Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,395
Like?
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to captura, 8 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,395
Like?
Sadness comes with obfuscation, dear Sir...
In reply to pinnacle, 8 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
"Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
Let's have a look at what came in on that tide...
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
larsbc
Forum ProPosts: 11,490
Like?
Re: Sadness comes with obfuscation, dear Sir...
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,829
Like?
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to seilerbird666, 8 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

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,829
Like?
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,829
Like?
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,002
Like?
WOW...
In reply to MrScorpio, 8 months ago

MrScorpio wrote:

WOW just spotted this one...

... you need to hear that your pictures sucks! Really.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51924397

And you have the guts to accuse me for not being polite...

What a miserable hypocrite.

Moyi

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,395
Like?
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to jagge, 8 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,395
Like?
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to Great Bustard, 8 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,550
Like?
Re: Sadness comes with obfuscation, dear Sir...
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,499Gear list
Like?
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,993
Like?
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to seilerbird666, 8 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.

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
julieng
Contributing MemberPosts: 730
Like?
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to Anders W, 8 months ago

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...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 15,499Gear list
Like?
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to julieng, 8 months ago

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 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,829
Like?
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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

thx

Jakob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
turbsy
Regular MemberPosts: 474Gear list
Like?
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, 8 months ago

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 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,395
Like?
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to Anders W, 8 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,395
Like?
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to turbsy, 8 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads