OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sergey_Green
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,732Gear list
Like?
These are results from the format ..
In reply to boggis the cat, May 30, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

..

If you are mounting a lens designed for APS-C (or 135) on FT, then it gets a centre crop.  But for native FT lenses the design takes the 4:3 ratio into account, so the vignetting performance is as intended (and also distortion, CA, etc).

I don't know about that. My 50-200, which I assume you also have, did vignette like there was no tomorrow, and 14-54 was not better. The thing is that some lenses do show it more than the other, and the lower level makes will usually be shorter on high points than the top variants. From the pool of lenses that I tried on FF so far I do not see the projection as a big problem, although I know there will probably be some at some point. For example 70-200/2.8, it is in a drawer, and I have not even tried it on FF yet. But so what.

IIRC, the Zuiko SHG lenses were supposedly designed to yield a full resolution gain out to around 20 MPixels -- i.e. the sharpness should be sufficient out to that limit.  Probably assumed to be a huge capability at a time when pixel counts were only just getting up to the 8 MPixel mark.  Now it seems likely that the SHG design will be exceeded within two or three years, perhaps five at most.

Was not it long ago when 12mpx was proclaimed to be enough? Did it make you feel better then, at least for a short time ?

(Although the pixel size will be getting too small at this density on the FT sensor, IMO.  Perhaps the manufacturers will relent from pursuing the pixel count when there are no real benefits to be gained and work on more useful areas.)

I do not see it as a problem. The monstrous files will probably be the first thing that everyone will talk about.

Are you referring to telecentricity issues?

I thought that the usual argument was that the FT telecentricity design aim was irrelevant given that other manufacturers use offset on-sensor micro-lenses to correct for this issue?

(If this is still an issue then my understanding of this is wrong.)

It is the same as with Olympus, some lenses do not project wide open evenly, other do. I can not be very specific about it, as I simply was not looking for it. I need to take more lenses out. And when I shoot wide open the corners have no significance in 99% of the outcome, so why should it even matter. Why is it important to you?

4:3 is a more efficient use of an image circle than 3:2 -- but, again, if you are discussing lenses designed for the sensor (and thus the aspect ratio) then there is no 'cropping advantage'.

The format that I print and frame is what the most efficient to me.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Hmm.New
Yup!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow