The three great lies.

Started May 30, 2012 | Discussions
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
Re: Counter argument for your second point
In reply to Jun2, May 31, 2012

Jun2 wrote:

A 75 mm f/1.8 lens on a FT sensor is like a 150 mm f/1.8 lens on a 135 sensor. The fact that it gathers only one quarter as much light in total at the same relative aperture setting isn't relevant to the practical effects on exposure (unchanged, f/1.8 = f/1.8) and angle of view (changed, 75 mm on FT is equivalent to 150 mm on 135).

Well how about - a 75mm f1.8 on 43rds is like a 150mm f1.8 in terms of field of view and exposure but is like a 150mm f3.6 in terms of depth of field.

This is wrong. aperture diameter of 75mm f1.8 is identical to 150mm f3.6. The exposure is identical to 150mm f3.6, not 150mm f1.8.

OK -- the aperture (entrance pupil) diameter of 75mm f/1.8 is the same as 150mm f/3.6 (75mm / 1.8 = 150mm / 3.6 = 42mm). For the same shutter speed, this means the same total light will fall on the mFT sensor as the FF sensor.

However, the exposure (the density of the light falling on the sensor) will be 1/4 (two stops less) on the FF sensor. Of course, that is neither here nor there in a cross format comparison, because it is the total light falling on the sensor (and the sensor efficiency), not the exposure, that is relevant.

Still, I thought it worthwhile to note that the exposures are not the same.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
odl
odl
Senior MemberPosts: 1,684
Like?
Re: As I said, there are those that try to make it hard.
In reply to Great Bustard, May 31, 2012

Great Bustard wrote:

Reality is not equal for all. You always discuss these things as is people care about how you perceive equivalence. While dismissing their feelings on the matter. You feel that equivalence should be decided based on image quality, not price (many cant afford FF cameras), not weight (many cant carry them), not actual camera settings (as opposed to theoretical comparisons).

That's a strawman argument and you know it, because no one argues against Equivalence on the basis that a D800 weighs and costs more than an EM5, they argue against Equivalence with their "f/2 = f/2 = f/2" mantra.

But f2 does equal f2 for exposure. While you then set the rules for the comparison, is that not a correct statement? YOur argument then goes "what matters is..." and you bring up DoF and Total light. That is your equivalence.

The fact you must always say "equivalent sensor efficiency" shows how obscure your point is. How does the average reader here, not poster, KNOW what sensor is more efficient than the previous? Say they find sensorgen, how much time would they spend compare all the models etc? How to they know what is ISOless and what is not?

Another strawman argument. Because then we will find that 75mm f/1.8 on an EM5 is not equivalent to 75mm f/1.8 on an EPL1 because the sensor efficiences are different.

That is why we upgrade bodies, and the f1.8 and exposure properties of the lens is why we buy faster lenses. It isnt strawman, I have read at least 3 or 4 times in the last week people commenting on how this whole thing confuses them. In fact one person started an entire thread on the subject.

I get it, you enjoy writing these posts, and that is fine, it is an open forum. However while it pleases you, and a few others... It seems it clearly only confuses others, and a few are starting to post their confusion. Imagine how many are not posting? And the path you set them on is not going to make them a better photographer.

You are actively making obtuse arguments that artifically try to pain Equivalence as hard to understand. It's real simple Ab:

No, it is a science subject not a photography subject. You wrote a huge article on the subject, it requires assumptions of sensor efficiency and ISO settings (or ISOlessness )

josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalence

Equivalent photos are photos of a given scene that share the following five parameters:

  • Perspective

  • Framing

  • DOF

  • Shutter Speed

  • Display Dimensions

You quote yourself. It isnt becoming

On the quick, this means, for example, that 40mm f/4 1/100 ISO 200 on 4/3 is equivalent to 50mm f/5 1/100 ISO 320 on 1.6x which is equivalent to 80mm f/8 1/100 ISO 800 on FF when the photos of the same scene are taken from the same position and displayed at the same size.

It is important to note that the parameters above refer to the visual properties of the photo, but do no include elements of IQ, most notably detail and noise (Noise Equivalence is a related, but separate consideration, and is discussed here, whereas detail depends on the sharpness of the lens, the size of the sensor, the number of pixels, and the AA filter).

Now, you can go out of your way to try to make it more complicated than it is, or you can go by the simple explanation of what Equivalence is, and read on if you are still have questions.

No, only to try to explain why you have to explain yourself over and over. The F-stop/Shutterspeed/ISO have worked for a long time, and continue to work. As I mentioned people learn their tools, they love their tools.

Saying m43rds can run with FF is a David and Goliath story, sure there will be a bit more noise when comparing to the leading FF bodies with the same settings, and sure there will be less DoF, but that has no basis for people who have never shot with a new 135 sensor DIGITAL camera

I am not making things difficult, merely pointing out the collateral damage that these types of equivalence arguments leave in their wake.

Ab

-- hide signature --

alatchinphotography.com

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,895
Like?
I'm almost given up
In reply to boggis the cat, May 31, 2012

It's always a 75mm f1.8 lens however you cut it, putting it on a different sensor does not change the lens.

Duh. But what is it EQUIVALENT to on another system? Sometimes I think people don't know the meaning of the world. No one has ever said it's a F3.6 lens. They've said it ACTS like one. Do you understand the difference?

A 75 mm f/1.8 lens on a FT sensor is like a 150 mm f/1.8 lens on a 135 sensor.

No. The DOF and noise is different. It doesn't act the same. A careful inspection of the photo will show a difference.

The fact that it gathers only one quarter as much light in total at the same relative aperture setting isn't relevant to the practical effects on exposure (unchanged, f/1.8 = f/1.8) and angle of view (changed, 75 mm on FT is equivalent to 150 mm on 135).

No. To get the same noise in a larger sensor, you must raise the ISO, which changes the exposure. To use the same shutter speed and DOF you must then half the F-stop. Now you have a close image match. One that to an observer would look the same.

150MM and F1.8 does not give the same results in different systems.

No one has ever answered my basic question. Do you really expect a postage size F1.8 lens to act just like a breadbox F1.8 lens? Of course not, otherwise we'd all be shooting with cell phones. Size matters.

(All IMO, obviously.)

Ridiculous. This isn't opinion based. Its a sound mathematical derivative whose premise is to make images on different systems look the same as possible. The equivalent lens (one that give the closest possible image match) needs to have the FL and F-stop doubled on a sensor that's twice as large. It's not really a matter of debate, just education.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
Re: As I said, there are those that try to make it hard.
In reply to odl, May 31, 2012

odl wrote:

That's a strawman argument and you know it, because no one argues against Equivalence on the basis that a D800 weighs and costs more than an EM5, they argue against Equivalence with their "f/2 = f/2 = f/2" mantra.

But f2 does equal f2 for exposure.

So what? Total Light is the relevant measure, not exposure. It's just that when comparing within a format, you can use the terms "exposure" and "total light" interchagably, just as you can use the terms "mass" and "weight" interchangably in the same acceleration field.

While you then set the rules for the comparison, is that not a correct statement? YOur argument then goes "what matters is..." and you bring up DoF and Total light. That is your equivalence.

Tell me, Ab, in terms of the visual properties of the final photo, which of these two would more aptly be called "equivalent":

  • 50mm f/2 1/100 ISO 200 on mFT vs 100mm f/2 1/100 ISO 200 on FF

or

  • 50mm f/2 1/100 ISO 200 on mFT vs 100mm f/4 1/100 ISO 800 on FF

It's just not a hard question to answer.

Another strawman argument. Because then we will find that 75mm f/1.8 on an EM5 is not equivalent to 75mm f/1.8 on an EPL1 because the sensor efficiences are different.

That is why we upgrade bodies, and the f1.8 and exposure properties of the lens is why we buy faster lenses. It isnt strawman, I have read at least 3 or 4 times in the last week people commenting on how this whole thing confuses them. In fact one person started an entire thread on the subject.

I didn't say that people aren't confused -- I said that the fact that sensors have different efficiencies is a strawman argument.

You are actively making obtuse arguments that artifically try to pain Equivalence as hard to understand. It's real simple Ab:

No, it is a science subject not a photography subject. You wrote a huge article on the subject, it requires assumptions of sensor efficiency and ISO settings (or ISOlessness )

And? I mean, I file that under the "Duh" section in the Essay.

josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalence

Equivalent photos are photos of a given scene that share the following five parameters:

  • Perspective

  • Framing

  • DOF

  • Shutter Speed

  • Display Dimensions

You quote yourself. It isnt becoming

WHo should I quote? Boggis? Give me a break. Look, so far as I know, I'm the one who coined the term "Equivalence":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=32386480

I am quite certain I read more than several threads where ljfinger discussed the concept before Joemama entered the fray. I remember a thread where Joe mama questioned ljfinger rigorously and I think Joe Mama came out of that talk as the Grasshopper. We may be able to give Joe credit for the name and a big long paper on the subject (which oretty much violated Ockham's razor).

So it kinda makes sense that I quote myself when giving a definition for Equivalence, does it not? No matter.

Now, you can go out of your way to try to make it more complicated than it is, or you can go by the simple explanation of what Equivalence is, and read on if you are still have questions.

No, only to try to explain why you have to explain yourself over and over. The F-stop/Shutterspeed/ISO have worked for a long time, and continue to work. As I mentioned people learn their tools, they love their tools.

The idea that the Earth is flat worked for millenia.

Saying m43rds can run with FF is a David and Goliath story, sure there will be a bit more noise when comparing to the leading FF bodies with the same settings, and sure there will be less DoF, but that has no basis for people who have never shot with a new 135 sensor DIGITAL camera

I am not making things difficult, merely pointing out the collateral damage that these types of equivalence arguments leave in their wake.

Galilleo was jailed for promoting the Heliocentric Model. I've only been banned 17 times for it. Things have improved over the last couple of centuries.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Re: To me shooting performance equates to AF, frame rates and tracking
In reply to millsart, May 31, 2012

Hang on... It was three short paras, not an essay

I'll expand it for you - the OM-D performs faster than almost all dSLRs in almost all ways.

Obvious exceptions being huge sports cams (like the D3s, although the difference is quite small in almost all areas), and C-AF, where MFT still lags, although I am hearing that if one takes the trouble to learn it the OM-D is a big catch up.

S-AF is as fast as anything on the market, and 9fps exceeds the abilities of almost anything with a mirror to worry about.

So, I stand by original remark - one of the things I hear about MFT is that it can't match the shooting speeds of dSLRs and, actually it very much can. (Again, excluding one or two multi thousand pound sports cameras, and the C-Af ain't quite there yet, though at 9fps, fame rates certainly are).

millsart wrote:

I think if one uses the term DSLR, it has to include any and all DSLR's, just as m4/3 has to cover everything from the high end EM-5 to the lower end GF3 etc.

If one were specifically say something like entry level APS-C dslr's thats rather specific to a certain level of performance, but DSLR is a broad term.

Likewise, I don't think its really fair to take the flagship of one line vs the lower end of another.

DSLR's vary a lot and so does m4/3. My original G1, or the EP1 for that matter had AF performance that was way behind the EM-5 but I suppose one can't argue that m4/3 only means the cutting edge and yet DSLR has to exclude the high end.

Additionally, I guess the term "shooting performance" is open to interpretation. For me it means AF and frame rates etc, especially when one mentions a fast shooting DSLR.

To me, there are three areas of comparison

Handling/erogonomics. THings like size, weight, controls,

IQ, which is things like DR, noise, resolution etc

Shooting performance, which is speed of AF, frame rates etc

Now for me as well these days, really the only reason to own a DSLR is for the shooting performance.

I much prefer my NEX7, EM-5, X100 etc over a DSLR for casual shooting.

I have no real desire to carry a DSLR around when there are such great mirrorless options that I think just make more sense.

For my livelihood though I need the DSLR's so I keep them. When I finish my doctorate and most likely stop doing paid photography I probably will only keep a mirrorless system.

EM-5 with its flip out LCD touch screen, IBIS, compact lenses etc just makes more sense for me for anything but my sports work.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Combatmedic870
Contributing MemberPosts: 948Gear list
Like?
Re: Give it a rest Louie
In reply to GodSpeaks, May 31, 2012

Agreed. This is getting tired.

BTW the 75mm is a 75mm and 1.8 is 1.8....there no changing that....

GodSpeaks wrote:

I mean seriously, just what is your problem?

Did someone impume your manhood because you use micro43? The way you are acting, it sure seems like it.

I used to have respect for you, but your recent posts have made me realize than you are nothing more than a raving rabid fanboy.

Bottom line: Use the equipment that suits you and your style of shooting and stop trying to convince everyone else that they are wrong in choosing something else. You are not making any friends, and are, in fact, harming mirco43.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

  • Rayna Butler

-- hide signature --

Ryan,

 Combatmedic870's gear list:Combatmedic870's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Re: Give it a rest Louie
In reply to GodSpeaks, May 31, 2012

GodSpeaks wrote:

I mean seriously, just what is your problem?

Listening to people spouting rubbish, and memes gaining traction. I hear it, and I am compelled to point it out, sorry. If this was a different board, and you were to say wind power was green, I'd just have to tell you why it isn't (not unless combined with water pumping anyway). I have no problem with opinions different to my own, but I cannot bear stupidity and ignorance.

Did someone impume your manhood because you use micro43? The way you are acting, it sure seems like it.

Not at all. I switched from FF to MFT because it is now, in many ways (but of course not all, both systems have their place) better, especially in the ways that matter to me. I'm not defending it because I'm stuck here - I used four thirds as a second system to FF for along time. Now, it is ready for prime time.

I used to have respect for you, but your recent posts have made me realize than you are nothing more than a raving rabid fanboy.

Bottom line: Use the equipment that suits you and your style of shooting and stop trying to convince everyone else that they are wrong in choosing something else. You are not making any friends, and are, in fact, harming mirco43.

I'm not interested in making friends, nor am an ambassador for MFT or any other system.

I will continue to point out that

  • despite what MFT fanboys think, if you think a smaller sensor doubles the focal length of a lens, then on that basis it halves the speed (odd thing for a fan boy to point out, don't you think?).

  • despite what FF fanboys think, FF confers no IQ advantage in good light.

  • Despite what people with cheap and / or early MFT cameras think, the newest gen of MFT cameras shoots as fast as dSLRs (and yes, to keep Milsart happy, that excludes a handful of specialist sports cameras, and the C-AF has a bit further to go).

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

  • Rayna Butler

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,188
Like?
Equivalent lenses
In reply to Combatmedic870, May 31, 2012

Combatmedic870 wrote:

BTW the 75mm is a 75mm and 1.8 is 1.8....there no changing that....

Right, and a simple 2x upscaling will give us a 150mm, f/1.8 lens, equivalent in terms of FoV (on a 2x larger system), exposure (which is what the f-stop primarily is referring to, DoF and diffraction are secondary effects) and lens design.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Yes, exactly.
In reply to Dennis, May 31, 2012

And I am greatly looking forward to my 75 f1.8 (or 150 f3.6 if you want to think of it that way).

Dennis wrote:

The thing I don't get is WHY the truth hurts.

People in the APS-C oriented forums rarely make the mistake of suggesting that the 85/1.8 is the same as a 135/1.8 on full frame. And if they are corrected, they accept it. Or maybe they argue a bit, but they don't get all huffy as if someone were insulting their choice of gear.

I've been using an 85/1.4 on Sony that I rarely ever shoot faster than f/2. I plan to buy the 85/1.8 for my recently acquired Nikon D7000. And I'd be thrilled with the 75/1.8 on m43. To my mind, DOF would be plenty shallow and the low light capabilities would be sufficient.

Yet none of that changes the fact that a 75/1.8 is NOT equivalent to a 150/1.8 and the 85/1.8 I'm likely to buy is NOT equivalent to a 135/1.8.

Facts are facts. When someone points them out, don't take offense ! The person who says "75/1.8 isn't the same as 150/1.8" isn't saying "wow are you an idiot for choosing anything less than an $8000 full frame body with only the best Carl Zeiss primes; how can you call yourself a photographer ?" He's saying "75/1.8 isn't the same as 150/1.8".

75/1.8 is good. It doesn't have to be 150/1.8 to be good.

