03-11-2012, 09:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2012, 10:09 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='MelbournePark' timestamp='1331415135' post='16540']
The problem with the larger sensors is that the tele lenses get too big and heavy.
As far as that list goes, the 85/1.4 has been announced, but you cannot buy it. Incidentally, that lens, without its hood, will weigh 700 grams. Samsung quotes its dimensions as being 79 wide x 92.2mm long - about 3 & 3/4". And it does not have OIS either.
Look at the bulk of the tele lenses for the bigger sensor cameras - they get too big and heavy. That is the problem for a format where compactness is a key reason for purchasing. As an examole, the super tele (which costs $800):
Filter Thread
67 mm
Dimensions (DxL)
Approx. 2.83 x 4.15" (7.2 x 10.55 cm)
Weight
1.27 lb (578 g)
Compare it to Olympus's:
14-150 F/4-5.6:
Filter Thread 58 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.5 x 3.3" (6.35 x 8.38 cm)
Weight 9.87 oz (280 g)
The Olympus is almost an inch shorter, and it weighs under half as much, and it costs $200 less.
As sensors improve - and they do every year - the 43 sensor size makes more and more sense. At least to those who want something smaller.
Its interesting too, that companies like Fujifilm, although they have published a roadmap, have not published the dimensions and weights of their future lenses.
[/quote]
One point
That of the tele lenses getting bigger and heavier with bigger sensors. This is very disputable.
On a shallow glance it appears you might be right. However, you are not.
It is obvious to anyone/everyone that a 50mm f1.8 lens is smaller and lighter and cheaper than a 50mm f1.2 lens.
Both offer 50mm focal length, both offer a similar field of view with a similar sensor size. But they differ on the maximum aperture size, and subsequently differ on how much light they can let through and the depth of focus they will give at maximum aperture.
So, we look at these lenses to be of a different class.
Now what do you do? You apparently compare very low end small aperture lenses with lenses with a much bigger aperture, and blame the big lens to be... bigger. Right!
Lets look at a fact. On 4/3rds and not MFT, since MFT does not have a very wide selection of higher end lenses (yet?).
Lets take two totally equivalent tele lenses.
The Olymus 35-100mm f2, on MFT or 4/3rds, and the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM on 135 format full frame.
Both have different focal ranges, which result in the same field of view ranges.
Both have the same aperture ranges (50mm aperture at 100mm and 200mm focal length respectively), resulting in similar light amounts passing through and similar depth of focus.
Which lens is bigger? The Olympus. Which lens is heavier? The Olympus. Which lens is more expensive? The Olympus.
That is how it is in reality, tele lenses are NOT smaller or lighter, if you would make them comparable. A comparable lens for full frame 35mm film format of the Olympus you mention (14-150mm f4-5.6) would be a 28-300mm f8-11 lens. That is reality.
Thing is, no one would want an f8-11 lens anymore, that sounds more like the 1970's.
So that is reality... MFT is not comparable to full frame, it serves totally different markets. Full frame serves a professional and serious market with its very own advantages and very own needs and demands. MFT serves a cell phone generation market more akin to compacts and point and shoot usage, with its very own advantages and demands and needs.
But one thing the smaller sensor does not give... smaller lighter tele lenses which are comparable. That is the same thing as saying a Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens standard zoom is comparable to a Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM because both provide a similar field of view at 50mm (when used on the same sensor size), and praise the Sony for its size and weight and not look further... While to everyone it is clear they are not similar in a VERY important aspect... the maximum aperture size.
Getting back to the 85mm f1.4:
What does the f1.4 signify? That the lens is capable of a shallow DOF. How shallow depends on the maximum size of the aperture. This is what that lens is about, for portrait usage.
Now, what kind of lens is needed for the same application for MFT?
The max. aperture size is:
85mm / 1.4 = 60.7mm
MFT comparable focal length (giving similar field of view): 64mm.
MFT comparable f-value (giving same aperture size and similar DOF): 64 / 60.7 = f1.05.
Are you really thinking that a comparable MFT lens (65mm f1) will be less heavy, and smaller?
I think it is more fair to say that MFT will not not have a comparable lens. And if one lens maker decides to make one, that it will be heavier and more expensive.
The problem with the larger sensors is that the tele lenses get too big and heavy.
As far as that list goes, the 85/1.4 has been announced, but you cannot buy it. Incidentally, that lens, without its hood, will weigh 700 grams. Samsung quotes its dimensions as being 79 wide x 92.2mm long - about 3 & 3/4". And it does not have OIS either.
Look at the bulk of the tele lenses for the bigger sensor cameras - they get too big and heavy. That is the problem for a format where compactness is a key reason for purchasing. As an examole, the super tele (which costs $800):
Filter Thread
67 mm
Dimensions (DxL)
Approx. 2.83 x 4.15" (7.2 x 10.55 cm)
Weight
1.27 lb (578 g)
Compare it to Olympus's:
14-150 F/4-5.6:
Filter Thread 58 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.5 x 3.3" (6.35 x 8.38 cm)
Weight 9.87 oz (280 g)
The Olympus is almost an inch shorter, and it weighs under half as much, and it costs $200 less.
As sensors improve - and they do every year - the 43 sensor size makes more and more sense. At least to those who want something smaller.
Its interesting too, that companies like Fujifilm, although they have published a roadmap, have not published the dimensions and weights of their future lenses.
[/quote]
One point
That of the tele lenses getting bigger and heavier with bigger sensors. This is very disputable.
On a shallow glance it appears you might be right. However, you are not.
It is obvious to anyone/everyone that a 50mm f1.8 lens is smaller and lighter and cheaper than a 50mm f1.2 lens.
Both offer 50mm focal length, both offer a similar field of view with a similar sensor size. But they differ on the maximum aperture size, and subsequently differ on how much light they can let through and the depth of focus they will give at maximum aperture.
So, we look at these lenses to be of a different class.
Now what do you do? You apparently compare very low end small aperture lenses with lenses with a much bigger aperture, and blame the big lens to be... bigger. Right!
Lets look at a fact. On 4/3rds and not MFT, since MFT does not have a very wide selection of higher end lenses (yet?).
Lets take two totally equivalent tele lenses.
The Olymus 35-100mm f2, on MFT or 4/3rds, and the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM on 135 format full frame.
Both have different focal ranges, which result in the same field of view ranges.
Both have the same aperture ranges (50mm aperture at 100mm and 200mm focal length respectively), resulting in similar light amounts passing through and similar depth of focus.
Which lens is bigger? The Olympus. Which lens is heavier? The Olympus. Which lens is more expensive? The Olympus.
That is how it is in reality, tele lenses are NOT smaller or lighter, if you would make them comparable. A comparable lens for full frame 35mm film format of the Olympus you mention (14-150mm f4-5.6) would be a 28-300mm f8-11 lens. That is reality.
Thing is, no one would want an f8-11 lens anymore, that sounds more like the 1970's.
So that is reality... MFT is not comparable to full frame, it serves totally different markets. Full frame serves a professional and serious market with its very own advantages and very own needs and demands. MFT serves a cell phone generation market more akin to compacts and point and shoot usage, with its very own advantages and demands and needs.
But one thing the smaller sensor does not give... smaller lighter tele lenses which are comparable. That is the same thing as saying a Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens standard zoom is comparable to a Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM because both provide a similar field of view at 50mm (when used on the same sensor size), and praise the Sony for its size and weight and not look further... While to everyone it is clear they are not similar in a VERY important aspect... the maximum aperture size.
Getting back to the 85mm f1.4:
What does the f1.4 signify? That the lens is capable of a shallow DOF. How shallow depends on the maximum size of the aperture. This is what that lens is about, for portrait usage.
Now, what kind of lens is needed for the same application for MFT?
The max. aperture size is:
85mm / 1.4 = 60.7mm
MFT comparable focal length (giving similar field of view): 64mm.
MFT comparable f-value (giving same aperture size and similar DOF): 64 / 60.7 = f1.05.
Are you really thinking that a comparable MFT lens (65mm f1) will be less heavy, and smaller?
I think it is more fair to say that MFT will not not have a comparable lens. And if one lens maker decides to make one, that it will be heavier and more expensive.