back to zero again ;-)

Yes, the Olympus is a faster lens but the Canon is a faster system. The lens alone is irrelevant.

Why would it be irrelevant? In that case any lens is irrelevant.

My point is that from a design and manufacturing POV it is an F/4 lens.

Kind regards, Wim