Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Olympus MFT lens roadmap
#11
(01-27-2019, 11:49 AM)Rover Wrote: Haha. I just... don't really give a toss because I see no point in making this kind of comparisons between formats for anything other than purely academic purposes. But I guess I'd also said that before. Smile Besides, a lot of the time I'm struggling to get more stuff inside DOF, not less, so for me the shallow DOF is not a be-all end-all and not a positive (nor negative) phenomenon per se, it depends on the situation. I guess I can't be alone on that count though... Smile

BTW I'm also using a 1.6x APS-C camera now. If you feel compelled to make cross-format comparisons all the time, then for the sake of completeness you must also include that one when talking to me. Big Grin

OH ok. Can do. f2.4 / 1.6 = f1.5 Canon APS-C equivalent.

Dear Wim, in digital photography there is one particular thing that has NO meaning what so ever, and that is light per area unit. No one photographs per area unit. Only per image frame. So get off that hobby horse of yours, and get your act together.

f1.2 stands for aperture size for focal length at hand, not for "brightness value for no matter which camera/lens combination". We don't use the same film for different format cameras, so no use in pretending we are.

With equivalent focal lengths, f1.2 on FF may mean an aperture with a diameter of 42mm, and then that means the MFT lens has an aperture with a diameter of 21mm. If you were a bug, walking under those openings, guess which hole would make the light falling on you more bright.

Kind regards, BC.
#12
It is amusing to watch this little game, BC. Yet, speed of lens is a simple concept, really. No need to try to make out of it something that it is not. Speed of lens, being 1,2, or 5,6, or whatever, is just that. Sensor size and the rest is, well, beaten to death. Cool

Updated roadmap looks interesting. New fast primes. Olympus seems to be coming up with competitor(s) to Pana's announcement at Photokina. Out of 4 indicated PRO zooms, could one or two be of similar speed?  A nonPro 100-400 might indicate that PanaLeica 100-400 took quite some sales from Oly. PanaLeica works for me, for what is worth.  Blush
#13
(01-27-2019, 02:58 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(01-27-2019, 11:49 AM)Rover Wrote: Haha. I just... don't really give a toss because I see no point in making this kind of comparisons between formats for anything other than purely academic purposes. But I guess I'd also said that before. Smile Besides, a lot of the time I'm struggling to get more stuff inside DOF, not less, so for me the shallow DOF is not a be-all end-all and not a positive (nor negative) phenomenon per se, it depends on the situation. I guess I can't be alone on that count though... Smile

BTW I'm also using a 1.6x APS-C camera now. If you feel compelled to make cross-format comparisons all the time, then for the sake of completeness you must also include that one when talking to me. Big Grin

OH ok. Can do. f2.4 / 1.6 = f1.5 Canon APS-C equivalent.

Dear Wim, in digital photography there is one particular thing that has NO meaning what so ever, and that is light per area unit. No one photographs per area unit. Only per image frame. So get off that hobby horse of yours, and get your act together.

f1.2 stands for aperture size for focal length at hand, not for "brightness value for no matter which camera/lens combination". We don't use the same film for different format cameras, so no use in pretending we are.

With equivalent focal lengths, f1.2 on FF may mean an aperture with a diameter of 42mm, and then that means the MFT lens has an aperture with a diameter of 21mm. If you were a bug, walking under those openings, guess which hole would make the light falling on you more bright.

Kind regards, BC.
Dear BC,

That is exactly my point: the brightness is exactly the same, both having an F/1.2 lens with equivalent FL. The difference is that the path in bright light for the beetle is longer for the FF image circle, as it is bigger, than it is for the mu4/3 image circle. Twice as long in fact. And yes, the FF sensor collects 4x the amount of light, thanks to its larger image circle and sensor. And the image taken with mu4/3 has to be enlarged 2x linear to get to the same size as the one taken with the FF sensor - this is where equivalency comes in and where FF has an advantage.

An F/1.2 mu4/3 lens at F/1.2 doesn't suddenly project a less bright image om mu4/3 than an FF F/1.2 lens on FF. It just projects an image circle that is a quarter the size.

Oh, and please don't be so patronizing. It doesn't sound very nice. And in this case you happen to be wrong, even if you don't want to admit it.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 11 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, extension tubes, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#14
Wim, before BC admits to be wrong hell will freeze over.
#15
(01-28-2019, 08:54 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: Wim, before BC admits to be wrong hell will freeze over.
Smile

Doesn't matter. In my world view everybody makes mistakes. The world doesn't end with those mistakes. However, it is possible to convey a message in a friendlier fashion, as that just makes the world a nicer place. Even when being right about something, it is not necessary to tell everybody else they are less clever in any way Smile. Just take them gently by the hand, and walk with them, small step by small step; that is IMO the way to do it.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 11 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, extension tubes, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)