Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH
#11
Quote:You may have written that f/1.4 is f/1.4, but that remains as meaningless as it ever was. F/1..4 merely means focal length divided by 1.4 = aperture size. If the f is different, f/1.4 != f/1.4.

 

f1.4 with ISO 100  Velvia != f1.4 with agfapan APX 400.

Using a different size aperture is just as valid a thing as using a different ISO setting. 

 

A famous Leica photographer said that a photographer only has two tools to determine the look of the image, aperture for DOF and focal length for FOV. To control exposure, that is what ISO and exposure time are for. Another famous Leica photographer only varied aperture to get an adequate exposure. That illustrates well the possible different ways one can look at the tools available.

 

Whether I am a fan of MFT or not is very not important in any way. It does not change a thing. I have had the same discussions about APS-C vs FF, FF vs APS-C, Nikon 1 vs APS-C, FF versus 6x9 MF.

 

Why I said it is a bad deal: mirrorless, and MFT in particular, have been supposed to have a weight and size advantage. With this particular lens, it does not have a weight, nor a size advantage. Nor does it have a price advantage. That you do not understand "that way of thinking" says a lot about you, not so much about me...
 

I am getting tired of these discussions, to be very honest, and it is one of the reasons why I have stayed away here for quite some time. looks like nothing has changed.

 

You don't seem t understand, or do not want to understand, what anybody else is saying, and you come with arguments that have no realtion to the actual discussion in the first place, other than pushign your own opinions, whether they are right or wrong.

 

Of course a 100 iso film of one brand is not the same as a 400 iso film from another brand, of course all photographers agree that the way to make one image look different from another, apart from composition and lighting, is DoF and FL. That is not the point.

 

And that MFT is a bad deal is your opinion, and you do not want to accept that others have a different opinon.

 

Funnily enough, if you really work it out, you get the following:

- MFT is smaller and lighter, whatever body or lens you choose, equivalent or not

- MFT is 4 x smaller wrt sensor size than FF, and therefore has 4 x the noise (that, BTW, is exactly the same issue as we always had with film)

- crop factor of MFT wrt FF is 2, therefore FL equivalents must be multiplied with 2 oto compare with FF

- crop factor of MFT is 2, therefore MFT has twice the DoF of FF for equivalent FLs

- F-stops are indepent of sensor or medium size, they are an indication of relative light levels (outside vs the camera obscura side of a photographic device); that they depend on FLs is neither here nor there, that is just a know fact.

- isos are isos, it is a defined standard

- different sizes and brands of sensors are not created the same, another moot point, we know that, and take that into account with our photography

- whether a lens and or camera system is a bad deal, is to be decided by the buyer, there si no need to bash whatever decision someone makes based on someone else's preferences

- MFT lenses have to be much sharper than FF lenses in order to get good results when images are enlarged to the same size as, e.g, those taken with a FF sensor

- MFT lenses, in order to be sharper, must have much stricter tolerances than FF lenses, and are therefore much harder to build

- MFT lenses are made in smaller series than FF (or APS-C) lenses because the market is smaller

- Since MFT lenses are harder to make than FF lenses, and because they are made in smaller numbers, they tend to be reltively expensive

 

Now, let's look at actual pricing. Currently, the Olympus 12-40 F/2.8 (which is a true F/2.8 lens, even if it has a DoF similar ot a FF F/5.6 lens), sells for 1000 euros over here, approximately. It is a truly excellent ens. Now let's compare that with a Canon 24-70 F/2.8, which is the FL-equivalence of it, more or less. That costs twice as much, 2000 euros. The Olympus weighs 382 grams, the Canon 805 grams, and is more than twice as big. teh same can be said about many other equivalently good lenses.

The only difference is the system, with MFT resulting in 4x  longer exposures to get the same noise, and resulting in twice the DoF for equivalent lenses, all compared to FF. Other than that, no difference, except that MFT is way smaller, lighter and cheaper than FF, generally a factor of 2 or more. And that is the point.

 

Now, because of all the adapters possible, one can use almost any lens from any manufacturer on an MFT body. However, that si not recommended witha glass-less adapter, because no lenses fro larger systems, sensor wise, are up to the task. The added benefit with adapters that do use glass, like the metabones ones, is that they also give one much larger f-stops. So, if I want to do any shallow DoF photography withan MFT camera, and do not mecessarily mind carrying heavy glass, I will use my Canon FF glass for that reason, or even my Canon FF camera with Canon FF glass. Other than that, my MFT glass is very sharp, and does all the things I need it to do.

 

A last few remarks: I have always been very nice here on Photozone, and I do want to stay nice, I find there generally is no need to be mean with people at all; the moderators can take care of those who are not so nice.

I do want to say one thing, however: to me you come over as one of the most arrogant people I have ever met on any forum. Only your opinion seems to be true, only your opinion seems to be valid, and you always need to have the last word. I am also sure I am not the only one who thinks that way. Think about that.

 

As to "That you do not understand "that way of thinking" says a lot about you, not so much about me..." I think it is about time you should start wondering why it is that so many people disagree with you, or feel insulted by you, and for Klaus and the team running Photozone, why so many people leave this place, and only visit for the articles and lens tests.

 

BTW, I will not reply to this topic any further, I have said what I wanted to say, in part, in a way, on behalf of those who do indeed feel slighted, not listened to, or insulted.

 

if you have anything to add to this, you can always contact me via PM if need be.

 

Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#12
Allow me to interfere: I don't think there's a bad system as a user of both full frame and crop sensors I totally agree with kinm about mft.

For landscape photography you have a lightweight compact system with plenty of depth of field, that's just great. I don't take my full frame with me when hiking.

A fast lens is a fast lens whatever system you are using even if depth of field varies.

When using flash at parties I always use it bounced and this consumes a lot of battery. My 17-55 f2.8 lens on crop sensor allows faster recycle time than a 24-105 f4 lens on full frame autofocus also performs better since it has more light available.

Every system has its pros and cons.
#13
MFT is a great system which combines quite good IQ and good handling with a great assortment of lenses. Sometimes the price seems quite high though, but for users in MFT camp at least they have another good options. Thankfully the prices do go down to sane level quickly.
#14
If I have to chime in again... do many users of a given system agonize over what is available in the other systems and format sizes all the time? I'd rather think that people grab what they want and use the hell out of it instead of always saying "I could have had more/less DOF / {insert parameter 1} / {insert parameter 2} here"... If it really had been that way, the FF users would've all (well, mostly) gone nuts because there's Medium Format out there with even more capability.

 

I also find it grossly misleading that the forewords of many Âµ4/3 reviews are stating "limited depth of field potential" or even "limited CREATIVE potential" of the lenses. First off, it all depends on the choice of subject and subject / background / foreground relations within the frame. Second, it serves to scare the users (those less knowledgeable / less familiar with the atmosphere of many photographic forums) away from the system entirely.

 

You oughta stop comparing all the stuff - heck, even Klaus says (in every damn review to boot): Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different test systems!

So the good sirs / ladies using Âµ4/3 have their fast lens for THEIR system, and they're using it as such. If they had been into the (niche) business of always eking out shots with the thinnest possible DOF (I think that it's a pretty rare necessity, at least for me), they would have either

a) just lived with the potential of the system - I do not find it that difficult to get a blurred background in most cases where I need it, YMMV; or

B) not gotten into it in the first place.

 

In the end, we're all dwelling on this too much. Smile

So, where were we... the Panasonic 12mm f/1.4 lens! Any more thought?  Rolleyes

#15
Hi Rover,

 

In addition to your comments, it actually is possible to get even thinner DoF if so required, and that is exactly what I did today. If it is not a problem to carry or use heavier lenses, one can, by using a metabones Speed Booster adapter. I happen to have one for Canon EF to MFT, the Ultra X 0.64x, and that boosts the aperture of a lens by 1 1/3 of an f-stop, increases sharpness, and gives a remaining crop factor equal to APS-H, 1.28x. If and when I have some time, I may post some examples.

 

As to fast native MFT lenses, the manufacturers can only be applauded to creating them, and funnily enough, they still have size and weight advantages, as well as price advantages, contrary to the belief of some. As to equivalent DoF, if one just wants to have a few eye-lashes in DoF, the Metabones adapter is the way to go, but for a single full eye, wide open with these new fast native lenses is just fine.

 

I can actually put 4 to 6 MFT lenses in my jacket pockets, without these dragging me down, something I never could with FF - one or 2 at most, and generally that was much more uncomfortable Smile.

 

I am looking forward to see the test results for the F/1.4 12, especially as that fits my style of shooting better than a 14 mm on MFT.

 

Kind regards, Wim

Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#16
Quote:I am getting tired of these discussions, to be very honest, and it is one of the reasons why I have stayed away here for quite some time. looks like nothing has changed.

 

You don't seem t understand, or do not want to understand, what anybody else is saying, and you come with arguments that have no realtion to the actual discussion in the first place, other than pushign your own opinions, whether they are right or wrong.

 

Of course a 100 iso film of one brand is not the same as a 400 iso film from another brand, of course all photographers agree that the way to make one image look different from another, apart from composition and lighting, is DoF and FL. That is not the point.

 

And that MFT is a bad deal is your opinion, and you do not want to accept that others have a different opinon.

 

Funnily enough, if you really work it out, you get the following:

- MFT is smaller and lighter, whatever body or lens you choose, equivalent or not

- MFT is 4 x smaller wrt sensor size than FF, and therefore has 4 x the noise (that, BTW, is exactly the same issue as we always had with film)

- crop factor of MFT wrt FF is 2, therefore FL equivalents must be multiplied with 2 oto compare with FF

- crop factor of MFT is 2, therefore MFT has twice the DoF of FF for equivalent FLs

- F-stops are indepent of sensor or medium size, they are an indication of relative light levels (outside vs the camera obscura side of a photographic device); that they depend on FLs is neither here nor there, that is just a know fact.

- isos are isos, it is a defined standard

- different sizes and brands of sensors are not created the same, another moot point, we know that, and take that into account with our photography

- whether a lens and or camera system is a bad deal, is to be decided by the buyer, there si no need to bash whatever decision someone makes based on someone else's preferences

- MFT lenses have to be much sharper than FF lenses in order to get good results when images are enlarged to the same size as, e.g, those taken with a FF sensor

- MFT lenses, in order to be sharper, must have much stricter tolerances than FF lenses, and are therefore much harder to build

- MFT lenses are made in smaller series than FF (or APS-C) lenses because the market is smaller

- Since MFT lenses are harder to make than FF lenses, and because they are made in smaller numbers, they tend to be reltively expensive

 

Now, let's look at actual pricing. Currently, the Olympus 12-40 F/2.8 (which is a true F/2.8 lens, even if it has a DoF similar ot a FF F/5.6 lens), sells for 1000 euros over here, approximately. It is a truly excellent ens. Now let's compare that with a Canon 24-70 F/2.8, which is the FL-equivalence of it, more or less. That costs twice as much, 2000 euros. The Olympus weighs 382 grams, the Canon 805 grams, and is more than twice as big. teh same can be said about many other equivalently good lenses.

The only difference is the system, with MFT resulting in 4x  longer exposures to get the same noise, and resulting in twice the DoF for equivalent lenses, all compared to FF. Other than that, no difference, except that MFT is way smaller, lighter and cheaper than FF, generally a factor of 2 or more. And that is the point.

 

Now, because of all the adapters possible, one can use almost any lens from any manufacturer on an MFT body. However, that si not recommended witha glass-less adapter, because no lenses fro larger systems, sensor wise, are up to the task. The added benefit with adapters that do use glass, like the metabones ones, is that they also give one much larger f-stops. So, if I want to do any shallow DoF photography withan MFT camera, and do not mecessarily mind carrying heavy glass, I will use my Canon FF glass for that reason, or even my Canon FF camera with Canon FF glass. Other than that, my MFT glass is very sharp, and does all the things I need it to do.

 

A last few remarks: I have always been very nice here on Photozone, and I do want to stay nice, I find there generally is no need to be mean with people at all; the moderators can take care of those who are not so nice.

I do want to say one thing, however: to me you come over as one of the most arrogant people I have ever met on any forum. Only your opinion seems to be true, only your opinion seems to be valid, and you always need to have the last word. I am also sure I am not the only one who thinks that way. Think about that.

 

As to "That you do not understand "that way of thinking" says a lot about you, not so much about me..." I think it is about time you should start wondering why it is that so many people disagree with you, or feel insulted by you, and for Klaus and the team running Photozone, why so many people leave this place, and only visit for the articles and lens tests.

 

BTW, I will not reply to this topic any further, I have said what I wanted to say, in part, in a way, on behalf of those who do indeed feel slighted, not listened to, or insulted.

 

if you have anything to add to this, you can always contact me via PM if need be.

 

Regards, Wim
Yeha, I remember you left after a discussion about where you said CA was about blue/yellow light becaus eyou said you learend that from way back when, and me pointing out that CA can be magenta/green. red/blue-green or blue/yellow (or even combinations of those, through a focal length range).

 

I always react on point, also in this discussion. Nice that you want to make out that I don't. You seem to not be able to stand when someone points out you are wrong.  B)

 

Glad you agree that all photographers (in reality: not all) understand that it is all about DOF and FOV.  Big Grin

 

Your misconception is about me thinking MFT is a bad deal. Let me clarify. To me, MFT and this lens in particular is a bad deal. You pay a lot for more weight and size in optics, where MFT should be about less weight and size (and possibly, price). The only fundamental issues I have with MFT is the 3x4 aspect ratio, and the EVF. Otherwise, I have no fundamental issue with MTF.

 

-MFT is only lighter and smaller when you look at MFT bodies. Usually not when you look at equivalent lenses.

-MFT does NOT have 4 times the noise. With equivalent settings, noise is pretty equal. You seem to be hell bound not to want to understand equivalent settings, though.

-you do not get f-stops.

-You do not get how ISO is defined in the digital age. read up on it, it is interesting in enlightening reading material.

-MFT lenses are not sharper at all, they just have smaller openings which make they seem sharper to those that do not get the idea of equivalent f-stops.

-The Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 is just a f5.6 full frame equivalent lens, no matter how you look at it. Whether it is DOF, aperture size, or amount of light it lets through. Canon does not make a 24-80mm f5.6 FF lens, however. I do have a Canon 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 II, though. It weight 220 grams. It is optically rubbish though, but it is also about 30 years old and much, much cheaper.

-Not sure why you bring up how many lenses you can adapt to MFT. I thought we were talking about a lens, and how it is a bit heavy and expensive, nullifying the benefits of MFT in regards to this specific lens. One can adapt many, many lenses to EOS M or Sony E mount too. Also totally not on topic.

-It is fine for someone to like their MFT gear or a specific lens. Just as it is fine for me to point out that this specific lens is just a 24mm f2.8 equivalent lens, and as such, a big heavy, a tad big, and no bargain at all.

-About me being arrogant, you have a pompous way of writing vey eloquently, but being wrong in what you write. That is ok, just an observation. Just like that time when you wrote about CA being about blue light. And when I point out you are wrong, you find me arrogant. That is ok. And, Like you, I am Dutch. :blink:  Our direct way of saying things may come across are arrogant, but often it is just "direct".

-And you call what I write "my opinion". But it is not my opinion, it is just fact.

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/article...alence.pdf

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Usually, when I write about something, I know what I am talking about. Tongue Think about that.

Kind regards, Brightcolours.

#17
I have to comment here about two things:

 

1) You do not know why I left, so don't make any assumptions.

2) I may carry a Dutch passport, but don't include me in "Our direct way of saying things". That may be how you do things, it is not me, and I do not wish to be included in such a group.

 

W.

Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)