Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete Locked

Started Jul 31, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 24,681
"Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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.

As I recall, Sigma also makes a 35 / 1.4 that's sharp right from wide open, as well as an 18-35 / 1.8.

Huh.

I also recall that Olympus makes a 45 / 1.8 and 75 / 1.8 that are also quite sharp right from wide open.

Huh.

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

Preconceived ideas, indeed.

Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 24,681
Let's have a look at what came in on that tide...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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

Seems we've had this "discussion" before:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40584290

And, as I recall, it didn't go your way.

larsbc
Forum ProPosts: 11,494
Re: Sadness comes with obfuscation, dear Sir...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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

Thats a strange statement to make, considering that plenty of Magnum photographers  have used shallow depth of field. I would be surprised if any of them felt they had to use maximum dof  in order to satisfy some rule.

jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,914Gear list
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to seilerbird666, Aug 4, 2013

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

wow interesting with a post whos very topic is a display of lack of knowledge. Sorry mate but low light is for many the least reason to use fast lenses.

And Especially in a m43 forum the post is fantastically misplaced, if anything there is a growing demand for fast lenses, and guess what most of them will be used in fuxll daylight as well, get the point ?

jakob

jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,914Gear list
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, or if I need one a 2.8 portrait lens will do.

Well apparently you absolutely dont need a cam as well. If you truly believe what you write then anything but a cameraphone is wasted on you off course.

I write this fully realizing that debating with you makes no sense due to your great display of lack of knowledge, but someone might believe you or your twisted points.

Now saying that you can reproduce low depth of field in a cam phone using a  app is so severely misleading. The day will arrive where its possible with light field cam technology but that might never be practical. Yep look it up...

Current tech off course has not way of knowing distance between individual parts of a photo, Photoshop ceartainly does not have this ability as well.

So in short all your points are bollocks, but you do have a striking point, a camera phone would be more than what you personally would need.

Jakob

jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,914Gear list
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

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

Wow it actually crossed my mind that you where sick as well....

Sorry but "keeping the thread alive" , seems to be just a way for you to gain some questionable negative energy by uttering a lot of nonsense in a public forum.

Good luck with that.

Jakob

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

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,817
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to jagge, Aug 4, 2013

jagge wrote:

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

Wow it actually crossed my mind that you where sick as well....

That says it all. You'll be ignored from now on. Not a great loss. You must be from a remote cesspit.

Am.

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,817
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to Great Bustard, Aug 4, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

amalric wrote:

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.

As I recall, Sigma also makes a 35 / 1.4 that's sharp right from wide open, as well as an 18-35 / 1.8.

Huh.

I also recall that Olympus makes a 45 / 1.8 and 75 / 1.8 that are also quite sharp right from wide open.

Huh.

Not m4/3 lenses. Distance to flange must be almost double. That explains.

Good that sometimes I open up the files of a plonked carrion bird.

Shrieking lies.

Am.

Karl Gnter Wnsch
Forum ProPosts: 11,090Gear list
Re: Sadness comes with obfuscation, dear Sir...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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

For what kind of photography? Those times when hyperfocal was used for some kinds of photography are long long gone. They belong to the dark ages of photography when the photographer didn't have the time or means to focus properly. So let's investigate where hyperfocal focusing is a valid method:

Portrait? No, you need to separate from the background.

Groupportrait? No.

Landscape? Rarely, you need to guide the viewers eye to certain aspects or else the photo is  lackluster, if you employ large DOF you desperately need something to draw the viewers attention. Without the focal point to guide your viewers eye you fail.

Industry? Rarely, same applies as for Landscape.

Macro? Never, you need to separate your subject from the background.

Sports? Never, you need to guide the viewers eye to the subject. A tackle from some player drowns out in the background of the crowd and the other players as would a track runner in the rest of the field or a sports car in the advertising on the track surround.

Streetphotography? Almost never, too many distracting elements all around that you need to drown out into a background.

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

But yet you seem to fail to acknowledge that your taste varies from 99.999% of the public. I find your photos for the most part absolutely lackluster, lacking in definition what the subject is (your failure at using DOF to guide the viewer is the big problem here), mediocre composition, tere also is a gross lack in care to align correctly with what may be the subject if that subject has some kind of symmetry. So as a photographer you have a long long way to go, and for the "I'm making the rules, everyone else is wrong" - well let's guess what the wrong-way driver is thinking when he is announced over the radio...

-- hide signature --

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

 Karl Gnter Wnsch's gear list:Karl Gnter Wnsch's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,062Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

amalric wrote:

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.

As I recall, Sigma also makes a 35 / 1.4 that's sharp right from wide open, as well as an 18-35 / 1.8.

Huh.

I also recall that Olympus makes a 45 / 1.8 and 75 / 1.8 that are also quite sharp right from wide open.

Huh.

Not m4/3 lenses.

The last two are.

Distance to flange must be almost double. That explains.

No it doesn't.

First, the interesting thing about flange distance is not how large it is in absolute terms but how large it is relative to the sensor diagonal. For the Sigma 35/1.4 on a Canon FF camera, we have

44/43.2 = 1.019

and for a native MFT lens on an MFT body

19.25/21.6 = 0.891

In other words: very similar.

Second, and more importantly, a short flange distance is always an advantage, never a disadvantage, from an optical design point of view. It just means that you can put the rearmost element closer to the sensor if you want. But there's nothing forcing you to do so. You can also put it as far away as you like.

Now for some facts about MTF from your favorite source, LensRentals. The figures are line pairs per image height at MTF 50 for center/average based on unsharpened output from E-M5 RAWs.

First a couple of your favorite 2.8 lenses:

Olympus 17/2.8

2.8 720/590

Sigma 19/2.8

2.8 850/745

And here are some faster alternatives for comparison:

Olympus 12/2

2.0 860/730

2.8 1000/845

Panasonic 20/1.7

1.7 870/735

2.8 1050/875

Olympus 75/1.8

1.8 880/765

2.8 1020/925

In other words, the fast lenses do about as well wide open, at f/1.8 - f/2.0, as the better of the two f/2.8 lenses you advocate do at f/2.8. And when stopped down to f/2.8, the faster lenses all do significantly better.

Good that sometimes I open up the files of a plonked carrion bird.

Shrieking lies.

As everyone can see for themselves, you do your best to maintain your reputation as the epitome of rudeness and ignorance combined.

 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 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,019
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to seilerbird666, Aug 4, 2013

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.

I don't think you quite understand the principle.

Faster shutter speeds allow for larger apertures. This has nothing to do with the ISO performance.

Better high ISO performance means that you can use faster shutter speeds or smaller apertures, or both.

And Photoshop now has a plug in to increase DOF even at small apertures.

That's nowhere near the same as the real thing.

julieng
Contributing MemberPosts: 800Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to Anders W, Aug 4, 2013

Anders! You know this thing about charts, you are only supposed to mention them when there are convenient to the point you are trying to establish

Oh vänta, om du är ärlig, du kan säger at din idée var inte bra. Han kan inte...

 julieng's gear list:julieng's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,062Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to julieng, Aug 4, 2013

julieng wrote:

Anders! You know this thing about charts, you are only supposed to mention them when there are convenient to the point you are trying to establish

I know. Why let inconvenient facts get in the way of fascinating ideas. Just spoils the fun, right.

Oh vänta, om du är ärlig, du kan säger at din idée var inte bra.

Ärligt talat tycker jag min idé var utmärkt.

Han kan inte...

Det har du alldeles rätt i. Perfekt sammanfattning.

 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 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,914Gear list
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

That says it all. You'll be ignored from now on.

thx

Jakob

turbsy
Contributing MemberPosts: 710Gear list
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, 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.

Why exactly am I a Nikon troll? And no software blur looks the same as a fast lens. Also what happens when ISO3200 isn't enough for the shutter speed you want?

 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: 10,817
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to Anders W, Aug 4, 2013

Interesting to open you from time to time, just to see how far your pseudo science carries you into the absurd.

1. Everybody knows how short distance to flange creates problems to even resolution across the frame in m4/3, therefore comparing lenses that have 2 or three times the distance to flange, and which don't have this problem is particularly stupid.

2. Roger Cicala was the first to remark on the poor performance of the PL 25/1.4 at full aperture:

"The Panasonic/Leica 25mm disappointed a bit: it was good but I had expected it to be THE best of the bunch and it’s not."

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results

and

"We also did some confirmation testing at 25mm. First retesting the Panasonic – Leica 25mm f/1.4 because it just didn’t seem as great as we expected on the initial set of tests. Then we did some comparison testing, testing the same lenses on both the Panasonic GX1 and the Olympus OM-D E-M5. I won’t bore you with all the numbers, but testing 6 copies of the Panasonic-Leica f/1.4 didn’t change our initial results much. (The results have been updated on the previous article.)"

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/standard-range-micro-43-imatest-results

Those are in fact Imatest data, and he found that the PL 25/1.4 has HALF THE RESOLUTION at 1.4 compared to 2.8.

So you and Bustard are just clowns manipulating arbitrarily data for the noobs.

Conversely Roger's data prove very well my point: that it is better to use a fast sensor and a moderate aperture, than the opposite, in terms of resolution. The two CV at f/0.95 prove the same.

Possibly because of the short distance to flange, they are a waste of money in terms of resolution, well below Lenstip's 'level of decency' at full aperture.

Instead, in terms of Price/ Performance the Sigmas are a fantastic buy, if you have a fast sensor like the E-M5.

QED

Now please go back to the obscurity where the quack doctors and ragged devils are condemned

Am.

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,817
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to turbsy, Aug 4, 2013

turbsy 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.

Why exactly am I a Nikon troll? And no software blur looks the same as a fast lens. Also what happens when ISO3200 isn't enough for the shutter speed you want?

Don't you shoot mostly Nikons? Or didn't I read well your Exifs? mirrorless has specific resolution problems.

You raise the ISO to 5000, which is still feasible on the E-M5. But you really need to be in half darkness to do that.

Why would you shoot in BAD Lìight? Are you such a NOOB?

Am.

turbsy
Contributing MemberPosts: 710Gear list
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

turbsy 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.

Why exactly am I a Nikon troll? And no software blur looks the same as a fast lens. Also what happens when ISO3200 isn't enough for the shutter speed you want?

Don't you shoot mostly Nikons? Or didn't I read well your Exifs? mirrorless has specific resolution problems.

You raise the ISO to 5000, which is still feasible on the E-M5. But you really need to be in half darkness to do that.

Why would you shoot in BAD Lìight? Are you such a NOOB?

Am.

What does what I shoot have to do with this discussion? Iso 5000 might be good for whatever it is you shoot but not for me. And it doesn't matter what camera it is. Why does it have to be bad light maybe I'm trying to stop motion And I want a higher shutter speed. With your comments you think it's wise calling anyone a noob?

 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: 10,817
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to turbsy, Aug 4, 2013

turbsy wrote:

turbsy 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.

Why exactly am I a Nikon troll? And no software blur looks the same as a fast lens. Also what happens when ISO3200 isn't enough for the shutter speed you want?

Don't you shoot mostly Nikons? Or didn't I read well your Exifs? mirrorless has specific resolution problems.

You raise the ISO to 5000, which is still feasible on the E-M5. But you really need to be in half darkness to do that.

Why would you shoot in BAD Lìight? Are you such a NOOB?

Am.

What does what I shoot have to do with this discussion? Iso 5000 might be good for whatever it is you shoot but not for me. And it doesn't matter what camera it is. Why does it have to be bad light maybe I'm trying to stop motion And I want a higher shutter speed. With your comments you think it's wise calling anyone a noob?

So you tried to hide the fact that you are a Nikon user. Well, well, well...

The fact like I discuss elsewhere is that mirrorless suffers from serious resolution degradation from 2.8 to 1.4. Conversely its Sony sensor has recently increased sensitivity 2x.

So it makes more sense  to rely on the sensor than on the big aperture. But this you cannot know if you are a m4/3 NOOB.

QED

Am.

String
Senior MemberPosts: 1,429Gear list
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to turbsy, Aug 4, 2013

You are wasting your time arguing with Am; he's a hack whose only claim to fame is doing voyeur shots of pretty women. He shoots them from the hip or from balconys above so as not to be seen. Is it really any wonder he needs to use hyperfocal?

If you don't agree with him, your insulted in his fantasy threads where he can't even string together two sentences of proper English. In short, he's the laughing stock of this forum. The only problem is, he doesn't know it.

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