inane prattle

Started Apr 8, 2013 | Discussions
James Pilcher
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,809Gear list
Like?
inane prattle
Apr 8, 2013

In a current large thread, one of our own wrote this:

"Big aperture lenses for m4/3 are not really needed because of improvement in sensitivity - and IBIS in Oly. [S]o again, a form of snobbishness."

[insert expletive here] By his measure, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR is not really needed on Nikon's ultra-sensitive DSLR bodies. Put that VR in a 200mm f/6.3 and that's all those Nikon folks really need. Own anything faster and they are snobs.

How many of you are now going to toss your f/2 and faster "snob" lenses? Apparently you don't really need them.

Jim Pilcher

Summit County, Colorado, USA

 James Pilcher's gear list:James Pilcher's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 +8 more
Ollie 2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,364Gear list
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

That's just like, his opinion, man.

I see his point.

But I'm keeping my 0.95's.

 Ollie 2's gear list:Ollie 2's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Voigtlander Nokton 25mm F0.95 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
James Pilcher
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,809Gear list
Like?
opinions and paper weights
In reply to Ollie 2, Apr 8, 2013

Ollie 2 wrote:

That's just like, his opinion, man.

Yes, I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how uninformed or misguided.

I see his point.

But I'm keeping my 0.95's.

I'm not sure, but if you see his point, I think the rules stipulate that you must use only kit zooms from this point forward. Those 0.95's will make very solid paper weights, though.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

 James Pilcher's gear list:James Pilcher's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 24,681
Like?
For sure, but...
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

James Pilcher wrote:

In a current large thread, one of our own wrote this:

"Big aperture lenses for m4/3 are not really needed because of improvement in sensitivity - and IBIS in Oly. [S]o again, a form of snobbishness."

[insert expletive here] By his measure, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR is not really needed on Nikon's ultra-sensitive DSLR bodies. Put that VR in a 200mm f/6.3 and that's all those Nikon folks really need. Own anything faster and they are snobs.

How many of you are now going to toss your f/2 and faster "snob" lenses? Apparently you don't really need them.

...such comments are to be expected from someone who "loathes bokeh", feels that deep DOF and sharpness across the frame represent the epitome of photography, and anything else is "snobbery".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JeanPierre Martel
Senior MemberPosts: 2,051Gear list
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

James Pilcher wrote:

In a current large thread, one of our own wrote this:

"Big aperture lenses for m4/3 are not really needed because of improvement in sensitivity - and IBIS in Oly. [S]o again, a form of snobbishness." (...)

How many of you are now going to toss your f/2 and faster "snob" lenses? Apparently you don't really need them.

Look at it the other way. I already have a cheap and very sharp telelens. But its widest aperture is F/4,0.

Since I don't care when ISO reach 3,600, will I pay a thousand of dollars to get a heavy and faster telezoom with razor thin DOF when its diaphragm is fully open? Probably not.

I'm not suggesting that such a lens is useless. I'm just saying that if I was unable to take picture above 800 ISO, I would desperately need faster lenses.

 JeanPierre Martel's gear list:JeanPierre Martel's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zxaar
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,460
Like?
what is not expected ..
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 8, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

James Pilcher wrote:

In a current large thread, one of our own wrote this:

"Big aperture lenses for m4/3 are not really needed because of improvement in sensitivity - and IBIS in Oly. [S]o again, a form of snobbishness."

[insert expletive here] By his measure, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR is not really needed on Nikon's ultra-sensitive DSLR bodies. Put that VR in a 200mm f/6.3 and that's all those Nikon folks really need. Own anything faster and they are snobs.

How many of you are now going to toss your f/2 and faster "snob" lenses? Apparently you don't really need them.

...such comments are to be expected from someone who "loathes bokeh", feels that deep DOF and sharpness across the frame represent the epitome of photography, and anything else is "snobbery".

what is not expected from such person is his investment in m43 sensor rather than pentax Q or smaller sensor cams or cellphones. Nothing could beat pentax Q with 50mm F1.8 etc lens when deeper DOF is needed.

-- hide signature --

::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dgnelson
Contributing MemberPosts: 660
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

Whereas I might not agree with what the person you are talking about said, I don't think it's fair to start a thread to pick on him.  Let it go.

Dan

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PC Wheeler
Forum ProPosts: 13,978Gear list
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

Lots of inane prattle to be found in any forum, Jim. You cited one of the lesser examples

At least it wasn't nasty like some I've found.

-- hide signature --

Phil

 PC Wheeler's gear list:PC Wheeler's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot G15 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Sanders
Contributing MemberPosts: 949Gear list
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to Ollie 2, Apr 8, 2013

Ollie 2 wrote:

That's just like, his opinion, man.

The dude abides.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Landscapephoto99
Senior MemberPosts: 2,524
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

James Pilcher wrote:

In a current large thread, one of our own wrote this:

"Big aperture lenses for m4/3 are not really needed because of improvement in sensitivity - and IBIS in Oly. [S]o again, a form of snobbishness."

[insert expletive here] By his measure, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR is not really needed on Nikon's ultra-sensitive DSLR bodies. Put that VR in a 200mm f/6.3 and that's all those Nikon folks really need. Own anything faster and they are snobs.

How many of you are now going to toss your f/2 and faster "snob" lenses? Apparently you don't really need them.

Jim Pilcher

Summit County, Colorado, USA

This may be a common feeling amongst those who are used to taking snapshots with a point and shoot and suddenly find themselves with Oly's nice IBIS / great high ISO.  They don't understand composition, DoF, etc. but will likely learn the craft of photography over time if they keep at it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Paul De Bra
Forum ProPosts: 11,392Gear list
Like?
That statement is wrong for a different reason...
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

It is true that sensors have become better and IBIS is very good as well. But there is another reason for still wanting faster lenses:

- Typically a lens is at its best when stopped down at least 1 stop but in most cases 2 stops.

- With the smaller m43 sensor (relative to 35mm) diffraction sets in earlier. The optimal f-stop for m43 seems to be f/4, with f/5.6 still quite usable but f/8 starting to show diffraction.

These two factors combined mean that unless a lens is already at its best wide open you need at least an f/2.8 lens (1 stop down means f/4 and 2 stops down means f/5.6 so that just does it) and that f/2 is actually a safer bet (with 2 stops down reaching the optimal f/4 stop).

So the only really valid argument that says we don't need faster lenses (except for shallow DoF) would say that we don't need lenses faster than f/2.

If you would translate this story to APS-C it would say that f/4 lenses are acceptable and f/2.8 is better, and for 35mm f/5.6 is acceptable and f/4 is better.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

 Paul De Bra's gear list:Paul De Bra's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richarddd
Senior MemberPosts: 2,955Gear list
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013
 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 15,270
Like?
Sharpness is not everything, absolutely, ...
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

... but resolution perhaps is.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
s_grins
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,070Gear list
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

James Pilcher wrote:

In a current large thread, one of our own wrote this:

"Big aperture lenses for m4/3 are not really needed because of improvement in sensitivity - and IBIS in Oly. [S]o again, a form of snobbishness."

[insert expletive here] By his measure, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR is not really needed on Nikon's ultra-sensitive DSLR bodies. Put that VR in a 200mm f/6.3 and that's all those Nikon folks really need. Own anything faster and they are snobs.

How many of you are now going to toss your f/2 and faster "snob" lenses? Apparently you don't really need them.

Jim Pilcher

Summit County, Colorado, USA

Even so I agree with you, the reason to respond is your snobbish - "Nikon's ultra-sensitive DSLR bodies"

It stinks too.

Regards.

S.

-- hide signature --

Looking for equilibrium...

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN | Art Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MPA1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,972Gear list
Like?
Re: inane prattle
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

I'm obviously a snob.

I don't own anything slower than 2.8 and never will.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 4,111Gear list
Like?
Re: what is not expected ..
In reply to zxaar, Apr 8, 2013

zxaar wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

James Pilcher wrote:

In a current large thread, one of our own wrote this:

"Big aperture lenses for m4/3 are not really needed because of improvement in sensitivity - and IBIS in Oly. [S]o again, a form of snobbishness."

[insert expletive here] By his measure, the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR is not really needed on Nikon's ultra-sensitive DSLR bodies. Put that VR in a 200mm f/6.3 and that's all those Nikon folks really need. Own anything faster and they are snobs.

How many of you are now going to toss your f/2 and faster "snob" lenses? Apparently you don't really need them.

...such comments are to be expected from someone who "loathes bokeh", feels that deep DOF and sharpness across the frame represent the epitome of photography, and anything else is "snobbery".

what is not expected from such person is his investment in m43 sensor rather than pentax Q or smaller sensor cams or cellphones. Nothing could beat pentax Q with 50mm F1.8 etc lens when deeper DOF is needed.

You don't need a Pentax Q to have the kind of DoF he wants. Just stop your FF wide angle (or even standard lens) to about F8 (or your M43 to F4) and you are there in the vast majority of cases.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just Having Fun
Senior MemberPosts: 3,869
Like?
Partially true
In reply to James Pilcher, Apr 8, 2013

As others and I have discussed in the Nikon forums, since I can shoot fast action sports at 1/2000+ sec shutter speeds at F/5.6 and higher with my D600 (and still have virtually no noise), the only reason to use F/2.8 would be to get a shallower DoF.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 922
Like?
Re: Partially true
In reply to Just Having Fun, Apr 8, 2013

Just Having Fun wrote:

As others and I have discussed in the Nikon forums, since I can shoot fast action sports at 1/2000+ sec shutter speeds at F/5.6 and higher with my D600 (and still have virtually no noise), the only reason to use F/2.8 would be to get a shallower DoF.

An f/2.8 lens will help your AF for fast action sports, though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,048Gear list
Like?
Re: That statement is wrong for a different reason...
In reply to Paul De Bra, Apr 8, 2013

Paul De Bra wrote:

It is true that sensors have become better and IBIS is very good as well. But there is another reason for still wanting faster lenses:

- Typically a lens is at its best when stopped down at least 1 stop but in most cases 2 stops.

That's true as a purely descriptive empirical generalization, although if we are talking FF lenses rather than MFT lenses, you'd have to add another stop or two. With such lenses, at least if they are pretty fast, it is not unusual that you have to stop down three or even four stops before the optimum is reached.

But why is it that you have to stop down to reach optimal performance? Is it because it is impossible to design an f/4-lens that is just as good wide open at f/4 as an f/2-lens stopped down two stops? I think not. Rather, I think it is because it is easier to keep optical aberrations at bay at f/4 than at f/2.

Personally, I'd much rather have f/2-lenses that peak at f/4 than f/4-lenses that peak wide open even if the performance from f/4 on is just the same. But there is no doubt in my mind that the f/4-lenses we are talking about could be built.

- With the smaller m43 sensor (relative to 35mm) diffraction sets in earlier. The optimal f-stop for m43 seems to be f/4, with f/5.6 still quite usable but f/8 starting to show diffraction.

These two factors combined mean that unless a lens is already at its best wide open you need at least an f/2.8 lens (1 stop down means f/4 and 2 stops down means f/5.6 so that just does it) and that f/2 is actually a safer bet (with 2 stops down reaching the optimal f/4 stop).

So the only really valid argument that says we don't need faster lenses (except for shallow DoF) would say that we don't need lenses faster than f/2.

If you would translate this story to APS-C it would say that f/4 lenses are acceptable and f/2.8 is better, and for 35mm f/5.6 is acceptable and f/4 is better.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
String
Senior MemberPosts: 1,429Gear list
Like?
Re: Partially true
In reply to olliess, Apr 8, 2013

And you are not going to shoot hockey at 1/2000 and f5.6 on any current camera.

 String's gear list:String's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads