Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interesting comparison ...
#1
see attachment ...


Attached Files
.png   comparison.png (Size: 287.63 KB / Downloads: 28)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
First, why couldn't you insert pictures as picture?  This download attachments are filling diskspace for just one look.



Second, the picture would be fairer if both cameras are aligned on their rear LCD - that is a main border of the body, not the rubber frame of the EVF/OVF.

And third, next to this comparison would be the MTF table and CA charts of these lenses Wink
#3
Well, what do you expect - the new one has 15 elements vs. 8. The old one also sucked pretty hard with regard to IQ, last I checked. Smile
#4
That is the difference between an old fashioned 1970's kind of design (the optical formula of the EF lens is not very advanced) and a modern design.

Here is the difference between an old fashioned "1970's kind of design" f1.4 and a modern one.

.jpg   Screen Shot 2018-12-03 at 12.01.17.jpg (Size: 185.62 KB / Downloads: 12)

Note how the short flange distance allows the faster lens to be about the same size, while both have about the same number of lens elements.
#5
[Image: 45435085594_7c867d7a55_o.jpg]

Here, we have 5 models of 50mm f1.4 lenses.
The rule seems to be: the newer the lens, the bigger it is.
Today, people obsess way too much about sharpness at the expense of cost, size and weight.
How often do we print big enough so that it will actually make a significant difference?
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#6
Pros often use big prints, and these lenses are designed for pro usage. We (and pros) are getting used to high performance (especially evident with the progress made in UWA the last 30 years).
The Milvus is not that big. It has 10 elements vs. the 14 from the 55mm Otus, 50mm f1.4 Pentax and Canon RF 50mm f1.2 L. It looks big here because of the lens hood ;-)
#7
My prints sometimes are A1 and I do see a difference between soem lenses and of course also APS-C or FF.
#8
I wanted to put the Otus in the comparison but it's not available on camerasize.com.

Yeah, you might see a difference, but is it truly significant? I argue that it is probably not.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#9
The answer to this question will be individually different. It depends very much on what I like to photograph.

Since I'm a big fan of fast glass, simply because I need it for some occasions, I won't get away with a tiny lightweight pancake. That goes as well for my Fuji stuff - but here the sensor is a limiting factor in terms of acceptable noise. My expectations of noise up to ISO 25.000 and above are not super high, but here the Fujis don't have much to deliver. Therefore bigger sensor, therefore bigger glass. For someone who is mostly in landscapes, the glass needs to be great for the maximal print size - but not fast.

Next thing: I don't like zooms so much, mostly because they are a tad slower than primes. With primes, I need to crop. With crop I need to have a bit more resolution from the sensor.

One could say, take a zoom and use VR, but that won't do for action indoors with available light, except I choose a motion-blurred shooting style - sometimes I do, but I also love to be free if I do it blurry or sharp.
#10
Again it all depends on what you do with your pictures, if you just use them on the web or view on a screen then obviously you don't need all the details and resolution
If you do print and especially if you sell prints then every tiny gain of quality counts.
I print hundreds of 13X18 and 15X21 photos, every now and then I print A4, and rarely A3, my largest print was 100X150 cm vinyl print from 8 megapixels 30D yet it looked fine, 20=25 MP iis all I might need, knowing sometimes I need cropping
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)