The Olympus 12-60 is really an excellent lens. It outresolves a 10Megapixel Four Thirds Sensor (in the center) as you can see in the photozone test.
A Full Frame Sensor would have 40Megapixel with the same pixel pitch. So this is not easy for a lens to give such high resolution.
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294303496' post='5360']
Well, when you did the comparison, did you ensure that you compared the lenses at equivalent apertures? As in, did you stop the Nikon lens down to make it f/5.6-8 instead of comparing it wide open at f/3.5-5.6? Also, do keep in mind that Nikon hasn't really done their best with the 24-120 VRs... so I wouldn't give all the credit to Olympus there.
GTW
[/quote]
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='ecle' timestamp='1294307630' post='5361']
A Full Frame Sensor would have 40Megapixel with the same pixel pitch. So this is not easy for a lens to give such high resolution.
[/quote]
I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle... if the maximum amount of pixels information in the shot is 12MP (let's assume 12MP because 4000x3000 is nice), considering a FT sensor is 17.3mm wide, the 12-60 roughly and theoretically resolves 4000/17.3=225 pixels per mm (like 115 lp/mm). To get a 12MP image from a 36x24mm FF (12MP 3:2 = 4242x2828), all you need is a lens to resolve 4242/36=118 pixels per mm (like 59 lp/mm)... which is not that difficult.
So, yes... if you put a 59lp/mm lens on the 12MP FT camera, it'll look like crap, but that's all you need on a FF to match the maximum detail possible from the FT camera.
Plus, if both sensors produce images that are 12MPs... a FF sensor pixel is 3.84x the size of 1 FT sensor pixel. The almost 4x size means a nearly 2 stop advantage in noise.
Sadly there are no FF EVILs to even the playing field. So, smaller formats win because they have little to no competition from FF.
GTW
I just wanted to say that the 12-60 has really good resolution.
The best lenses of Olympus are easily on the level of Canon and Nikons best. For example the 150mm F2 or 300 2,8. I don't think that the Canon 600mm F4 is better compare to 300mm 2,8. Ok you have 1 stop less noise on a 12Megapixel FF, but I guess you can build better lenses on smaller sensors. FT needs only half the diameter for the same angle of view so there is room for better optics or even better F stops.
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294310418' post='5363']
I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle... if the maximum amount of pixels information in the shot is 12MP (let's assume 12MP because 4000x3000 is nice), considering a FT sensor is 17.3mm wide, the 12-60 roughly and theoretically resolves 4000/17.3=225 pixels per mm (like 115 lp/mm). To get a 12MP image from a 36x24mm FF (12MP 3:2 = 4242x2828), all you need is a lens to resolve 4242/36=118 pixels per mm (like 59 lp/mm)... which is not that difficult.
So, yes... if you put a 59lp/mm lens on the 12MP FT camera, it'll look like crap, but that's all you need on a FF to match the maximum detail possible from the FT camera.
Plus, if both sensors produce images that are 12MPs... a FF sensor pixel is 3.84x the size of 1 FT sensor pixel. The almost 4x size means a nearly 2 stop advantage in noise.
Sadly there are no FF EVILs to even the playing field. So, smaller formats win because they have little to no competition from FF.
GTW
[/quote]
Actually I would say they are better than canon lenses. No one has anything close to the 12-60 with regards to optical quality. And the F2 zooms are better. This might be because of the smaller sensor - though olympus also made some very good lenses for the old om system and has a history in optical design (microscopes). Unfortunately the sensors is a real issue. Panasonic got a clue that for small sensor you should be making smaller cameras (micro-4/3) and the sensor in the GH2 is very good. Unfortunately the micro-4/3 lenses have been less interesting from an optical perspective. Olympus does a lot of nice work so I hope they stay in the camera business but wished they had done something other than 4/3.
[quote name='ecle' timestamp='1294313951' post='5367']
I just wanted to say that the 12-60 has really good resolution.
The best lenses of Olympus are easily on the level of Canon and Nikons best. For example the 150mm F2 or 300 2,8. I don't think that the Canon 600mm F4 is better compare to 300mm 2,8. Ok you have 1 stop less noise on a 12Megapixel FF, but I guess you can build better lenses on smaller sensors. FT needs only half the diameter for the same angle of view so there is room for better optics or even better F stops.
[/quote]
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294303496' post='5360']
So then why are you asking about a 14-54? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> It's possible for a system to have many lenses covering every mm twice... but if one can't find a high quality optic to fulfill their shooting needs, the system is still limited in that regard.[/quote]
Exactly! I just meant that the flaw doesn't seem to be inherent to the system...
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294303496' post='5360']
This wouldn't have been a problem if you had gone for a 5D2 + 24-105 f/4 instead <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> I'm kidding...
Well, when you did the comparison, did you ensure that you compared the lenses at equivalent apertures? As in, did you stop the Nikon lens down to make it f/5.6-8 instead of comparing it wide open at f/3.5-5.6? Also, do keep in mind that Nikon hasn't really done their best with the 24-120 VRs... so I wouldn't give all the credit to Olympus there.
[/quote]
No, I shot the Nikon at f/8 and the Oly at f/4. There's no doubt in my mind that the Oly had less CA, less distortion, better corner sharpness across the range, and was generally stronger at 60mm.
Unfortunately, it's an excellent lens without a reasonably body to put it on. The E-5 is a brick. If I have to carry a brick, I'd rather it be a flexible brick, like the D700. The other Oly DSLRs have strong AA filter that cancel out any advantage the lens has in sharpness. And the Pens, while sharp, can't usefully focus the 12-60.
What I like about the E-P2 is that I can stick a small prime on it, like the 20/1.7, and it's basically pocketable with DSLR performance for street and candid photography. The sensor is sharp enough. But without a good walkaround zoom, the whole thing is much less useful for hiking, traveling etc.
Cheers!
DH
If I am not mistaken the AA filter of the E-620 is as strong as the filter of E-P1/E-P2.
So maybe that's a good body for the 14-52 or 12-60
[quote name='dhazeghi' timestamp='1294337159' post='5369']
Exactly! I just meant that the flaw doesn't seem to be inherent to the system...
No, I shot the Nikon at f/8 and the Oly at f/4. There's no doubt in my mind that the Oly had less CA, less distortion, better corner sharpness across the range, and was generally stronger at 60mm.
Unfortunately, it's an excellent lens without a reasonably body to put it on. The E-5 is a brick. If I have to carry a brick, I'd rather it be a flexible brick, like the D700. The other Oly DSLRs have strong AA filter that cancel out any advantage the lens has in sharpness. And the Pens, while sharp, can't usefully focus the 12-60.
What I like about the E-P2 is that I can stick a small prime on it, like the 20/1.7, and it's basically pocketable with DSLR performance for street and candid photography. The sensor is sharp enough. But without a good walkaround zoom, the whole thing is much less useful for hiking, traveling etc.
Cheers!
DH
[/quote]
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='ecle' timestamp='1294313951' post='5367']
I just wanted to say that the 12-60 has really good resolution.[/quote]
Can't remember using that lens but I'm sure it is very good for what it is because I've heard many talk about it. I'd expect it to be good when it's equivalent to a 24-120 f/5.6-8.
[quote name='ecle' timestamp='1294313951' post='5367']
The best lenses of Olympus are easily on the level of Canon and Nikons best. For example the 150mm F2 or 300 2,8. I don't think that the Canon 600mm F4 is better compare to 300mm 2,8.[/quote]
I've used the 150 f/2, 90-250 2.8 and 300 2.8, all on the E3 and also on the E-30... the only lens that impressed me was the 150 f/2 and that was mainly because the other two were very unimpressive. They're all heavy and slow to focus (no SWD). The 150 f/2 is such an expensive and a troublesome way to get a 300 f/4 effect. With the 90-250 and 300 you definitely need a monopod or a tripod at all times because the viewfinder isn't stabilised and the lenses are very heavy to handhold. Their max apertures being small doesn't help.
I haven't used the out-going Canon 600 f/4 IS but once you get past the extra weight, a stabilised viewfinder and USM is so much more nicer to use and will help you in getting better shots. You need to stop it down to f/5.6 to make things comparable to the ZD 300 2.8 anyway.
5D2 + 600 f/4 IS:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43799161@N04/4485824092/sizes/o/in/photostream/
[quote name='ecle' timestamp='1294313951' post='5367']
Ok you have 1 stop less noise on a 12Megapixel FF[/quote]
Actually the difference is roughly 2 stops because the area of a FT sensor is 17.3x13=224.9 and the area of a FF sensor is 36x24=864. So 864/224.9 = 3.84 ~= 2 stops.
[quote name='ecle' timestamp='1294313951' post='5367']
but I guess you can build better lenses on smaller sensors. FT needs only half the diameter for the same angle of view so there is room for better optics or even better F stops.[/quote]
No... not really:
You need higher resolution lenses on smaller sensors to achieve the same resolutions you can get on a larger sensor and its lenses. I explained this in the lp/mm explanation earlier. This is no benefit... this is a problem. As the lenses get faster (under f/2), it gets very difficult to make them sharp. That's why FT lenses are always slower than FF equivalents. For example, the 24-120 equivalent lens on FT (the 12-60) is a f/5.6-8 equivalent lens when 24-120/24-105 type FF lenses are constant f/4.
Just like with resolution, faster f-stops are required on smaller sensors because the sensors have a smaller light gathering area. Larger sensors require slower shutter speeds because they gather light over a larger area. This is not a benefit for small sensors... it's a requirement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise#Effects_of_sensor_size
E.g. A 70-200 2.8 lens on a FF is like a 35-100 f/1.4 on FT but there's no such thing on FT. As another example, the Leica D-Summilux 25mm f/1.4 for FT is like a 50mm f/1.4 FF lens stopped down to f/2.8. A 50 2.8 on FF would be sharper and be smaller and cheaper too.
So at the end of the day FT (and small sensors in general) need faster lenses and higher resolution sensors than FF cameras to match them. Making a lens fast and high in resolution are very conflicting objectives.
In comparison, just making an image circle bigger is not that difficult. For example the [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36862-GREY/Nikon_1309_105mm_f_5_6_Nikkor_W_Lens.html"]Nikor-W 105 f/5.6 lens[/url] has an image circle that is 31x the area of a FT image circle but it's still a f/5.6. It weighs only 185g and costs $350... but on its native format (6x9) it only needs to resolve 22 lp/mm to match that 12-60's 12MP resolution. And it does that while giving the DOF of 42mm f/2.2 lens on FF.
GTW
[quote name='ecle' timestamp='1294349312' post='5370']
If I am not mistaken the AA filter of the E-620 is as strong as the filter of E-P1/E-P2.
So maybe that's a good body for the 14-52 or 12-60
[/quote]
Actually, the AA filter on the E-620 is significantly stronger than on the E-P2. But it's a moot point really as the E-620 had the most unreliable AF of any DSLR I've ever owned. Doesn't matter how sharp the lens is if the camera chooses to focus it at random distances 
finaldesignrb
Unregistered
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294302509' post='5359']
Or... even better with the His Holiness, the 200 f/2 IS @ f/2 on the Nex-5:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4872191108/
[/quote]
Hard to believe that the photo you show was taken WIDE OPEN AT F2 at 200MM...will that lens take a tripod mount?
Quote:Being a proud owner of a Nex-5 and using it almost exclusively (instead of my 5D2, 50D, etc.), I still have to say that Canon APS-C sensors have more pixel-level resolution. Sony (and Nikon) are very well known for performing noise reduction before the data is written as RAW and this takes a toll on high frequency data (a fancy way to say fine details).
I do not share your pessimism about the Nex AA filter, because my raw images taken with apochromatic lenses such as the Tokina 70-210 SD II zoom at 70mm/F8 and smaller show single-pixel-width features. Don't see how it could get any better. Or put another way, it seems like the AA filter is just about right if it doesn't get in the way of single-pixel feature capture.
And the AA filter can't be super heavy because I have gotten aliasing with even the kit zoom JPEGs, at F8 and middle focal length on a tripod, looking at sweater fabric etc.
You also make an interesting point, that designers of fast lenses don't expend much energy optimizing small aperture performance. Because who would pay for a fast lens and then care about its slow apertures.
Sure would love to try the Olympus 12-60 zoom on the Nex, even if its image circle is a bit small. When will some genius figure out a 4/3rds adapter that will give us aperture control on the Nex?
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1294384916' post='5373']
Hard to believe that the photo you show was taken WIDE OPEN AT F2 at 200MM
[/quote]
Not really. You can cleary see that DOF is rather thin for such a long distance shot.
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1294384916' post='5373']
will that lens take a tripod mount?
[/quote]
Absolutely. It comes with a fixed tripod collar ... fixed in sense that it cannot be removed, but of course rotated. The foot is removable, though.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
|