What equivalence says is that if you're happy with the DOF and low light capabilities of a 75/1.8 on m43, then if you ever moved to FF, you would not need a 150/1.8; you'd only need a 150/3.5 (if there were such a thing ... maybe you'd settle for a 135/2.8).

m43 users should embrace equivalence. If you want to insist on saying your f/1.8 is the same as an f/1.8 lens that's twice as long, then XZ-1 owners are really having the last laugh.

  • Dennis

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Re: Who cares about sharp images of static subjects though ??
In reply to millsart, May 31, 2012

Firstly, shooting performance is only one of three things we are discussing, and C-AF is tracking is only one aspect of performance.

One Great MFT lie is that "IQ" of MFT is worse. Assuming IQ is not about high ISO, then the comparator amply demonstrates that the IQ is not worse.

Going back to the Shooting Performnace Lie, yes, high end dSLRs still have an AF tracking advantage. That's the only advantage left though. Granted a D3s can shoor at 12fps and the OM-D only 9, but the D3s is a very specialised camera. 9fps and the OM-D's AF speed will lkeave most things struggling.

millsart wrote:

Well I certainly wouldn't be spending money out of pocket on the sky high prices to go watch (or shoot) most sports, but when they are paying me to go, then its a bit different.

If its a choice between doing some portraits or fashion shooting, a wedding, etc, where I've got to be dressed in a suit, dealing with lots of stressed out people, or simply sitting in the back of the endzone in jeans, anticipating whats going to happen and not having to interact with any athletes I'll take that job any day.

Heck, I'll take a football game in 10 degree weather with snow over being dressed in a suit and dealing with a wedding party lol

MAubrey wrote:

That's fair.

Well, I would have given the same reaction to just about any sport. I just don't like sports.

...with the exception, perhaps, of rock climbing, but that's not exactly a sport you need fast tracking for. Instead, you need small, light and rugged. And you need to be on the rock beside the guy you're shooting.
--
--Mike

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Re: Who's bashing anyone other than you insulting me ??
In reply to millsart, May 31, 2012

Actually, I think he's right, and nobody is being rude, I think you have simply misunderstood what I said.

Louis said "Until recently though nobody has tried to make a fast shooting dSLR replacement, now they have, and it works very well."

This does not mean, or was not intended to mean, "OM-D shoots faster than every single dSLR in the world in every way". C-AF is still limited, and frame rates do not match specialist sports cameras (like the D3s). However it shoots faster, in most ways, than most dSLRs. 9fps is quick by most standards, the S-AF is blistering, card writes quick, etc etc.

millsart wrote:

Wow, you must come from a strange place where disagreeing with someones blanket statement is deemed "bashing"

Here in the United States at least, we have the ability to disagree with others viewpoints on things like religion, politics and yes, even camera's.

At no point did I ever say anything about him as a person, or his skills as a photographer.

He seems a very nice guy and a very talented photographer who's images I enjoy. I simply do not agree with his statements.

Really the only one to do any "bashing" in this whole thread seems to be you, with an insult towards my reading comprehension.

Of course I shouldn't be surprised though as this is DPR and that is what people like you enjoy doing.

Rather than actually commenting your own thoughts on the subject of the thread, you'd rather try to start wars and fan flames when its merely an issue of two men having a debate over a technical issue.

rkeller wrote:

Even though you quote him directly, your reading comprehension is lacking and you manage to put words in his mouth. You are quite good at inventing straw men to bash.

Rik

millsart wrote:

Under the topic of "An MFT camera cannot match a dSLR for shooting performance".

Louis said "Until recently though nobody has tried to make a fast shooting dSLR replacement, now they have, and it works very well."

How else can you interpret that to mean anything other than that the EM-5 has been made to be a fast shooting DSLR replacement ?

Furthermore, he's not simply stating that its what they designed the EM-5 to be, but goes on to say that it works "very well" in that role.

Now if he was simply to say that for HIS shooting needs, the AF-C and tracking AF performance of the EM-5 is good enough to replace his DSLR, then that would be fine.

HOWEVER, he makes a blanket statement that m4/3 can match a DSLR for shooting performance.

I have an EM-5, I have a fast shooting DSLR, in this case a Nikon D3s, and I shoot fast action for a living and find the EM-5 doesn't come close to the D3s.

My shooting needs are perhaps a bit more demands than the casual photographer with a EM-5 of course, but since there is at least one instance of the EM-5 not matching a DSLR that we've established, we can't say in absolute terms m4/3 works as well as a DSLR.

-- hide signature --

"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan

"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Buchan-Grant
Senior MemberPosts: 1,941Gear list
Like?
What about the 4th great lie??
In reply to Louis_Dobson, May 31, 2012

I'm sorry if you've already covered this earlier in the thread but while I agree with your arguments, surely the one argument which can actually be levelled at MFT has not been mentioned in your opening post, namely 'depth of field'?

Its worth mentioning because its surely one of the most common arguments against MFT and so many people have got it so wrong!

When people say that MFT cannot match APS for limited depth of field effect, they are talking nonsense, they are almost identical.

When people say MFT cannot match FF for limited depth of field effect, they are quite right, but only when referring to 50mm and 35mm focal lengths (35mm equivalents)

When it comes to 90mm or longer, MFT may not produce the same level of subject isolation as full frame, but the look is so pleasing (from the Oly 45mm for example) that the argument becomes moot.

The only reason I still own a Leica M9 is for the limited depth of field look I can achieve with a 35mm and 50mm lens (and the specific quality of those Leica optics) And for many shots as in fashion and portraiture, that look is not just still highly desirable, its a 'bankable' asset

But for 'everything else' (perhaps with the exception of professional sports) I believe MFT is now the most useful system on the go

-- hide signature --
 Buchan-Grant's gear list:Buchan-Grant's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,255
Like?
There is another thing
In reply to Louis_Dobson, May 31, 2012

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Firstly, shooting performance is only one of three things we are discussing, and C-AF is tracking is only one aspect of performance.

One Great MFT lie is that "IQ" of MFT is worse. Assuming IQ is not about high ISO, then the comparator amply demonstrates that the IQ is not worse.

Going back to the Shooting Performnace Lie, yes, high end dSLRs still have an AF tracking advantage. That's the only advantage left though. Granted a D3s can shoor at 12fps and the OM-D only 9, but the D3s is a very specialised camera. 9fps and the OM-D's AF speed will lkeave most things struggling.

For high performance action shooting you want an OVF instead of an EVF becasue of a number of reasons (live view, lag, stutter, limited DR of EVF, disturbing exposure and DR shifts etc)

millsart wrote:

Well I certainly wouldn't be spending money out of pocket on the sky high prices to go watch (or shoot) most sports, but when they are paying me to go, then its a bit different.

If its a choice between doing some portraits or fashion shooting, a wedding, etc, where I've got to be dressed in a suit, dealing with lots of stressed out people, or simply sitting in the back of the endzone in jeans, anticipating whats going to happen and not having to interact with any athletes I'll take that job any day.

Heck, I'll take a football game in 10 degree weather with snow over being dressed in a suit and dealing with a wedding party lol

MAubrey wrote:

That's fair.

Well, I would have given the same reaction to just about any sport. I just don't like sports.

...with the exception, perhaps, of rock climbing, but that's not exactly a sport you need fast tracking for. Instead, you need small, light and rugged. And you need to be on the rock beside the guy you're shooting.
--
--Mike

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Re: What about the 4th great lie??
In reply to Buchan-Grant, May 31, 2012

I think the fourth one is open to debate, whereas the other three are plain wrong.

When it comes to shallow DoF, on any system at wide angles you can't have it and at tele lengths you are stuck with it.

Dof is an is assue at two effective focal lengths, 50mm and 100mm. All lengths in this post are effective, halve for MFT lenses *

Portraits, glamour, group shots and special effects.

  • Well, you can forget the special affects. If you want to do shots about shalllow DoF, get an FF camera and stick an f1.2 lens on the front.

  • Portraits, I think 90mm f1.8 is enough. Below that it is fuzzy ear time, and see above.

  • Glamour - there's an MFT problem here, but an easily solvable one. Oly or Panny could easily make a 100mm f1.0, which would match my ff 105mm f2. That's enough, surely?

