RPJG: "offering the attractive option of a 25-49mm equivalent F1.3 lens (F2.5 equivalent in full frame terms)."
When describing equivalence for f numbers, I wish you'd separate out the two separate factors, i.e. exposure equivalence and DoF equivalence.
There is an optimal exposure but there is no correct exposure (optimal meaning optimal IQ) but if you need a faster shutter speed, an exposure lower than the optimal one is not an incorrect exposure.
If you give it the same total light, a smaller sensor will not be noisier. Noise is not a function of exposure (as in light per area), it is largely a function of total light. Exposure without sensor size is meaningless (in regard to IQ), in the same way as focal length without sensor size is meaningless (in regard to AOV).
Francis Carver: Let me see now if I get the lowdown here.
First, I buy a M4/3rd camera. But no lenses for it.
Next I buy a pricey Metabones lens adapter.
Them, I buy some Canon lenses.
Shake or stir and pour over ice, maybe?
You'd still need a lens mount adaptor in addition to that wide converter, so the comparison is not quite as you portray it. And it would need to be an adaptor that supports controlling the aperture and autofocus.
And what happened to your argument that claiming that focal reducers improve IQ was ludicrous because a lens doesn't get automatically better by adding additional optical elements? Well, it surely looks like that argument was based on you not knowing (and/or not understanding) that a focal reducer does improve IQ by reducing the size of aberrations. But admitting such things is not your forte.
I also have not heard that wide converter inherently improve IQ but if you indications otherwise, I'd be happy to be corrected on that.
Francis,Focal reducers do improve IQ (at least in the central area) because they reduce the size of lens aberrations in the same way a tele converter magnifies. Just scroll down to page 8 in this document: http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed%20Booster%20White%20Paper.pdf
Mssimo: I wonder if they could make speed booster for Medium format lenses onto full frame (sony a7) cameras.
I am not confused, I just missed the 'a7' in Mssimo's post and thus concluded what he already had suggested (that focal reducers from MF to FF only will work with FF mirrorless).
But maybe you are confused since your post essentially only concludes what I already had suggested.
When using tele lenses, a 1.4x crop is anything but awful. And if your argument is that with tele lenses a focal reducer isn't actually necessary, than you should consider that it improves IQ and f-stop and adds additional focal length and f-stop options. Both in relation to what is available natively in m43 and for given stock of FF lenses one already owns.
The difference in flange distance between different sensor formats is usually not enough to fit a focal reducer. You need the jump from (D)SLR to mirrorless to get some additional flange distance differential. Which means that would only work for FF mirrorless cameras.
Though if the sensor size difference is large enough (think Leica M to m43) than mirrorless to mirrorless is possible (and DSLR to DSLR probably is also possible).
I know what you mean. You mistakenly think that everything else equal a f/2.8 lens on FF gives you the same low light performance as a f/2.8 lens on m43. 'Exposure equivalence' as in photons per square millimetre does not result in equivalent noise. It is photons per output pixel (ie, photons hitting the surface area of the sensor that is mapped into a brightness value of the output pixel, eg, a screen pixel) that determines noise. Thus 'exposure equivalence' isn't really good for anything (only if for some reason your camera doesn't have a light meter and you have calculate exposure time using an external light meter).
See my comment above. You buy a focal reducer because you either already have Canon (or FF/APS-C) lenses or for some focal length can get them cheaper used than corresponding m43 lenses. Or because the focal reducer allows you to have lens combinations that are not available as native m43 (or even 4/3) lenses.
The real question here is why you are intentionally omitting these scenarios? Malice or ignorance, which is it?
Francis Carver: "The Speed Booster is essentially a backwards teleconverter... shortening the focal length of the lens.. as a 0.71x focal length multiplier lens... combined with the 2x crop of a Four Thirds sized sensor gives a net effective crop of 1.4x, so a 50mm lens becomes a 35.5mm lens when the adapter is added. Then ... this 35.5mm lens offers a field-of-view equivalent to a 71mm lens on full frame."
Wow, how wonderful, Metabones & Co. Who would give $649 for the privilege of giving up ultra wide angle perspectives? This product makes zero sense. You can get a pretty good lens, maybe even a pair of lenses, for that much money.
Focal reducers are by definition always also lens adaptors. One adapts lenses either to re-use lenses one already owns (or that are available cheaply in used form) or to provide lenses to a system that don't exist as native lenses. Re-using lenses does not only has to be about getting lenses cheaply but can also be about creating synergy, of having two camera systems where some lenses can be used on both.
But where focal reducers shine in is a) improving the image quality compared to merely adapting a lens mechanically noticeably (at least in the central areas) and b) providing faster lenses than are available for host camera system, they commonly increase the lens speed by about one stop. While m43 has a couple of very fast lenses with f-stops as fast as f/0.95, those are generally not cheap either (and also don't have AF). Eg, a 135 mm f/2 FF lens turns into a 96 mm f/1.4 lens, something not available natively in m43 and sharper than adapting a FF 85 mm f/1.4 lens.
SmilerGrogan: The bottom line with this software is that photos processed with it have a distinct look that is used by many of the world's most highly paid professionals. So if you want that "professional" look, you need to switch to Capture One.
"There's no guarantee C1 won't go subscription only in the near future."Can't you say that about any software?
Does Capture One have something similar to versions (Aperture) or virtual copies (Lightroom)?
noirdesir: Slightly off-topic, since the new Phase One XF features an exchangeable viewfinder, shouldn't it be possible to offer an EVF (of course this would need a feedthrough from the back to the camera which probably doesn't exist yet but shouldn't too difficult to add)?
An EVF that mirrors what the display of the back is showing in LV mode, ie, allowing the use of LV while holding the camera in a more stable position with one eye on the viewfinder compared to holding it at some distance from your body in conventional LV mode. This also helps in bright light when the display might be difficult to read. It also helps to remove mirror vibration when shooting handheld using the viewfinder.
Slightly off-topic, since the new Phase One XF features an exchangeable viewfinder, shouldn't it be possible to offer an EVF (of course this would need a feedthrough from the back to the camera which probably doesn't exist yet but shouldn't too difficult to add)?
Vanitas Photo: You are misunderstanding this... Think it as someone making profit from a photo of your photo or a video of your video, or a video of your photo, etc.
The same here the people who designed those buildings hold copyrights and they should be able to perceive monetization if their work is used commercially (same if your photo or video is being used in another work, remember Obama's poster, not the same but similar)
They aren't going to forbid you to shoot a skyline for personal use, they are going to put limits on how you can exploit this commercially)
We can't expect for our copyright to be held strictly and not allowing other artists (painters, architects, sculptors, etc.)
The hating part. Or hating the EU when it is Italian politicians who want to extent their national regime of giving architects copyright over images of their buildings.
Another opportunity for the haters to hate.
Marty4650: The concept that public buildings can have copyrights is bizarre. If governments don't want them photographed perhaps they should erect tall fences to block then from view?
But no one is actually saying these public buildings cannot be photographed.
They just want you to obtain "permission" which probably means you will pay a royalty fee or a tax in order to photograph something that public money paid for.
Socialized governments can never have enough money to spend. I bet the Democrats in the USA are watching this closely.
If not the architects, who else would be pushing for this? Ok, it's some national politicians (ie, politicians from some countries) that are pushing for this. But why are they pushing for it? Out of a sense of moral justice for architects or because the architects in their countries are pushing for this.
Whenever copyright protections are enhanced (or protected), it's ultimately the copyright holders that are behind it. Of course what can happen is that a fairly small group of copyright holders are the ones pushing for it which might be a small minority within their profession but know the right people to push their wishes.
sait: Night/illuminated shots of the Eiffel Tower have been banned for commercial use for several years now.
As for "Copyrighted buildings", can you explain how this works ? Is there a register ? As far as I know copyright is automatic and belongs to the author/photographer/generator, etc of a work, it doesn't even have to be marked with the copyright notice. Does that mean that every building that is younger than 50 years is under copyright ? Does the copyright belong to the architect, the builder, owner of the building, or the caretaker ? I thought the correct procedure for banning commercial use of a building's image would have been facilitated through the Trademark route.
In France, every building is under copyright until 70 years after the death of the architect (royalties go to his or her heirs). The Eiffel tower's architect has been dead for more than 70 years, but the 'designer' of the lighting arrangements hasn't been dead long enough (or probably isn't even dead already).
Why for so long after the death of the architect? Because architect's associations have lobbied for it. It's typical rent-seaking behaviour. I am almost certain that it wasn't always 70 years but one special interest group managed to squeeze some more money for themselves.
The fact that most countries with relatively open societies (ie, excluding the Balkans and the less developed part of Eastern Europe) don't have those special rights for architects shows that most societies have decided that it is morally ok to take pictures of publicly visible buildings and make money of it.
The difference is that a photo of a building is much less use than the building itself. The architect gets payed for the building by the users of the building, the don't get paid by the city because they improved the skyline.
Reproducing a photo gives you exactly the same utility as the original photo, taking a photo of a building gets you much less utility than the building itself.
If you create clothing, you get royalties (in theory, never in practice) if somebody copies the design but not if somebody takes a photo of somebody wearing the clothes.
P.S.: If I remember it correctly, the photographer in the Obama poster story eventually lost the case. And a poster is used for the same purpose as a photo is, a photo of a building is not used for the same purposes as the building itself is.
skogredd: Eurocrats are the worst enemy of the people in Europe.
If the harmonisation would have gone into the other direction (ie, allowing the commercial use of photos of buildings in all countries, that means, including France) we would be praising the 'Eurocrats'.
If a government does something you don't like, you conclude that governments are bad per se. But if governments do something you like, that doesn't seem to affect your position on whether governments are bad or good (or whether we should have governments at all).
Just look at the decision on roaming just a few days ago.
You misunderstand the term 'public buildings'. This proposed law has nothing to do with who owns a building. The world 'public' here means: Is-visible-from-public-spaces (like roads).
The people pushing for this are architects (as it them, not the buildings owners) who would receive any royalties.