Interesting article posted by Kirk Tuck...All the cameras are better than you are

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Jacques Cornell
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,581Gear list
Like?
Re: f2.8 zooms
In reply to Dennis, 5 months ago

Dennis wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

One of the big attractions of m43 for me was the availability of f2.8 zooms for about 1/3 the cost of FF equivalents. In my book, that's better value for money.

And what does f/2.8 on a small sensor have to do with f/2.8 on a large sensor ?

That's kind of like saying that one of the big attractions of a compact car is the available of models with four doors for about 1/3 the cost of a crew cab pickup truck.

I must be missing something, seeing as how m43 is the choice of those with superior education

Despite your rather hostile tone, you do have a point, sort of.

I suppose it's more accurate to compare m43 stabilized f2.8 lenses to FF stabilized f4 lenses since, in my experience with Canon 1Ds Mark II & III cameras, the GX7 produces about one stop more noise at ISO 1600 & 3200. So, whereas I customarily shoot at ISO 1600 at f2.8 on m43 when shooting indoor events, I could do f4 and ISO 3200 on FF, which is pretty much what I used to do because I couldn't justify the astronomical prices of Canon's f2.8 zooms. So, for my purposes, the closest match to Panasonic's 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 stabilized zooms would be Canon's 24-105 f4L IS and 70-200 f4L IS. In this case, the price comparison is about even, with the 24-105 being cheaper and the 70-200 being more expensive. A couple of factors swing the advantage to the Panasonic lenses for me. First, the greater DoF of m43 at f2.8 vs. f4 on FF gives me a higher keeper rate when shooting people moving about in dim light. Second, the 12-35 has less distortion and better corner sharpness than the 24-105.

In order to get substantially better (by one full stop) performance, I'd have to go with f2.8 FF zooms, which, as I said, cost 2-3 times more. And, the 24-70 f2.8L isn't even stabilized. At the light levels I typically work with, it's cheaper and easier to simply swap in 20mm f1.7 and 45mm f1.8 primes on my two m43 bodies when f2.8 isn't enough. Add to this the many other advantages of m43 - EVF, silent shutter, size & weight, reduced intimidation factor - and m43 meets MY needs better at a much lower price.

YMMV

BTW, I had a look at your website and saw some nice stuff there. Seems you do a fair bit of long tele work. Rather than lugging around a huge 600mm artillery piece, you might consider putting a Zeiss/Contax 300mm f4 prime on an m43 body for 600mm effective focal length. It's manual focus, but for the photos of mammals I saw that would work fine. And, the Zeiss glass is unbelievably good. (I used to shoot Contax.)

-- hide signature --

jacquescornell.com

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 +33 more
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