  • Group shots - there's always a problem here, even FF is never shallow enough. Try not to photograph your group in front of the council bins....

Buchan-Grant wrote:

I'm sorry if you've already covered this earlier in the thread but while I agree with your arguments, surely the one argument which can actually be levelled at MFT has not been mentioned in your opening post, namely 'depth of field'?

Its worth mentioning because its surely one of the most common arguments against MFT and so many people have got it so wrong!

When people say that MFT cannot match APS for limited depth of field effect, they are talking nonsense, they are almost identical.

When people say MFT cannot match FF for limited depth of field effect, they are quite right, but only when referring to 50mm and 35mm focal lengths (35mm equivalents)

When it comes to 90mm or longer, MFT may not produce the same level of subject isolation as full frame, but the look is so pleasing (from the Oly 45mm for example) that the argument becomes moot.

The only reason I still own a Leica M9 is for the limited depth of field look I can achieve with a 35mm and 50mm lens (and the specific quality of those Leica optics) And for many shots as in fashion and portraiture, that look is not just still highly desirable, its a 'bankable' asset

But for 'everything else' (perhaps with the exception of professional sports) I believe MFT is now the most useful system on the go

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Re: There is another thing
In reply to PerL, May 31, 2012

Open to debate. I'm not noticing a problem, but I'm happy to believe others might...

PerL wrote:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

Firstly, shooting performance is only one of three things we are discussing, and C-AF is tracking is only one aspect of performance.

One Great MFT lie is that "IQ" of MFT is worse. Assuming IQ is not about high ISO, then the comparator amply demonstrates that the IQ is not worse.

Going back to the Shooting Performnace Lie, yes, high end dSLRs still have an AF tracking advantage. That's the only advantage left though. Granted a D3s can shoor at 12fps and the OM-D only 9, but the D3s is a very specialised camera. 9fps and the OM-D's AF speed will lkeave most things struggling.

For high performance action shooting you want an OVF instead of an EVF becasue of a number of reasons (live view, lag, stutter, limited DR of EVF, disturbing exposure and DR shifts etc)

millsart wrote:

Well I certainly wouldn't be spending money out of pocket on the sky high prices to go watch (or shoot) most sports, but when they are paying me to go, then its a bit different.

If its a choice between doing some portraits or fashion shooting, a wedding, etc, where I've got to be dressed in a suit, dealing with lots of stressed out people, or simply sitting in the back of the endzone in jeans, anticipating whats going to happen and not having to interact with any athletes I'll take that job any day.

Heck, I'll take a football game in 10 degree weather with snow over being dressed in a suit and dealing with a wedding party lol

MAubrey wrote:

That's fair.

Well, I would have given the same reaction to just about any sport. I just don't like sports.

...with the exception, perhaps, of rock climbing, but that's not exactly a sport you need fast tracking for. Instead, you need small, light and rugged. And you need to be on the rock beside the guy you're shooting.
--
--Mike

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Andy Crowe
Senior MemberPosts: 1,543Gear list
Like?
Re: Wrong answer.
In reply to Great Bustard, May 31, 2012

I'm pointing out that total light has nothing to do with the actual operation of a camera, where does total light fall into the ISO/Aperture/Shutter trinity? It doesn't matter whether you're using a 1/2.3" compact camera, a medium format camera, even a film camera, the same aperture, ISO and shutter value will give you roughly the same exposures in all situations.

In fact, Bob has a great post somewhere demonstrating a UI demonstrating the failings of the current "trinity" UI.

Any idea where to find it? Is he talking about ISO-Less cameras?

At any rate, in the actual physical process or taking a picture there are literally only 3 things you can control: aperture, shutter speed and for digital cameras the analogue gain on the sensor (which corresponds quite well to film ISO speed)

Everything outside that is just post processing. If a camera is truly capable of ISO-Less operation (I'm still not convinced that there isn't a small loss of quality by PP boosting base ISO that much), then the camera could just keep the sensor at base iso and use the set iso to change the tone curve of the preview to match the iso value.

I really can't think of any better way of expressing exposure parameters, at least when shooting raw.

Plus the cameras I own very much aren't ISO-less, so setting the correct ISO is very important, again it comes down to individual camera performance not "total light gathering ability of the lens".

The thing is that sensor noise handling has improved immensely in the last 10 years completely independently of sensor size/total light gathering. It makes no difference to a photographer what the total amount of photons hitting the sensor is, what matters is the noise profile of that particular camera.

Well, it should, because people mistakenly believe that the trend can go on forever unabated, mistakenly believe that smaller pixels result in more noise (how's that 16 MP EM5 -- the smallest pixels yet on an mFT camera -- working for them?), etc., etc., etc.

Yes I think people should definitely experiment and learn how their camera handles different ISOs and how much a base ISO shot can be pushed, but that's got nothing to do with their sensor size or the difference in total light gathering between sensors sizes.

There's no upside to remaining ignorant of how things work. At best, you can get great results in spite of your ignorance, but not because of it.

Again, the total light gathering of a lens is irrelevant to actually taking pictures outside of silly trolling about how outrageous it is the 75mm lens is referred to as f1.8 because it "only" has the light gathering ability of an f3.6 FF lens.

If you somehow mounted this lens on a full frame camera then guess what, within its imaging circle it would give the same exposure and noise as a full frame 150mm f1.8. If you put a full frame lens on the pentax Q then it would give the same exposure regardless of the sensor size, because sensors are calibrated to ISO speeds.

Now for sensor size, allegedly the old Canon 1D II doesn't have much better noise than m43, something you could never predict going by "total light gathered". Likewise you could bolt 4 m43 sensors together and make a full frame sensor with exactly the same per pixel noise and dynamic range regardless of total light gathered, of course the vastly increased resolution would give you better quality whole images but it all comes down to the individual sensor, not this made up metric of "total light gathered".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,188
Like?
Re: What about the 4th great lie??
In reply to Louis_Dobson, May 31, 2012

Louis_Dobson wrote:

I think the fourth one is open to debate, whereas the other three are plain wrong.

IMO they are all open to debate, so calling it "lies" is maybe a bit over the top.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Louis_Dobson
Forum ProPosts: 26,387
Like?
Re: What about the 4th great lie??
In reply to Steen Bay, May 31, 2012

Perhaps "myths" would be better.

Steen Bay wrote:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

I think the fourth one is open to debate, whereas the other three are plain wrong.

IMO they are all open to debate, so calling it "lies" is maybe a bit over the top.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BushmanOrig
Senior MemberPosts: 2,818Gear list
Like?
Re: Not quite.
In reply to Great Bustard, May 31, 2012

Hi

First time I see this article you did. I will study it and link it on my website. I think the previous poster has a good point saying that it will help to have a simple visual example people could touch and feel.....

Let me read it first

Siegfried

-- hide signature --

Community of Photographers
http://www.photographyisfun.ch

 BushmanOrig's gear list:BushmanOrig's gear list
Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus E-30 Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,255
Like?
Re: What about the 4th great lie??
In reply to Buchan-Grant, May 31, 2012

Buchan-Grant wrote:

I'm sorry if you've already covered this earlier in the thread but while I agree with your arguments, surely the one argument which can actually be levelled at MFT has not been mentioned in your opening post, namely 'depth of field'?

Its worth mentioning because its surely one of the most common arguments against MFT and so many people have got it so wrong!

When people say that MFT cannot match APS for limited depth of field effect, they are talking nonsense, they are almost identical.

When people say MFT cannot match FF for limited depth of field effect, they are quite right, but only when referring to 50mm and 35mm focal lengths (35mm equivalents)

You can use some shallow DOF effects with FF 24 mm at 1.4, making some slight subject isolation that is good for reportage etc.

When it comes to 90mm or longer, MFT may not produce the same level of subject isolation as full frame, but the look is so pleasing (from the Oly 45mm for example) that the argument becomes moot.

The only reason I still own a Leica M9 is for the limited depth of field look I can achieve with a 35mm and 50mm lens (and the specific quality of those Leica optics) And for many shots as in fashion and portraiture, that look is not just still highly desirable, its a 'bankable' asset

But for 'everything else' (perhaps with the exception of professional sports) I believe MFT is now the most useful system on the go

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads