Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete Locked

Started Jul 31, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Chris R-UK
Forum ProPosts: 12,122Gear list
OP has disappeared from the thread
In reply to seilerbird666, 11 months ago

...and from the forum.

He also seems to post under several different names on a variety of forums.

Troll?

-- hide signature --

Chris R

 Chris R-UK's gear list:Chris R-UK's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +6 more
nzmacro
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,796Gear list
Sounds like FF
In reply to amalric, 11 months ago

amalric wrote:

tko wrote:

Wasn't this explained before? There is no such thing as a fast sensor. There are sensors which may be better by 1/3 to 1/2 stop or so - say 30% better. There are lenses which are better by 800% - 3 stops or more.

You seem to ignore the basic facts.

Fact one:

http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/4/27/olympus-e-m5-dynamic-range-raw.html

A difference of *2* stops between old and new sensor.

Fact two:

Oly rates its new 5 axis IBIS four stops

Fact three:

DPR rated the increase of sensitivity of the E-M5 two stops.

So all together from one model to the other we had an increase in performance between 6 and five stops.

That is the reason - for me - why a lot of slower apertures became 'good enough'. No lens could give you additional 6 stops from a moderate aperture.

Additionally Lensrentals Cicala found that the star lens of m4/3 the PL25/1.4 had about half definition at 1.4, compared to 2.8, which is close to one Sigma 2.8 lens.

These are facts to which you are opposing mere guesses, or obfuscations. Not nice.

Am.

LOL, its like you are describing a FF sensor

So the so called IBIS add ...... stops. What the heck are stops !! IBIS is a waste of time if you don't need it, so you add that to the equation of ahhhhh stops.

So in that case, how may stops do you give to a camera on a tripod or using faster shutter speeds .... 1000 - 10,0000 stops better than IBIS ??

All the best.

Danny.

-- hide signature --
ChicagoRob
Regular MemberPosts: 127
Re: OP has disappeared from the thread
In reply to Chris R-UK, 11 months ago

Chris R-UK wrote:

...and from the forum.

He also seems to post under several different names on a variety of forums.

Troll?

-- hide signature --

Chris R

Another hit-and-run candy @ss

mh2000
Senior MemberPosts: 2,614
yeah but...
In reply to seilerbird666, 11 months ago

yeah, but as long as newbies continue to think that being able to get razor thin DoF is the prerequisite to being a "pro," there will be no shortage of people willing to line up and pay the big bucks hoping that the faster lens will propel their photography to the next level.

-- hide signature --
Art_P
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,060Gear list
or
In reply to Chris R-UK, 11 months ago

a gun for hire?  Doesn't seem the OP was particularly interested in following the thread.

-- hide signature --

Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 Art_P's gear list:Art_P's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +2 more
mh2000
Senior MemberPosts: 2,614
????? Re: Rather amusing math fail
In reply to LincolnB, 11 months ago

LincolnB wrote:

James Pilcher wrote:

seilerbird666 wrote:

Quite a while ago in fact.

However there still are a few people who watch Betamax tapes, listen to records and use a land line so there will always be a few people who refuse to come into the modern world. They hang on to past technologies like it is a winning lottery ticket. They refuse to admit that new technology is better and they refuse to even try it.

High ISO cameras, advanced shooting modes, Photoshop, and image stabilization have all contributed to making fast lenses a thing of the past.

The economics are amazing. A Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens is $2500. The exact same lens in f4 costs $1000. While there might be a few people in the world that can justify spending $1500 for one more stop, the overwhelming majority would laugh at such an idea.

It never ceases to amuse me the kind of tripe that is served up here by the experts.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

Clearly the OP doesn't shoot any sort of variety of lighting or movement conditions.

The difference between landscapes at noon and indoor sports is, by my calculations, sometimes as much as 12 stops. The other day I was shooting indoor sports with my G3 at ISO 1600, aperture f/4, shutter 1/160th on a tripod. What I REALLY wanted was to be shooting was 1/500th handheld with ISO quality equivalent to 400. Does the OP have any idea how much it costs to buy a camera body that looks as good at ISO 4000 as a G3 at ISO 1600, never mind ISO 400?

What the OP is really saying is that we don't need to shoot with fast lenses because we can't afford fast lenses. It's a really bad argument.

What I read in the OP is a comparison between a f2.8 lens and a f4 lens. Sure, in your situation, one stop would have been helpful, but it wouldn't have been near to getting you what you stated you want -- around 4 stops faster!

-- hide signature --
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,331Gear list
Re: yeah but...
In reply to mh2000, 11 months ago

mh2000 wrote:

yeah, but as long as newbies continue to think that being able to get razor thin DoF is the prerequisite to being a "pro," there will be no shortage of people willing to line up and pay the big bucks hoping that the faster lens will propel their photography to the next level.

That's very flawed thinking, not least because it's not likely to be the newbies that pay the big bucks for the fast lenses. They do that later on when they have worked out why they can't do it with slow lenses.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
mh2000
Senior MemberPosts: 2,614
agree! Re: rather amusing
In reply to paul613, 11 months ago

paul613 wrote:

It's been a long time since I've seen such mean-spirited replies to an well-meaning post.

James Pilcher wrote:

It never ceases to amuse me the kind of tripe that is served up here by the experts.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

-
Paul S. in Maryland

I agree.

And regarding OP's post, back when I shot Canon, after much aganizing, I went with the 70-200/4L because I didn't want to lug the 70-200/2.8L around!

-- hide signature --
mh2000
Senior MemberPosts: 2,614
Re: yeah but...
In reply to slimandy, 11 months ago

slimandy wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

yeah, but as long as newbies continue to think that being able to get razor thin DoF is the prerequisite to being a "pro," there will be no shortage of people willing to line up and pay the big bucks hoping that the faster lens will propel their photography to the next level.

That's very flawed thinking, not least because it's not likely to be the newbies that pay the big bucks for the fast lenses. They do that later on when they have worked out why they can't do it with slow lenses.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

hahaha! you are giving people on forums like this too much credit! 

But that being said, I will concede that my reply was rather jaded and inflammatory. Yes, there are many times a photographer needs a fast lens... unfortunately, they probably need a FF camera as well...

-- hide signature --
paul613
Senior MemberPosts: 1,634
Re: or
In reply to Art_P, 11 months ago

Given the caustic replies, I don't blame him. The OP is guilty of nothing more than being naive. This thread quickly became a textbook case of uncivil netiquette.

Art_P wrote:

a gun for hire? Doesn't seem the OP was particularly interested in following the thread.

-- hide signature --

Paul S. in Maryland

david kohn
Contributing MemberPosts: 659Gear list
Stupid topic, fishing for trolls ?
In reply to seilerbird666, 11 months ago

bhah blah blah

who asked for your opinion?

 david kohn's gear list:david kohn's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Olympus OM-D E-M5
seilerbird666
Senior MemberPosts: 1,101
Re: Stupid topic, fishing for trolls ? Nope I have been sick
In reply to david kohn, 11 months ago

david kohn wrote:

bhah blah blah

who asked for your opinion?

No on asked for my opinion and no one asked you to read my opinion. And no one asked you to so rudely comment on my opinion. If you don't like my opinion that is fine, state your case, but there is no call to be so rude. Didn't you ever learn some manners. I have been very sick for the last two days with some strange kind of flu. I am still feeling crappy right now so I will keep this short.

I see a few geniuses don't read English too well, They claimed this subject was covered in another thread recently. Well not true. There was another thread, but it claimed that fast sensors were in the process of making fast lenses obsolete. That was not the premise of this thread. What I said was that fast sensors have already made fast lenses obsolete, probably 5 to 10 years ago. The mistake people are making when they read this opinion is that since they are still using fast lenses therefore they are not obsolete. How silly. If I go buy a horse and start riding that doesn't mean that horses as everyday transportation is no longer obsolete. Of if I start using a film camera again then it suddenly is not longer obsolete.

Face the facts. 99% of the people in this world that take pictures with a camera have no clue as to what a fast lens is, they don't own one and don't know how and when to use one. That fact alone makes fast lenses obsolete because the vast majority of photographers in world get along just fine with out fast lenses.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

seilerbird666
Senior MemberPosts: 1,101
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to bacteria, 11 months ago

bacteria wrote:

Manip16 wrote:

I didn't realise better ISO performance also allowed for shallower depth of field. Today I learned...

I came in here to post exactly this.

New technology is amazing!

Yes it does. Better ISO performance means faster shutter speeds which allow for larger apertures. And Photoshop now has a plug in to increase DOF even at small apertures.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,616
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to seilerbird666, 11 months ago

seilerbird666 wrote:

bacteria wrote:

Manip16 wrote:

I didn't realise better ISO performance also allowed for shallower depth of field. Today I learned...

I came in here to post exactly this.

New technology is amazing!

Yes it does. Better ISO performance means faster shutter speeds which allow for larger apertures. And Photoshop now has a plug in to increase DOF even at small apertures.

Indeed. If you have clean ISO up to 3200 and good DR like in the E-M5 you can work at full aperture and let Auto ISO take care of the rest.

As for shallow DOF I suppose that even smart phones by now can simulate that. Just an overhyped painterly effect.

Am.

forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,222
Re: Stupid topic, fishing for trolls ? Nope I have been sick
In reply to seilerbird666, 11 months ago

seilerbird666 wrote:

The mistake people are making when they read this opinion is that since they are still using fast lenses therefore they are not obsolete.

That's a straw man. I don't think anybody made any stupid claims like that. Had you read the answers you would find out that:

1) people are using fast lenses because they do need fast lenses, because of light availability, because of DOF, and partially because they are better optically even closed down;

2) even limiting discussion to noise, modern sensors are very far from satisfactory even with fast lenses;

3) and more importantly the sensors will never be satisfactory due to fundamental limitations of the laws of physics: the noise is already to a large degree lens limited, not sensor limited, and this will be even more so in the future.

Face the facts. 99% of the people in this world that take pictures with a camera have no clue as to what a fast lens is, they don't own one and don't know how and when to use one.

I didn't realize it was a clueless discussion about clueless people, why didn't you title it appropriately, like: Clueless people don't need fast lenses.

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,616
Re: Stupid topic, fishing for trolls ? Nope I have been sick
In reply to seilerbird666, 11 months ago

seilerbird666 wrote:

david kohn wrote:

bhah blah blah

who asked for your opinion?

Face the facts. 99% of the people in this world that take pictures with a camera have no clue as to what a fast lens is, they don't own one and don't know how and when to use one. That fact alone makes fast lenses obsolete because the vast majority of photographers in world get along just fine with out fast lenses.

Indeed. I quoted Oly's Terada interview where he mentioned how painful it was to convince camera owners to add even the inexpensive 45/1.8 to the kit lens.

An improvement in sensors instead impacts directly the whole audience from the start.

Accessorily slower lenses can be better optimised fo small size, and better resolution across the frame, as shown by Lensrentals.

Rude people are not aware of the alternatives and react violently when their prejudices are challenged. Companies however are very well aware of them, therefore there is a race for the best sensors.

It would be a nice side effect if one got cheaper lenses like the Sigmas, since lenses do get obsolete too. It is quite a false notion that they are forever like diamonds. Watch 4/3 lenses, now legacy ones.

Am.

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,616
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to bluelemmy, 11 months ago

bluelemmy wrote:

>Doesn't Edward consider Chardonnay food?

Tragically, you were right all along. Both Edward and Chardonnay were in the cellar it seems, and yes, Edward has eaten Chardonnay. Thank goodness for someone with a sense of humour, Am!

The black picture was a new file in Photoshop filled with....blank black.

Sometimes discussion here seems like a bunch of inflated ego scientists bickering over whose turn it is to buy the biscuits.

Have fast sensors made fast lenses obsolete? If you don't bother about the maximum aperture of a lens because you just turn up the sensor gain, and shallow depth of field is not something you worry about, yes.

If you require shallow dof and/ or any avoidable noise on a image bothers you, no.

Any sensible discussion starts with a question - not a statement s this one did.

I agree absolutely. That is why I used an interrogation mark in my earlier thread. Sensor progress however opens up new scenarios.

I like to work in hyperfocal, and detest painterly effects, so nothing of it is wasted. Others might feel differently.

Am.

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,616
Re: ????? Re: Rather amusing math fail
In reply to mh2000, 11 months ago

mh2000 wrote:

LincolnB wrote:

Clearly the OP doesn't shoot any sort of variety of lighting or movement conditions.

The difference between landscapes at noon and indoor sports is, by my calculations, sometimes as much as 12 stops. The other day I was shooting indoor sports with my G3 at ISO 1600, aperture f/4, shutter 1/160th on a tripod. What I REALLY wanted was to be shooting was 1/500th handheld with ISO quality equivalent to 400. Does the OP have any idea how much it costs to buy a camera body that looks as good at ISO 4000 as a G3 at ISO 1600, never mind ISO 400?

What the OP is really saying is that we don't need to shoot with fast lenses because we can't afford fast lenses. It's a really bad argument.

What I read in the OP is a comparison between a f2.8 lens and a f4 lens. Sure, in your situation, one stop would have been helpful, but it wouldn't have been near to getting you what you stated you want -- around 4 stops faster!

I think that the main problem is how much resolution you lose by raising the ISO, compared to how much you lose by going from 2.8 to 1.4. R. Cicala showed that the PL 25mm was losing half or his resolution by going to 1.4.

Same goes for the two Voigtlanders. See here:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-resultsThe both are very poor at 0.95.

Surely you don't lose half resolution by staying at 2.8 and leave Auto ISO increasing to 400 ISO.

So this *might* be a case where a faster sensor does better than a faster lens, in terms of resolution.

Am.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric/sets/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

MrScorpio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,351Gear list
Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to seilerbird666, 11 months ago

seilerbird666 wrote:

Quite a while ago in fact.

However there still are a few people who watch Betamax tapes, listen to records and use a land line so there will always be a few people who refuse to come into the modern world. They hang on to past technologies like it is a winning lottery ticket. They refuse to admit that new technology is better and they refuse to even try it.

High ISO cameras, advanced shooting modes, Photoshop, and image stabilization have all contributed to making fast lenses a thing of the past.

The economics are amazing. A Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens is $2500. The exact same lens in f4 costs $1000. While there might be a few people in the world that can justify spending $1500 for one more stop, the overwhelming majority would laugh at such an idea.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

I think Seilerbird is correct for what I would call "the big masses". But people here are not part of "the big masses" in terms of photography. This community is often aspiring of being more into photography than the average mobile phone shooter. Therefore the question is extremely relevant for the producers of the mass consumption market, but hopelessly irrelevant here. Just my opinion...

-- hide signature --
 MrScorpio's gear list:MrScorpio's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 +20 more
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,331Gear list
Re: yeah but...
In reply to mh2000, 11 months ago

mh2000 wrote:

slimandy wrote:

mh2000 wrote:

yeah, but as long as newbies continue to think that being able to get razor thin DoF is the prerequisite to being a "pro," there will be no shortage of people willing to line up and pay the big bucks hoping that the faster lens will propel their photography to the next level.

That's very flawed thinking, not least because it's not likely to be the newbies that pay the big bucks for the fast lenses. They do that later on when they have worked out why they can't do it with slow lenses.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

hahaha! you are giving people on forums like this too much credit!

Yes, maybe I was thinking of another forum. I have more experience there.

But that being said, I will concede that my reply was rather jaded and inflammatory. Yes, there are many times a photographer needs a fast lens... unfortunately, they probably need a FF camera as well...

It's one of the reasons I still use mine despite having an OMD and several lenses. At some point I will accept the compromise and give up the SLR because of the weight and bulk, but I will still accept that it would give me better options on some occasions if I was prepared to put up with the bulk.

One thing that would make the transition easier is fast MFT lenses. They are certainly not obsolete! Without them I would be less likely to make the switch.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads