Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Panasonic Lumix Pro 70-200mm f/2.8 OIS and 16-35mm f/4 announced
#11
(11-07-2019, 06:19 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: About FF and small aperture primes... Why go for FF if you are not after the possibility of shallow DOF? What sense do you see in FF sensor + small aperture lenses over smaller sensor cameras?

I was just debunking Joju's statement about FF being necessarily bigger than MFT.

I like to have the choice: smallish aperture lenses when I want a light and compact setup and large aperture lenses when I need shallow DOF.
What's nice with FF is that you could fairly easily have both worlds. Not so with MFT, unless you buy mega expensive and huge glass. APS-C is pretty descent, but I believe FF could be made about the same size if not smaller while being able to offer shallow DOF with wide-angle lenses.

And I'd rather use only a single system instead of switching between FF, APS-C and MFT.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#12
One thing is what could be done. Theoretically might. Practically, it doesn’t exist. Sony system with lots of third party lenses got somewhat close with primes. Others? Very unlikely. They didn’t go for large and small at the same time when market was stable. In (fast) declining market today? Slim chance.
#13
(11-07-2019, 08:20 PM)MatjazO Wrote: One thing is what could be done. Theoretically might. Practically, it doesn’t exist. Sony system with lots of third party lenses got somewhat close with primes. Others? Very unlikely. They didn’t go for large and small at the same time when market was stable. In (fast) declining market today? Slim chance.

Yes, I also think it's very unlikely.
I was just arguing it could be done.
This is why for the moment I'm sticking with APS-C (Fuji) for most stuff and sometimes MFT when I need something very small. So far it offers the best of both worlds for my shooting style.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#14
"Now, there are tiny lenses in MFT land which would be equivalent to f4 or f5.6ff lenses. I'm sure if such lenses existed for FF, they would be comparable in size. They just don't exist."

Exactly. For a good reason, in fact for several ones, but the main reason is "no one would buy them". As BC states, what good is it to go FF if not having the advantage of shallow DoF and great low light performance. Also, most of OL's tests at some place state "... until diffraction kicks in", mostly after f/8. So, with an f/4 prime I had two usable aperture stops? No, thanks. If I want to have a very compact system with me, I take something like the Nikon 1 V2 and two lenses, 10-100 and 70-300, and live with the lower IQ - I could not carry an equivalent of 28 - 810 mm in two lenses all day.

Also, I like to put your idea of "in film eras the cameras were lighter" into a reality check, because I was tempted to agree. Until I put my Contax 137 MA (which at least has an aperture priority mode, but can't AF and I need to change the roll after 36 frames. Oh, and it also cannot do movies...) on scale: ready to shoot the scale shows 662 grams. The Z 6 shows 668 grams. Oh, and I forgot to include a filter can: + 20 grams for the Contax which is very comparable in size, just clocks out at 3 fps, at 1/1000 and not tiger than 36°/3200ASA, aka ISO 3200.

And it doesn't even have a rear screen to preview the pictures... "film cameras were smaller" - they had maybe 25-35 % of the buttons or dials of today. I count 20 buttons (including multiselector, not including the i menu on the touchscreen) on the Z6 and 1 to stop down the aperture (to "control", hahahaha, the DoF in a dark OVF) on the Contax.

First, film cameras were not necessarily lighter/smaller than today's mirrorless bodies. Not even the Pentax or Olympus ones. Second, today's bodies have a lot more function elements, not to mention endless menus, which need to be at least operational and accessible. Third, to get the IQ of a 24 MP sensor, not even a Kodachrome 25 is sufficient - and no longer for sale anyway.

I always stated there's a limit of getting smaller and smaller. I could push 4 buttons with my thumb at once. I don't ned to push 8. Coming from DLSRs like D8xx, the Z bodies are sooo much smaller already and the lenses, too. And I don't need dark hole f/4 shards, only useful in bright sunlight.
#15
To reply to your statement "As BC states, what good is it to go FF if not having the advantage of shallow DoF and great low light performance", read my reply to BC.

There were many film cameras that were much smaller than DSLRs.

Regarding slow primes (between f2.8 to f4), you're missing the point.
I'm sure many people would be interested. Nobody says that's the only type of lenses one should use. It's all about choices. One could mount fast large glass or slow, compact glass. The point is that you use the same system for both scenarios.
When I shoot landscape, I don't want an f1.4 or even f2.8 lens since I'll stop down the aperture to at least f8 (FF). Consequently, a small 20mm f4 or even f5.6 prime could be very useful.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#16
You first talked about f/4 primes. I don't think, I'm missing the point. I can always stop down a f/1.4 to f/4, but never "stop up" an f/4. I feel limited with f/4 in a way that the "more versatile" f/4 zooms usually remain at home and my trusty f/1.4 sits in the bag or on camera.

So, why would I need two lenses, a fast and a slow one? I already have two slow f/4 zooms which I'm not to keen to use.

On the Fuji APS-C side of things it's different - their f/1.4s are huge compared to the only one stop slower f/2. Which are weather sealed, looking better on an X-E or even X-Pro.

And when I imagine an 20/4.0 lens in front of a Z body - this is so ugly, mis-proportioned and nonsensical with this great mount ø that I think, you are missing the point of FF. Apparently Nikon thinks the same way with regard to their lens roadmap - sorry, you need to look for another company fulfilling your "if it only were smaller, I'd buy one. Probably. And a lot of others, too." sort of promise. Actually I never heard this wish of any photographer I was talking to. You like to have a choice - maybe one day you will. You just need to make sure to reach relevant sales numbers...

I think in terms of compactness and FF, only the Sigma fp sets a new standard as all other cameras are bigger - but not much bigger than some of their APS-C colleagues. Which you more than once found "more than enough IQ". And here I like to stop my contribution to this discussion as I don't think shrunk FF bodies are the key to higher camera sales. I want something which fits my hands. And I have it.

Now, sizewise the Leica SL2 is in the same league as the Panasonic S1/S1R as they share a lot. It wouldn't be a first time to get a red dot labeled Panasonic in a modified housing.
#17
LOL And so the equivalence game has started over ... and it wasn't even me ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#18
(11-07-2019, 09:09 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: To reply to your statement "As BC states, what good is it to go FF if not having the advantage of shallow DoF and great low light performance", read my reply to BC.

There were many film cameras that were much smaller than DSLRs.

Regarding slow primes (between f2.8 to f4), you're missing the point.
I'm sure many people would be interested. Nobody says that's the only type of lenses one should use. It's all about choices. One could mount fast large glass or slow, compact glass. The point is that you use the same system for both scenarios.
When I shoot landscape, I don't want an f1.4 or even f2.8 lens since I'll stop down the aperture to at least f8 (FF). Consequently, a small 20mm f4 or even f5.6 prime could be very useful.
The smaller cameras were all from the "yikes, did we really enjoy using those" ilk, with sharp edges, heavy metal construction, no ergonomics to speak of (and none had sensor electronics boards, LCD, big battery, so they could be slim and smaller). Yes, my Nikon  Nikkormat FTn was smaller than my 6D. And my 6D is way nicer to hold and use. But of course, it has to be fatter because of the sensor and LCD stuff. And luckily it has a nice grip.

Better just look at an APS-C body, with a wide angle converter for shallow DOF options?

And btw, my small Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 is very useful, and is very small. So I understand that idea. But of course, a Samyang 20mm f2 offers the same on APS-C, and gives better close up results.

Another thought... A 16-35mm f4 lens may be bigger than a slow prime... But it gives a range of focal lengths. Easier to use and carry than a 20mm + 24mm + 35mm prime. Then going back to APS-C.... For small aperture shooting, my EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM is way smaller and super lightweight. So again, better look at APS-C with wide angle converter option?
#19
Does anyone think this L mount is worth risking any sort of investment ??

  ........ the Panasonic FF body just doesn't seem to be selling,  with it's below par AF system .... and Leica's will be looking to save it's own back.
 
  I wouldn't take the risk ......... I see it petering out rather than blossoming !
Dave's clichés
#20
These are the best FF cameras for movies ...
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
3 Guest(s)