Any mft's shooters thinking of jumping ship for FF nex

Started Jul 22, 2013 | Discussions
tjuster1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,434
Like?
Re: Any mft's shooters thinking of jumping ship for FF nex
In reply to optic67, Jul 23, 2013

Short answer: no, I'm happy with m43 for 95% of my photography.

Longer answer: almost certainly no, because of the price. HOWEVER, I am interested in the potential of a FF RF-style (e.g., NEX) camera to use with WA and normal legacy glass. It would be really fun to shoot with, for example, a 15mm Voigtlander on a FF body, and the combination could be very compact. And all the wonderful 50mm lenses don't interest me much on m43 because of the 2x crop factor, but I'd love to play with them on a FF body.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,567Gear list
Like?
Re: No.
In reply to tgutgu, Jul 23, 2013

tgutgu wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

No never.

I'm welded to Oly for bodies as I like the way they work and can be configured. Nice and small system and works well enough for me (E-PL5 and some lenses).

And that loyalty despite the regular 3 monthy rumours of Olympus's demise that have popped up for the last 10 years.

Regards...... Guy

I would not weld myself to brand. I am quite sure that Olympus can't survive as an independent camera manufacturer. Within 10 years we'll Olympus' camera division to merge with a larger competitor, however, the brand name will stay.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

Roger Cicala just posted a lengthy opinion piece saying, amongst other things, that he expected the demise of m43.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,567Gear list
Like?
Re: Fore sure, no!
In reply to tgutgu, Jul 23, 2013

tgutgu wrote:

Why should I give up the advantage of having more depth of field? Why should I abandon the advantage of having small lenses?

Only if a new FF system can match my current focal range of 14 to 600mm (@ 35mm equiv.) quickly and usable at max aperture with a body performance as fast as my current E-M5 and with a high quality build-in view finder with a price point of 1200 € I might consider a switch, if image quality would be noticeable better on may A2 prints.

Sounds impossible.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

You can increase the depth of field on any FF or APS-C system simply by reducing the size of the aperture.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmanthree
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,420Gear list
Like?
Re: Give a guy a chance. . . geeez Louise. . .
In reply to Bob Tullis, Jul 24, 2013

Bob Tullis wrote:

I shot with Canon for a decade. It took me that long to figure them out. I'm only at this with µ4/3 a few years - I ain't quitting until I at least figure out how to activate the dang-blasted Super Control Panel!

I ain't no quitter.

The SuperTerrificControlPanel is activated by simply pulling the Johnson Bar that's opposite the Phrenic Bypass.

It only took me one quick pull to make it work.

And, no, I don't care what kind of camera you have. Like lenses, those two components are universal.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX30V Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Macintosh Sauce
Regular MemberPosts: 270
Like?
Re: size
In reply to mh2000, Jul 24, 2013

I am getting my first digital camera, that has interchangeable lenses, so I have a choice of going 35mm FF, APS-C, or Micro 4/3. I'd rather go Micro 4/3, because of the 2.0 crop factor - allows me to reach out further with a 100-300mm Lumix lens.

By the end of September, I will be the new owner of a GH3 with a 12-35mm, a 35-100mm lens, and a 100-300mm lens. By the end of the year I would like to get the 7-14mm and the 25mm lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 18,155Gear list
Like?
Realising when it's time to move on.....
In reply to captura, Jul 24, 2013

captura wrote:

tgutgu wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

No never.

I'm welded to Oly for bodies as I like the way they work and can be configured. Nice and small system and works well enough for me (E-PL5 and some lenses).

And that loyalty despite the regular 3 monthy rumours of Olympus's demise that have popped up for the last 10 years.

Regards...... Guy

I would not weld myself to brand. I am quite sure that Olympus can't survive as an independent camera manufacturer. Within 10 years we'll Olympus' camera division to merge with a larger competitor, however, the brand name will stay.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

Roger Cicala just posted a lengthy opinion piece saying, amongst other things, that he expected the demise of m43.

That's one good reason to buy a complete system now and keep using it until hopelessly outdated by performance or whatever, or it dies and no repairs can be done.

If in the meantime Olympus dies (as predicted regularly over and over for 10 years) then when I need something new I will consider what is available in whatever brand makes the system that I like. No shedding tears, just move on.

Maybe in future someone will make an M4/3 sized package that contains a full frame sensor and has reasonable size and weight lenses and with a global shutter, then I would be very very interested.

Regards...... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
smallLebowski
Contributing MemberPosts: 512
Like?
Re: You mean the Olynex?
In reply to Pikme, Jul 24, 2013

Pikme wrote:

I think the next editions of Sony cameras will have a LOT of Olympus technology in them. And we just get the sensors.

-- hide signature --

Roberto M.

Well, what else do you guys need? You seem to have almost everything so here you go. And we'll put in use that 5-axis IBIS really good. I don't mind some exotic Oly lenses for NEX as well. You can keep everything else.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,567Gear list
Like?
Re: Realising when it's time to move on.....
In reply to Guy Parsons, Jul 24, 2013

Guy Parsons wrote:

captura wrote:

tgutgu wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

No never.

I'm welded to Oly for bodies as I like the way they work and can be configured. Nice and small system and works well enough for me (E-PL5 and some lenses).

And that loyalty despite the regular 3 monthy rumours of Olympus's demise that have popped up for the last 10 years.

Regards...... Guy

I would not weld myself to brand. I am quite sure that Olympus can't survive as an independent camera manufacturer. Within 10 years we'll Olympus' camera division to merge with a larger competitor, however, the brand name will stay.

-- hide signature --

Thomas

Roger Cicala just posted a lengthy opinion piece saying, amongst other things, that he expected the demise of m43.

That's one good reason to buy a complete system now and keep using it until hopelessly outdated by performance or whatever, or it dies and no repairs can be done.

If in the meantime Olympus dies (as predicted regularly over and over for 10 years) then when I need something new I will consider what is available in whatever brand makes the system that I like. No shedding tears, just move on.

Maybe in future someone will make an M4/3 sized package that contains a full frame sensor and has reasonable size and weight lenses and with a global shutter, then I would be very very interested.

Regards...... Guy

Like the E-PL1.

Steve.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,567Gear list
Like?
Re: Rumours, I would take up horse betting
In reply to nzmacro, Jul 24, 2013

nzmacro wrote:

RichRMA wrote:

The rumour is $4000.00 for the body. Sony kind of painted themselves into a corner with the crazy $2800 price on the RX1. You'd have to be a big fan of compactness to buy it instead of $3000 for Nikon D800 or $2000 for a Nikon D600 DSLR.

You have been reading far too many rumour sites

Do you honestly think if Sony did make a FF NEX that they would price it higher than the FF SLT A99 ?? I've seen the mention of $3000 and $4000, there is quite a difference there.

If I trusted in rumours, I would be making a fortune out of horse racing and the stock market, but I'm not

All the best.

Danny.

-- hide signature --

Danny, the rumors are that the SLT's will be replaced by mirrorless FF.

Regards,

Steve

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,559Gear list
Like?
Re: Only if the lenses were as small as in m4/3
In reply to EEmu, Jul 24, 2013

EEmu wrote:

Ulric wrote:

So how big is Sony's FF 24-70mm f/5.6?

About as big as their 16-48 f/4 for their crop NEX. Which is...

Oh no! They don't have either one yet! Oh man, you totally called me on that and rendered my theory totally incorrect! Making FF lenses as small as m43 is clearly physically impossible, just like dougjgreen1 said.

If only I had realized that Sony was bad about making lenses I could have posted something like "If Sony is willing to make slow lenses (a big if) for their FF system to reduce size..." and have prevented this! Now Full Frame will be bulky forever

You miss the point. You can't go into a store and choose any lenses that would be physically possible to make, only ones that exist. Sony do not and will not produce a FF 24-70mm lens of the same size as the Panasonic 12-35mm lens, so whether it is possible or not is not a useful consideration for the users.

Typically, FF users accept larger and bulkier bodies and lenses because they think they get something out of it. Some actually do. Just for fun I made a list of the 10 most popular FF lenses for Canon and Nikon (including 3rd party lenses) and compared it to the 10 most popular M43 lenses. The lenses on the FF list were on average 3-400% larger than the ones on the M43 list. And no, they were not "equivalent", because that is not how those choices are made.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 18,155Gear list
Like?
Re: Realising when it's time to move on.....
In reply to captura, Jul 24, 2013

captura wrote:

Like the E-PL1.

Steve.

Not sure of the relevance of that comment.

In my case was E-PL1 first for a couple of years and the E-PL5 was the first update that made sense to me, so will now sit on the E-PL5 for a few years and see what happens.

Regards...... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EEmu
Forum MemberPosts: 69
Like?
Well may well see small FF
In reply to Ulric, Jul 24, 2013

Ulric wrote:

EEmu wrote:

Ulric wrote:

So how big is Sony's FF 24-70mm f/5.6?

About as big as their 16-48 f/4 for their crop NEX. Which is...

Oh no! They don't have either one yet! Oh man, you totally called me on that and rendered my theory totally incorrect! Making FF lenses as small as m43 is clearly physically impossible, just like dougjgreen1 said.

If only I had realized that Sony was bad about making lenses I could have posted something like "If Sony is willing to make slow lenses (a big if) for their FF system to reduce size..." and have prevented this! Now Full Frame will be bulky forever

You miss the point. You can't go into a store and choose any lenses that would be physically possible to make, only ones that exist. Sony do not and will not produce a FF 24-70mm lens of the same size as the Panasonic 12-35mm lens, so whether it is possible or not is not a useful consideration for the users.

Typically, FF users accept larger and bulkier bodies and lenses because they think they get something out of it. Some actually do. Just for fun I made a list of the 10 most popular FF lenses for Canon and Nikon (including 3rd party lenses) and compared it to the 10 most popular M43 lenses. The lenses on the FF list were on average 3-400% larger than the ones on the M43 list. And no, they were not "equivalent", because that is not how those choices are made.

I don't miss the point. You can't go into a store and buy a full frame NEX either, nor do we actually even know if you ever could. This is all rumors and speculation, and I was pointing out a theoretical possibility for a theoretical camera. I'm most certainly not claiming they will make such lenses but for you to state they won't ever is ridiculous.

You claim FF users accept bulkier systems for some benefit, but how does that explain all the APS-C users of the Canon/Nikon systems who use the same lenses in similar bodies? Or heck, how about Four Thirds, with it's, say, 35-100mm f/2.0 lens. It's more than double the weight of Canon's FF equivalent (70-200mm f/4) and 25% heavier than the f/2.8 version. And that's not cherry-picked: Aside from the 3 kit versions, every zoom for Four Thirds was over 400g, and often nearly 1000g.

Where exactly can you say that FF is bulk when the SLR version of m43 was just as bulky if not more so? FT as never about reducing bulk, it was about reducing camera cost just like APS-H and APS-C (which was created at a time when mass produced FF was basically impossible). Mirrorless is about reducing bulk, and Sony is putting out a FF mirrorless. What's the point of that vs creating another A-mount if they're just going to make huge A-mount-like lenses with a shorter flange distance? When you consider that Canon's FF 50mm f/1.8 is smaller, lighter and cheaper than supposedly-small m43's 25mm f/1.4 without even equating aperture, I think small FF is entirely doable.

P.S.

To step away from theory and speculate a bit: Sony is introducing FF to a system designed from the start to be compact and APS-C. It would be a quite sensible policy to adapt fast, bulky A-mount lenses and make the native E-mount lenses smaller and slower. After all, they seemed content to let their FF NEX camcorder use adapted A-mount lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,567Gear list
Like?
Re: Only if the lenses were as small as in m4/3
In reply to EEmu, Jul 24, 2013

EEmu wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Which of course they won't be - it's physically impossible.

Nonsense! Roughly speaking, size of lenses just depends on the optical properties (and flange distance to a degree). When you account for the fact that the true FF equivalent of a m43 is not just twice the focal length but also 2 stops slower, things start to look a lot closer. It's just that no FF lens maker is going to put out 24-84mm f/7.1-11 (equiv of m43 kit). But if you compare Canon's 40mm f/2.8 pancake to Panasonic's 20mm f/1.7 you'll see they're about the same size and Canon's is only slightly heavier while being a half stop faster.

Generally, the FF lenses don't come slow enough to make a direct comparison to m43, but if you extrapolate, you can see this is accurate:

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM: 89 x 113mm, 805g ($2300)
Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS USM: 83 x 93mm, 600g ($1500)
Pana 24-70mm f/5.6 OIS: 67 x 74mm, 305g ($1300)

Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM: 68 x 56mm, 280g ($850)
Olympus 24mm f/4: 56 x 43mm, 130g ($800)

Canon 50mm f/1.8 II: 68 x 41mm, 130g ($125)
Voigtländer 50mm f/1.9: 58 x 70mm, 410g ($1200)
PanLeica 50mm f/2.8: 63 x 54mm, 200g ($549)

I converted the m43 lenses to FF equivalents in the above. When comparing, note different feature sets... For example, Canon's 24mm has IS while the Oly '24mm' doesn't. I wanted to include a telephoto example, but couldn't find anything useful. (No non-macro 150 to compare to 75, m43 tele-zooms are all 2 stops slower than FF equivs. Pan's 150mm f/2.8 will be interesting.)

Ultimately m43 lenses aren't significantly lighter, smaller or cheaper* compared to equivalent FF lenses. If Sony is willing to make slow lenses** for their FF system to reduce size, it really could be something. (Though marketing such slow lenses would be tough!) Imagine the potential of a system that would let you have small slower lenses (i.e. m43 equivs) for a travel system and large fast lenses for more 'studio' situations. I, for one, will be interested to see what happens.

* While m43 may seems to be overpriced, keep in mind that when it comes to design the true aperture is more the issue than the light-gathering equivalent. Thus Voigtländer's f/0.95 is a remarkable design, worthy of that price tag but because of the larger sensors size, Canon's 50mm f/1.8 can have a simpler design while gathering more light and thus appear to be a much better value.

** A big if!

Obviously the Canon 40mm STM EF canon pancake lens is the same size as the Pana 20/1.7 because it is a relatively slow f2.8 whereas the Pana is f1.7. If the Canon was built as an f1.7, it would be much larger. ( I should add that the 40mm lens is an exceptional item for it's low price.)

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,559Gear list
Like?
Re: Well may well see small FF
In reply to EEmu, Jul 24, 2013

EEmu wrote:

I'm most certainly not claiming they will make such lenses but for you to state they won't ever is ridiculous.

The word you are looking for is "correct".

You claim FF users accept bulkier systems for some benefit, but how does that explain all the APS-C users of the Canon/Nikon systems who use the same lenses in similar bodies? Or heck, how about Four Thirds, with it's, say, 35-100mm f/2.0 lens. It's more than double the weight of Canon's FF equivalent (70-200mm f/4) and 25% heavier than the f/2.8 version. And that's not cherry-picked: Aside from the 3 kit versions, every zoom for Four Thirds was over 400g, and often nearly 1000g.

Where exactly can you say that FF is bulk when the SLR version of m43 was just as bulky if not more so?

There is no SLR version of M43. If you are referring to the four thirds system, it was an irrelevant failure.

FT as never about reducing bulk, it was about reducing camera cost just like APS-H and APS-C (which was created at a time when mass produced FF was basically impossible). Mirrorless is about reducing bulk, and Sony is putting out a FF mirrorless. What's the point of that vs creating another A-mount if they're just going to make huge A-mount-like lenses with a shorter flange distance? When you consider that Canon's FF 50mm f/1.8 is smaller, lighter and cheaper than supposedly-small m43's 25mm f/1.4 without even equating aperture, I think small FF is entirely doable.

Certainly, Olympus did small FF in the 70s and I have two each of OM-1 and OM-2. I'm not saying small FF is a bad idea; on the contrary, I would not have bought into M43 if DSLRs of acceptable size had been available.

However, creating a system of the same size as M43, only with a much larger sensor, does away with the benefits of the larger sensor, which is why it is unlikely to happen. The E-M5, a pretty large body by M43 standards, is smaller than any FF or even APS-C body. And then we're not even talking about the bodies where small size is the primary design goal.

Reducing bulk is not the only reason for mirrorless cameras, there are other advantages such as fewer moving parts.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,954Gear list
Like?
There's nothing equivalent between 35-100 f2 and 70-200 f4
In reply to EEmu, Jul 24, 2013

You claim FF users accept bulkier systems for some benefit, but how does that explain all the APS-C users of the Canon/Nikon systems who use the same lenses in similar bodies? Or heck, how about Four Thirds, with it's, say, 35-100mm f/2.0 lens. It's more than double the weight of Canon's FF equivalent (70-200mm f/4) and 25% heavier than the f/2.8 version. And that's not cherry-picked: Aside from the 3 kit versions, every zoom for Four Thirds was over 400g, and often nearly 1000g.

Lenses like that are primarily used for shooting fast moving action at high shutter speeds.  A two full f-stop difference means that the shutter must be open for 4 times as long at the same ISO - meaning, it will be much tougher to freeze action in all but very bright daylight, or very high ISOs.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Nikon 1 V1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmanthree
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,420Gear list
Like?
Yes...but...
In reply to optic67, Jul 25, 2013

forest3 wrote:

With possible rumoured release of FF nex , anyone out there considering jumping ship for what maybe a smaller compact FF system with all the benefits of superior sensor , although i imagine it will be costly . Mft could come under more pressure if smaller FF systems come onto the market ,there have been rumours of such from fuji and pentax . we can all see what can be done with RX1 although not interchangeable yet .

I'm waiting for them to have a selection of quality native E mount lenses. I'd like to see a high quality wide, standard, and tele zoom, just like I have with my Panasonic GH3. And I want them to be small and light, too. Like my m4/3 lenses. And I want some high quality primes, as well.

No, not holding my breath.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX30V Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SHood
Senior MemberPosts: 3,899Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes...but...
In reply to dmanthree, Jul 25, 2013

dmanthree wrote:

forest3 wrote:

With possible rumoured release of FF nex , anyone out there considering jumping ship for what maybe a smaller compact FF system with all the benefits of superior sensor , although i imagine it will be costly . Mft could come under more pressure if smaller FF systems come onto the market ,there have been rumours of such from fuji and pentax . we can all see what can be done with RX1 although not interchangeable yet .

I'm waiting for them to have a selection of quality native E mount lenses. I'd like to see a high quality wide, standard, and tele zoom, just like I have with my Panasonic GH3. And I want them to be small and light, too. Like my m4/3 lenses. And I want some high quality primes, as well.

No, not holding my breath.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

Not possible.

 SHood's gear list:SHood's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nzmacro
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,725Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes...but...
In reply to SHood, Jul 25, 2013

SHood wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

forest3 wrote:

With possible rumoured release of FF nex , anyone out there considering jumping ship for what maybe a smaller compact FF system with all the benefits of superior sensor , although i imagine it will be costly . Mft could come under more pressure if smaller FF systems come onto the market ,there have been rumours of such from fuji and pentax . we can all see what can be done with RX1 although not interchangeable yet .

I'm waiting for them to have a selection of quality native E mount lenses. I'd like to see a high quality wide, standard, and tele zoom, just like I have with my Panasonic GH3. And I want them to be small and light, too. Like my m4/3 lenses. And I want some high quality primes, as well.

No, not holding my breath.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

Not possible.

Correct and that's why I ended up using legacy lenses on m4/3, they don't make the lenses needed for what I want, long heavy and fast., but they did make a nice body

Danny.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gsergei
Contributing MemberPosts: 606Gear list
Like?
Jumping to a non-existent camera ?
In reply to optic67, Jul 25, 2013

Are doing photography or just bored to death ?

-- hide signature --

Sergei,
Calgary.
www.alberta-photo.com

 gsergei's gear list:gsergei's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus E-330 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus E-M1 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EEmu
Forum MemberPosts: 69
Like?
There's everything equivalent between 35-100 f2 (FT) and 70-200 f4 (FF)
In reply to dougjgreen1, Jul 25, 2013

dougjgreen1 wrote:

You claim FF users accept bulkier systems for some benefit, but how does that explain all the APS-C users of the Canon/Nikon systems who use the same lenses in similar bodies? Or heck, how about Four Thirds, with it's, say, 35-100mm f/2.0 lens. It's more than double the weight of Canon's FF equivalent (70-200mm f/4) and 25% heavier than the f/2.8 version. And that's not cherry-picked: Aside from the 3 kit versions, every zoom for Four Thirds was over 400g, and often nearly 1000g.

Lenses like that are primarily used for shooting fast moving action at high shutter speeds. A two full f-stop difference means that the shutter must be open for 4 times as long at the same ISO - meaning, it will be much tougher to freeze action in all but very bright daylight, or very high ISOs.

Technically accurate, but not actually true because neglect the most important thing here: the sensor. Do you think that a 16Mpx fullframe sensor performs the identically to a 16Mpx FT or 16Mpx digicam when they are set to "ISO400"?

If you look at a comparison you'll see that at the noise performance of the full frame is consistently almost two stops better than the FT sensor. Which is to say that the quality of a full frame sensor at, say, ISO 3200 is about as good as a four thirds sensor at ISO 800.

So theoretically the following produce identical shots (including motion blur) of identical quality:

FT: 100mm f/2, 1/200, ISO 400
FF: 200mm f/4, 1/200, ISO 1600

In reality there are sources of noise beyond shot, so for similarly 'good' sensors the FF image will be a little (~1/3stop) behind the FT version but it's pretty minor. You probably couldn't tell the differences between those two shots even pixel peeping.

It's also worth noting that those shots are shutter/light limited and if we were to add additional light the FF user could just drop their ISO and have their quality improve more than FT could.

So, no... These lenses gather exactly the same light; the numbers only look different because they focus it differently. They are equivalent and produce basically equivalent shots. The only difference is that in good light the FF will perform 2 stops better while in limited light the FT will be about 1/3 stop better.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads