Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete Locked

Started Jul 31, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,637Gear list
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to MrScorpio, Aug 3, 2013

MrScorpio 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.

-- 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...

This is an interesting point but my brother is one of the masses rather than a keen photographer and he asked me how to get the shallow DOF he sees in some of my shots. Now he owns a fast prime lens alongside his kit zoom. Funnily enough he has never asked me how to get more resolution.

-- 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
MrScorpio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,351Gear list
*smile* nt
In reply to slimandy, Aug 3, 2013

-- 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
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,814
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to slimandy, Aug 4, 2013

slimandy wrote:

MrScorpio 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.

-- 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...

This is an interesting point but my brother is one of the masses rather than a keen photographer and he asked me how to get the shallow DOF he sees in some of my shots. Now he owns a fast prime lens alongside his kit zoom. Funnily enough he has never asked me how to get more resolution.

Isn't it because you have the typical midbrow taste of the suburban classes?

One might not be quite interested in beautifying brides like marriage hacks do, so good resolution helps when you do *reality*.

That is the old Magnum tradition at least. As mentioned shallow DOF is now just a smartphone App.

I contend that fast lenses make you lose more resolution at full aperture than a fast sensor, and that as sensors keep improving they will keep getting additional stops, while lenses won't. Even the Cosinas have v. poor resolution at 0.95, and they are massive lenses.

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

Am.

Brian D. Schneider
Forum ProPosts: 16,675
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

Am.

No. You can't.

You can get ugly, fake bokeh.

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,814
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to Brian D. Schneider, Aug 4, 2013

Brian D. Schneider wrote:

amalric wrote:

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

Am.

No. You can't.

You can get ugly, fake bokeh.

But I don't need bokeh, or if I need one a 2.8 portrait lens will do. Even 'Diorama' Art Filter will give a fine bokeh.

Resolution I'll always need. Besides earn to quote, first. LOL

Am.

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

turbsy
Contributing MemberPosts: 697Gear list
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

slimandy wrote:

MrScorpio 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.

-- 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...

This is an interesting point but my brother is one of the masses rather than a keen photographer and he asked me how to get the shallow DOF he sees in some of my shots. Now he owns a fast prime lens alongside his kit zoom. Funnily enough he has never asked me how to get more resolution.

Isn't it because you have the typical midbrow taste of the suburban classes?

One might not be quite interested in beautifying brides like marriage hacks do, so good resolution helps when you do *reality*.

That is the old Magnum tradition at least. As mentioned shallow DOF is now just a smartphone App.

I contend that fast lenses make you lose more resolution at full aperture than a fast sensor, and that as sensors keep improving they will keep getting additional stops, while lenses won't. Even the Cosinas have v. poor resolution at 0.95, and they are massive lenses.

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

Am.

No you can get fake blur Might be good enough for you not for others.

 turbsy's gear list:turbsy's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Nikon D50 Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +11 more
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,814
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to turbsy, Aug 4, 2013

Oh yes, you can fake blur better than you imagine, Nikon troll. I have the Diorama effect and I know. I even remember Gradual Blur from PS.

Very cheap effect for a very cheap photographic style - LOL!

Am.

MrScorpio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,351Gear list
Curious...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

Oh yes, you can fake blur better than you imagine, Nikon troll. I have the Diorama effect and I know. I even remember Gradual Blur from PS.

Very cheap effect for a very cheap photographic style - LOL!

Am.

I have not yet seen any realistic and attractive artificial background blur with nice Bokeh. Any specific program you can recommend? Aperture can definitely not do it!

-- 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
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,814
Re: Curious...
In reply to MrScorpio, Aug 4, 2013

MrScorpio wrote:

amalric wrote:

Oh yes, you can fake blur better than you imagine, Nikon troll. I have the Diorama effect and I know. I even remember Gradual Blur from PS.

Very cheap effect for a very cheap photographic style - LOL!

Am.

I have not yet seen any realistic and attractive artificial background blur with nice Bokeh. Any specific program you can recommend? Aperture can definitely not do it!

I already mentioned two. I am not into beautification, so you'd better ask the hairdressers - LOLOL

Am.

fdevyatkin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,991
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to seilerbird666, Aug 4, 2013

I shoot pro baseball, high school footbal, birds in flight etc.

The people with the slow lenses go home early.

All the pro photogs in pro sports are shooting fast glass.

I don't know who you're hanging with, but as long as the sun rises and sets the magic hours are dominated by those with fast glass.

Fred

Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,560
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

Brian D. Schneider wrote:

amalric wrote:

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

Am.

No. You can't.

You can get ugly, fake bokeh.

But I don't need bokeh,

Who cares? The topic is not about your needs.

or if I need one a 2.8 portrait lens will do.

Not enough for m4/3

Even 'Diorama' Art Filter will give a fine

That is maybe good enough for you, not for serious photographers.

Resolution I'll always need.

For what? For publishing tiny photos on Flickr? For this, ANY lens has more resolution than youll ever need.

Moti

-- hide signature --
captura
Forum ProPosts: 15,187Gear list
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to seilerbird666, Aug 4, 2013

OK, here's a test which I just conducted, but needs more refinement.

1- Nice new E-PM2 12 mp last-generation camera with excellent 20mm f1.7 lens

vs

2- NEX-5R 16 mp camera with larger APS-C sensor and crappy NEX 16mm f2.8 lens

Which produces the finer detail, higher IQ?

To my surprise it was #2, by a long shot. The sensor is more important than the lens.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
pinnacle
Senior MemberPosts: 2,444Gear list
Re: A long thread from 2-3 days ago made this thread obsolete
In reply to dougjgreen1, Aug 4, 2013

dougjgreen1 wrote:

All of this was covered recently

And the premise of that thread was blown into a million pieces quite easily. It is astonishing to see some of the wacky things posted on this site.

Dan

-- hide signature --

Life is good.

 pinnacle's gear list:pinnacle's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +6 more
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,814
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to Moti, Aug 4, 2013

Moti wrote:

amalric wrote:

Brian D. Schneider wrote:

amalric wrote:

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

Am.

No. You can't.

You can get ugly, fake bokeh.

But I don't need bokeh,

Who cares? The topic is not about your needs.

or if I need one a 2.8 portrait lens will do.

Not enough for m4/3

Says who? My Sigma 30mm has already nice bokeh if I am close to subject. And Sigma 60/2.8 is even better, by the samples.

Even 'Diorama' Art Filter will give a fine

That is maybe good enough for you, not for serious photographers.

Are you serious? As a beautyfier? LOL.

Resolution I'll always need.

For what? For publishing tiny photos on Flickr? For this, ANY lens has more resolution than youll ever need.

My piccies on flickr are full resolution. But perhaps you are not among my Contacts, Friends or Family. I wouldn't risk having my images stolen by a hairdresser like you - LOL!

-- hide signature --

'De tous les peuples de la Gaule, les Belges sont les plus fiers' LOL!

Am.

pinnacle
Senior MemberPosts: 2,444Gear list
The truly sad part is...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

Not commenting on your patent lack of m4//3 knowledge, but it made me curious, only to discover that your whole photography here is shot with a Canon.

LOL we only needed some Canonites to come and tell us the error in our ways.

Am.

AM, The amazing wackiness is that you actually believe the premise of this thread and the silliness of the one you started of few days ago trying to promote the very same thing.

You truly have no clue as to the value that a fast lens has to offer beyond higher volumes of light transmission. You actually believe that if we had a five million ISO sensor we would need nothing more than a starting lens aperture of F8. According to you, depth of filed management in a composition is all about achieving infinite depth of field. You would experience DOF nirvana if everything from the front element of the lens and on out to infinity were all entirely in focus in each and every image you captured. You won't even comcede that the desire other people have to use DOF as part of their compositional comtrol toolbox is reasonable based on photographic preferences.

Dan

-- hide signature --

Life is good.

 pinnacle's gear list:pinnacle's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +6 more
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,560
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

Moti wrote:

amalric wrote:

Brian D. Schneider wrote:

amalric wrote:

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

Am.

No. You can't.

You can get ugly, fake bokeh.

But I don't need bokeh,

Who cares? The topic is not about your needs.

or if I need one a 2.8 portrait lens will do.

Not enough for m4/3

Says who? My Sigma 30mm has already nice bokeh if I am close to subject. And Sigma 60/2.8 is even better, by the samples.

Even 'Diorama' Art Filter will give a fine

That is maybe good enough for you, not for serious photographers.

Are you serious? As a beautyfier? LOL.

Resolution I'll always need.

For what? For publishing tiny photos on Flickr? For this, ANY lens has more resolution than youll ever need.

My piccies on flickr are full resolution.

What for? Pixel peeping? You can't see a whole picture on a screen anyway.

But perhaps you are not among my Contacts, Friends or Family. I wouldn't risk having my images stolen by a hairdresser like you - LOL!

Comeon, get down of the tree. Why on earth would anyone want to steal any of your pictures? I must say that i really admire your sense of humor, this is the best joke i have ever heard since long time. LOL..

'De tous les peuples de la Gaule, les Belges sont les plus fiers' LOL

Moti

-- hide signature --
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,560
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

Says who? My Sigma 30mm has already nice bokeh if I am close to subject. And Sigma 60/2.8 is even better, by the samples.

That is not an indication. Any lens can produce nice bokeh when you come close, even a P&S camera. Try to shoot a full body portrait and see what you get.

Are you serious? As a beautyfier? LOL

I don't know, you'll have to ask my clients. They are still happy to pay me for my work...

Mo

-- hide signature --
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,560
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

Isn't it because you have the typical midbrow taste of the suburban classes?

Do you always have to insult people just because they have a different taste than yours?

One might not be quite interested in beautifying brides like marriage hacks do, so good resolution helps when you do *reality*.

Good resolution helps when needed. For most photographers, and most of *reality* photoGraphers, ncluding Magnum, almost any modern lens is good enought in terms of resolution.

That is the old Magnum tradition at least. As mentioned shallow DOF is now just a smartphone App.

Stop being a gearhead. Magnum tradition has absolutely nothing to do with resolution. As a matter of fact, few of them do use Shallow DOF in some photos. Some even blur the whole image for artistic reasons because this is one of the trends you can find in contemporary photography..

I contend that fast lenses make you lose more resolution at full aperture than a fast sensor, and that as sensors keep improving they will keep getting additional stops, while lenses won't. Even the Cosinas have v. poor resolution at 0.95, and they are massive lenses.

Resolution is a relative term and not bsolute and the Cosina at 0.95 has still better resolution than the Russian lenses you are so fond of.

If you want nice bokeh, you can get it from a smart phone - LOL!

You can also take nice photos with a smart phone so why buy a camera?

Moti

-- hide signature --
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,814
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to captura, Aug 4, 2013

captura wrote:

OK, here's a test which I just conducted, but needs more refinement.

1- Nice new E-PM2 12 mp last-generation camera with excellent 20mm f1.7 lens

vs

2- NEX-5R 16 mp camera with larger APS-C sensor and crappy NEX 16mm f2.8 lens

Which produces the finer detail, higher IQ?

To my surprise it was #2, by a long shot. The sensor is more important than the lens.

I think that Sellerbird is ill, as he mentioned, so I keep the thread alive, although we don't have exactly the same ideas.

The E-PM2 is 16 Mpx, so if your test is true, it's more impressive.

My contention is that almost any lens is good at f/2.8 so the sensor's difference kicks in.

That explains the v. good performance of the Sigmas.

Conversely almost anyfast  lens, witness the PL 25/1.4 or the CV at 0.95 have bad resolution at full aperture (see Lensrentals) therefore if the aim is to have max resolution there is an alternative strategy. Choose the best sensor, both in terms of per pixel sharpness and SNR.

But this as we see, goes against preconceived ideas. Oh well...

Am.

PS note that Sellerbird idea that a better sensor benefits all the photographers instead of a select few is self evident.

Me: This excites the lynchers even more because it goes against the pecking order, which in some countries is based, not on the right to happiness of the common citizen, but on the rights of the uber rich. Democracy a distant memory...

Next thread: Democracy & Lenses

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,814
Sadness comes with obfuscation, dear Sir...
In reply to pinnacle, Aug 4, 2013

pinnacle wrote:

amalric wrote:

Not commenting on your patent lack of m4//3 knowledge, but it made me curious, only to discover that your whole photography here is shot with a Canon.

LOL we only needed some Canonites to come and tell us the error in our ways.

Am.

AM, The amazing wackiness is that you actually believe the premise of this thread and the silliness of the one you started of few days ago trying to promote the very same thing.

You truly have no clue as to the value that a fast lens has to offer beyond higher volumes of light transmission. You actually believe that if we had a five million ISO sensor we would need nothing more than a starting lens aperture of F8. According to you, depth of filed management in a composition is all about achieving infinite depth of field. You would experience DOF nirvana if everything from the front element of the lens and on out to infinity were all entirely in focus in each and every image you captured. You won't even comcede that the desire other people have to use DOF as part of their compositional comtrol toolbox is reasonable based on photographic preferences.

Dan

This debate would carry us far away. Suffice to say that I play by the classic rules: HCB & Magnum. When Hyperfocal was the rule.

I don't play by the Hairdresser & Beautification rules of Marriage Hacks that seem to have replaced them in certain countries.

I realise that I belong to a different culture, and despite we are potentially all equal, culture makes us different.

So allow me to disagree, and let's leave it at that. Resolution and Tide wait for no man.

Shallow DOF instead comes at low, v. low tide.

Am.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads