Tamron 14-150 for m43!!

Started Jan 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
amtberg
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,341
Like?
Re: Great! I need a new paperweight!
In reply to Louis_Dobson, Jan 30, 2013

Louis_Dobson wrote:

There's an assumption here that is plain wrong: that bigger sensors give better IQ. They don't. They do high ISO better, but that advantage is negated by the slowness of the lens. They have better DR, but that only affects people like me who do heavy PP.
If you take a 12MP OOC JPG at base ISO from a full frame camera, an APS-C camera, an MFT camera, and a compact, print them huge, and ask people to examine them and spot the difference, all with lenses of equal quality, they will see no inherent difference (the individual cameras will vary of course).
Pack in the big sensor worship. Increasing the size of the sensor (within reason) is only useful if:
* You will push the RAW photo in post.
* You are shooting above base ISO.
* You want subject separation.
The first is unlikely with this class of lens.
The second is negated by the sloth of the lens.
If the third matters, this is the wrong lens anyway..

amtberg wrote:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Wayneb123 wrote:

Some people like to print photos larger than a postcard and compact cameras with tiny sensors suck for that, this lens will work well for video also.

Why do you think a 16MP MFT camera with a dog slow superzoom will be better for printing large photos than a 16mp bridge camera with a 10x zoom? What magic quality, at base ISO, do you think an MFT sensor brings to the party? And do you not see that in low light an f5.8 lens will need the ISO cranked right up, thus losing any noise advantage the MFT camera had? I normally sell 30X40 inch shots myself, and I won't be touching this thing with a 30 foot, rubber tipped, disinfected bargepole. Wearing gloves.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/photos/acam http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Lots of assumptions there. If someone is shooting in good light there will be no need to bump up ISO. If the lens is half decent it will produce better results than a compact. It will also provide better background separation even at relatively small apertures. This particular lens isn't very big. On a smaller MFT body it won't be much bigger than a super zoom digicam.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/photos/acam http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Dunno, man ... it seems like the assumption going on here is that anyone who would use this lens sucks, and therefore anything produced with it would suck.  If, OTOH, you assume that the lens might be used by a decent photographer, I think it's safe to say that it would produce better results than a small sensor super zoom.

I disagree that the compacts are as good as better MFT cameras at base ISO.  If you campare, for example, the G3 to the highly regarded Panny FZ200 at 100% and base ISO, the FZ200 looks like a blurry mess.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow