[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.

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

A lens alone serves no purpose. It is given a purpose by attaching it to a camera. 

Nobody has EVER denied the fact that this is a f/4 lens.

"Speed" comes from shutter speed and is there a shutter on those lenses?

[Brightcolours]

....
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

So, lets see. Saying that the Olympus "is  sharp lens of course, that is apparent" is dissing it?
And saying that in Full Frame terms, it is a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens is dissing it? Or factually stating that it weighs less is dissing? Or more expensive?

In FF terms, the Canon is faster. In FF terms. Try it yourself. To use it with an FF sensor, and use it like a 24-200mm lens, you need to put a 2x TC on it. Guess what the max. f-value will be.

The odd thing is that you fall over the f8 part but not the 24-200mm part. Strange.

And are you saying that 20 years ago rap was not yet there, dude bro? "Diss" is certainly rapper lingo, it originates from Jamaican and AAVE, and has been popularised by rap culture. A bit odd that you think in terms of "disrespecting a lens", I have to say.

[davidmanze]

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.

      Is the current "hype around FF sensors" so silly?   I think not !! 

     It shows to me the versatility of the FF sensor, not it's limitations. ...... your desires for these varied formats is understandable ....... but the practicalities are not ....... what sensor are you going to start with, to get it?  ...... a wasteful square sensor?

   Silly though vertical shooting is (actually why I don't know), it's the most efficient use of a 3:2 sensor ...... cropping agogo isn't.
 
 ...... but then I never bought in to M4/3rds and it's tiny sensors ...... just for their smaller size.

    A high resolution FF sensor is at least a practical way to go ........ with that you have FF .. APSc .. and M4/3rds all in one body and all your format desires..... with no recourse to other new format lenses.

        Of course I may be wrong in my assessment ....... and anything that has a bit of bulk and weight is just ludicrously foolish ....

  ........... but no-one on this planet would doubt the achievements of Ansel Adams !!

[Brightcolours]

Look at the prices of non-crop MF sensors, and you can start to realise why no one will come with "square sensors".

By the way, Panasonic has used some oversized sensors in some of its higher end MFT cameras, where 4x3 and 3x2 aspect ratio shooting use different "optimal" areas.

[JJ_SO]

... but no-one on this planet would doubt the achievements of Ansel Adams !!

What has Ansel Adams to do with sensor ratios? Or the coincidentally "choosen" paper ratios? Or the Amercian way of going 4×5 ratios for negatives and print papers? While someone in Europe went for 3:4 ratios (9×12, 18×24) and also 4:5 (20×25, 24×30), but 2:3 ratios are rare (I only know 20×30, 10×15 is a fake, as it's 105×147 mm = 5:7)
And if you never used a 4:3, you don't need to grab a µ 4/3, you can also rent a "large format" Fujifilm (hahahaha), they also use 4:3 sensors.

[Klaus]

Look at the prices of non-crop MF sensors, and you can start to realise why no one will come with "square sensors".

By the way, Panasonic has used some oversized sensors in some of its higher end MFT cameras, where 4x3 and 3x2 aspect ratio shooting use different "optimal" areas.

Com'on - a square-shaped "FF" sensor would only add marginal costs and it would be negligible for APS-C or MFT sensors. 

And yes, I never understood why Panasonic abandoned their multi-format sensor. I loved it.

[davidmanze]

Look at the prices of non-crop MF sensors, and you can start to realise why no one will come with "square sensors".

By the way, Panasonic has used some oversized sensors in some of its higher end MFT cameras, where 4x3 and 3x2 aspect ratio shooting use different "optimal" areas.

Com'on - a square-shaped "FF" sensor would only add marginal costs and it would be negligible for APS-C or MFT sensors. 

And yes, I never understood why Panasonic abandoned their multi-format sensor. I loved it.

  How many people would buy one?

[Brightcolours]

Look at the prices of non-crop MF sensors, and you can start to realise why no one will come with "square sensors".

By the way, Panasonic has used some oversized sensors in some of its higher end MFT cameras, where 4x3 and 3x2 aspect ratio shooting use different "optimal" areas.

Com'on - a square-shaped "FF" sensor would only add marginal costs and it would be negligible for APS-C or MFT sensors. 

And yes, I never understood why Panasonic abandoned their multi-format sensor. I loved it.

Only marginal costs?

FF is 36x24. You want it to do 1:2.35 too. Lets take the diagonal as reference: 43.27mm. That means that instead of 36x24mm you have a 40x40mm sensor.
That is a 85,2% increase in sensor size. You lose even more due to that square sensors on a round wafer give more unusable area on every wafer compared to 3x2 aspect ratio sensors.

So twice as expensive is not really marginal. And that is disregarding the cost for AA filters... The reason medium format sensors always have been AA filterless is because AA- filters are difficult and expensive to make (the same cost as the sensor, to produce), so add to that double the cost for AA-filters and the cost is even less "marginal".

The reason Panasonic abandoned those sensors is most probably cost, most people do not understand the why and are not prepared to pay more for the expensive Panasonic to be able to shoot 3x2 without it being a simple crop from 4x3.

---

... but no-one on this planet would doubt the achievements of Ansel Adams !!

What has Ansel Adams to do with sensor ratios? Or the coincidentally "choosen" paper ratios? Or the Amercian way of going 4×5 ratios for negatives and print papers? While someone in Europe went for 3:4 ratios (9×12, 18×24) and also 4:5 (20×25, 24×30), but 2:3 ratios are rare (I only know 20×30, 10×15 is a fake, as it's 105×147 mm = 5:7)
And if you never used a 4:3, you don't need to grab a µ 4/3, you can also rent a "large format" Fujifilm (hahahaha), they also use 4:3 sensors.

Medium format 6x9 used to be a normal MF format. I have one of those.

3x2 135 format was 3x2 because What later became Leice decided to use 35mm film and do double frame (twice 18x24), resulting in 36x24mm. This format became popular because it had many advantages over MF film (camera size and cost to name but two), with first Leica beginning the 135 format range finder revolution, and later the Japanese SLRs from Nikon, Minolta, Canon and Pentax to name a few.

4x3 in MFT and "compact digital cameras" has its origin in the TV aspect ratio. Computer monitors used to have the same 4x3 aspect ratio as TV screens, and it only made sense to make the digital cameras of the 90's have the same format.

Nowadays, 4x3 makes less sense as computer and TV screens have gotten wider aspect ratios.

[Rover]

I've found that when making maps for my favourite strategy game, Starcraft, I prefer to create them in 192*128 size. Not only it's fairly comfortable for most kinds of gameplay size-wise (and I rarely like it simple), but it also has... the 3:2 aspect ratio. I've only recently figured why I like it so much as opposed to - say - 128*128 or 192*192 square maps, or 256*192 (4:3) rectangular ones.

Yeah, psychology is a convoluted thing.

[wim]

....
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

So, lets see. Saying that the Olympus "is  sharp lens of course, that is apparent" is dissing it?
And saying that in Full Frame terms, it is a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens is dissing it? Or factually stating that it weighs less is dissing? Or more expensive?

In FF terms, the Canon is faster. In FF terms. Try it yourself. To use it with an FF sensor, and use it like a 24-200mm lens, you need to put a 2x TC on it. Guess what the max. f-value will be.

The odd thing is that you fall over the f8 part but not the 24-200mm part. Strange.

And are you saying that 20 years ago rap was not yet there, dude bro? "Diss" is certainly rapper lingo, it originates from Jamaican and AAVE, and has been popularised by rap culture. A bit odd that you think in terms of "disrespecting a lens", I have to say.

The word diss indeed derives from disrespect or disparage, and was originally spelt dis. First record in a dictionary dates from 1905. Those were very early rappers I guess, not-a-bro.

I am harping on about you saying it is an F/8 lens. I don’t care about the FL, as long as it is equivalent, basically in order to determine magnification and/or FoV for a specific lens/sensor combination. However, F/4 is F/4 is F/4, as only the physical aperture determines the effect of optical diffraction. An F/2 lens on a mobile phone with a 7.2 mm sensor diameter is not called an F/72 lens either, and neither does it behave like an optic at F/72 with regard to diffraction effect (at F/72 the resolution would be in the order of a few line pairs per mm).

Regards, Wim

---

Look at the prices of non-crop MF sensors, and you can start to realise why no one will come with "square sensors".

By the way, Panasonic has used some oversized sensors in some of its higher end MFT cameras, where 4x3 and 3x2 aspect ratio shooting use different "optimal" areas.

Com'on - a square-shaped "FF" sensor would only add marginal costs and it would be negligible for APS-C or MFT sensors. 

And yes, I never understood why Panasonic abandoned their multi-format sensor. I loved it.

A square shaped FF sensor would require a complete redesign of the camera and lenses, unless you’d make it a 24 mm x 24 mm sensor, we could in a sense already do that by making a crop of the FF format, however .

The camera is built for capturing a rectangular image, as is the lens (shrouds). Even so, using the same lenses with just a shroud adaptation for minimal changes would mean a 30.6 mm x 30.6 mm sensor for an area that would fit in the image circle, and have a slightly larger image area, with a crop factor of 0.92.

Kind regards, Wim