Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete Locked

Started Jul 31, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,164Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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

What is truly absurd is that you think you have the wits to tell the difference between science and pseudo science.

1. Everybody knows how short distance to flange creates problems to even resolution across the frame in m4/3,

On the contrary, noone who knows anything about optics thinks so.

therefore comparing lenses that have 2 or three times the distance to flange, and which don't have this problem is particularly stupid.

Particularly stupid is not to understand, especially in view of the content of my previous post, a) that the MFT flange distance isn't particularly short (in the sense that counts, i.e., relative to the diagonal of the sensor format) and b) that a short flange distance is never a disadvantage from the point of view of optical design (since it allows the rearmost element to be placed closer to the sensor without forcing it to be placed closer).

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.

No Roger Cicala didn't find that. He found that the center resolution at f/1.4 is 72 percent of the resolution at f/2.8. Let me know if you need help with the math.

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.

The best is to use a good sensor and a fast lens with good MTF already wide open, such as those exemplified in my previous post.

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

Particularly stupid is also not to realize that a single counter-example (I was generous enough to provide no less than three) refutes your general claim and that regurgitating what we all already knew about the PL 25/1.4 doesn't help you one bit.

Why, by the way, do you think Roger Cicala was slightly disappointed at the 25/1.4 if not for the fact that fast lenses can do better than it did? Consequently, it wasn't a particularly bright idea to base your general claim on that particular example in the first place.

 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
MoPet
New MemberPosts: 11
Re: Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete
In reply to Ulric, Aug 4, 2013

3 x NO!

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,808
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to String, Aug 4, 2013

String wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

LOL, the fact is that I have 122.000 views on my pages and growing by the day, while you?

I doubt you'll have much with your unimaginative ones, a real, very conventional  'bas bleu'

So all that is left to you is foaming at the mouth and smearing - the last resort of the scoundrel.

Am.

turbsy
Contributing MemberPosts: 676Gear list
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

String wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

LOL, the fact is that I have 122.000 views on my pages and growing by the day, while you?

I doubt you'll have much with your unimaginative ones, a real, very conventional  'bas bleu'

So all that is left to you is foaming at the mouth and smearing - the last resort of the scoundrel.

Am.

What are you 12? Someone disagrees with you and you go to name calling.

 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
jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,891Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to Anders W, Aug 4, 2013

Why, by the way, do you think Roger Cicala was slightly disappointed at the 25/1.4 if not for the fact that fast lenses can do better than it did? Consequently, it wasn't a particularly bright idea to base your general claim on that particular example in the first place.

while I applaud your for trying I am quite certain that knowledge and logic is completely wasted on Amalcric.

Best wishes

Jakob

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,808
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to jagge, Aug 4, 2013

jagge wrote:

Why, by the way, do you think Roger Cicala was slightly disappointed at the 25/1.4 if not for the fact that fast lenses can do better than it did? Consequently, it wasn't a particularly bright idea to base your general claim on that particular example in the first place.

while I applaud your for trying I am quite certain that knowledge and logic is completely wasted on Amalcric.

Oh no, it's only that I don't lose my time with a fraud with no known photography.

It is possibly true that FF lenses degrade in resolution more gracefully at full aperture, but it certainly not the case for m4/3, witness the PL and CV in Lensrentals/Imatest data.

The loss of resolution for only one stop more aperture is ruinous.

Instead, thanks to the Sony new sensor of the E-M5 you get 2 additional stops for free, so why NAT use them?

In future one will see further improvement in sensor sensitivity, while lens performance will stay more or less the sme, so the argument will become even  more convincing.

The only limit is that it is unconventional, and that you are conventional, not really worthy of m4/3, which is a disruptive technology relying a lot on the improvement of sensors.

You are so old hat.

And foaming at the mouth.

LOL

Am.

julieng
Contributing MemberPosts: 746
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to Anders W, Aug 4, 2013

Anders W wrote:

julieng wrote:

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

Ärligt talat tycker jag min idé var utmärkt.

Jag tycker det ochså

"Du" var vilseledande här, då jag talade om konceptet av ärlighet, inte om exemplet här. "Du" är utbytbara.

fjärde språket...

Anyways. Since proper reading is in all appearance optional to pulling sweeping conclusions, I might as well resume: Given that in once specific review the PL25 did not reach highest expectations at wide open, therefore everybody knows that shorter flange distance optically cripple expensive lenses.

Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,375
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

LOL, the fact is that I have 122.000 views on my pages and growing by the day, while you?

I'm not surprised. Who would miss an opportunity to look into a site that shows how NOT to take photos...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric/7049928741/in/set-72157629693142319

WTG

Moti

-- hide signature --
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,375
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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

Absolutely. That is how ignorants can learn something new from time to time...

Moti

amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,808
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to julieng, Aug 4, 2013

julieng wrote:

Anders W wrote:

julieng wrote:

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

Ärligt talat tycker jag min idé var utmärkt.

Jag tycker det ochså

"Du" var vilseledande här, då jag talade om konceptet av ärlighet, inte om exemplet här. "Du" är utbytbara.

fjärde språket...

Anyways. Since proper reading is in all appearance optional to pulling sweeping conclusions, I might as well resume: Given that in once specific review the PL25 did not reach highest expectations at wide open, therefore everybody knows that shorter flange distance optically cripple expensive lenses.

Same happens to the Cosina Voigtlanders in Imatest.

Perhaps not in" Swedish Science", LOL.

Full aperture, lpmm, center and edges :

Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95:

565 475

Voigtlander 25mm mm f/0.95:

530 435

Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4:

690 590

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

Go tell people it's a worthy performance of their 500-1000 $. They lose half of their resolution in one single precious stop. LOL. Morons.

Am.

turbsy
Contributing MemberPosts: 676Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

julieng wrote:

Anders W wrote:

julieng wrote:

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

Ärligt talat tycker jag min idé var utmärkt.

Jag tycker det ochså

"Du" var vilseledande här, då jag talade om konceptet av ärlighet, inte om exemplet här. "Du" är utbytbara.

fjärde språket...

Anyways. Since proper reading is in all appearance optional to pulling sweeping conclusions, I might as well resume: Given that in once specific review the PL25 did not reach highest expectations at wide open, therefore everybody knows that shorter flange distance optically cripple expensive lenses.

Same happens to the Cosina Voigtlanders in Imatest.

Perhaps not in" Swedish Science", LOL.

Full aperture, lpmm, center and edges :

Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95:

565 475

Voigtlander 25mm mm f/0.95:

530 435

Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4:

690 590

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

Go tell people it's a worthy performance of their 500-1000 $. They lose half of their resolution in one single precious stop. LOL. Morons.

Am.

Everyone is arguing against you. Why do you bother? We just disagree. All you do is say the same thing over and over and when that doesn't work you call names and tell us how many hits your pages get.

 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
John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,997
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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

You don't need bokeh?  You'll always need resolution?

That's fine. However, some people have differing requirements from yours.

John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,997
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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?

Clearly you've never shot a wedding (a good example of how some people's requirements differ from yours).

John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,997
Re: Seilerbird666 is correct, but...
In reply to Moti, Aug 4, 2013

Moti wrote:

amalric wrote:

LOL, the fact is that I have 122.000 views on my pages and growing by the day, while you?

I'm not surprised. Who would miss an opportunity to look into a site that shows how NOT to take photos...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric/7049928741/in/set-72157629693142319

Apart from being of a very poor standard and of zero merit, I find photography like that just creepy.

If I found that someone was posting a shot like that of my wife or my daughter, or if I were a woman, me, I would find it extremely unsettling.

If you want to take take photographs of people, grows some balls and speak to them first instead of just posting creepy snaps like that on the internet for fellow weirdos to lust over.

If you have such a total lack of respect for others, then you can't expect others to respect you.

pinnacle
Senior MemberPosts: 2,442Gear list
Re: Sadness comes with obfuscation, dear Sir...
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

amalric wrote:

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.

Oh please dear Swami, enlighten us with the link to the evidence that established the hyperfocal "rule" of which you speak. Oh please post the link...

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.

You are right on the money with this one. You do indeed belong to a very, very different "culture." And...the culture to which you belong makes you very,very "different." You go right ahead and enjoy your life dedicated to such a "culture."

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

Why, AM....I claim no hold on your perogative to disagree...I rejoice in such privilege for both you and the rest of us.

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

I think I will collect a few starfish in the light such opportunity. You of course have no use for  creatures of  such beauty.

Dan

Am.

-- 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
jagge
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,891Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to amalric, Aug 4, 2013

So you could not stick to your own "ignore" rule, this was to expected but funny newertheless..

Instead, thanks to the Sony new sensor of the E-M5 you get 2 additional stops for free, so why NAT use them?

Who talks about not using new sensors to the fullest. Off course that makes sense, its just not the core of the debate here, but I can understand why you grasp that straw.

So for the sake of peace I will give you that one. Yep sensors are getting better all the time, yep it does make shooting in low light easier.

BUT we are no where near a point where that does eliviate the need for fast glass even if we talk about getting enough light to the sensor ONLY.

And that is ONLY one usage of  fast glass. The other is subject isolation which can not be "faked" at this point. Sure you and other soccer moms with no sense of quality in a image can "fake" blur, its just not the same. And the same point precisely can be used as a argument AGAINST better sensors. You can also take a lot of noise away with photoshop so I can argue precisely like you do, that better sensors is not needed, you can use photoshop. The argument is the same photoshop can emulate something at the expense of the quality of the file.

There you go, we dont need good sensors either, which furthers the point that you should just stick to using a cameraphone amalcric.

Jakob

gak44
Regular MemberPosts: 289Gear list
Re: rather amusing
In reply to James Pilcher, Aug 4, 2013

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

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

Even more surprising is that these lame trolls get dozens to respond with heated rebuttals.

 gak44's gear list:gak44's gear list
RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +5 more
James Pilcher
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,688Gear list
troll-tested recipe
In reply to gak44, Aug 4, 2013

gak44 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

Even more surprising is that these lame trolls get dozens to respond with heated rebuttals.

Unfortunately, it's a troll-tested recipe that works. I sheepishly admit that I helped myself to a serving of it this time around.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

 James Pilcher's gear list:James Pilcher's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 +8 more
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,808
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to jagge, Aug 4, 2013

What I find funny is that I already live by what I say, and couldn't find myself better. I am just following the advice and findings of R. Cicala, that is Lensrentals, while you go by hearsay, and foam at the mouth.

I have maximum resolution for chips, while you have wasted your money for less resolution.

Admitting that you are not a *clown* pretending to have spent the thousands that your choice implies.

At your ease, let me just smile at the foolishness - and the vulgarity - of some experts. They go together.

Am.

tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,596Gear list
Re: "Preconceived ideas"?
In reply to jagge, Aug 4, 2013

jagge wrote:

And that is ONLY one usage of fast glass. The other is subject isolation which can not be "faked" at this point. Sure you and other soccer moms with no sense of quality in a image can "fake" blur, its just not the same.

They don't want to fake blur. They want no blur at all, preferably enough DoF so that nothing is unsharp across the frame. This is very valid of course as a personal artistic preference, but they should understand that there are others who don't always prefer this.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads