why f2.8 on the D5?

[marmar42643]

I understand that an f2.0 lens is beter than f2.8 .. why would the minolta people put an f2.8 on the d5 and an f3 on the s304?

what benefits would it have? wouldn't it lead to less light coming in through the lens & so darker indoor images?

I have this problem with my sony P1 & find it strange that manufacturers keep doing it when they could do better... unless there was an advantage i can't see?

please inform me.. maybe i'll get it.
thanks
marmar

 

[bob d]

I understand that an f2.0 lens is beter than f2.8 .. why would the
minolta people put an f2.8 on the d5 and an f3 on the s304?

The 7/5 have a 7x zoom, and the S304 a 4x zoom.

Looks like Minolta has chosen bigger zoom over bigger aperture.

Probably they did marketing research that shows stupid camera buyers like big zoom better than fast lens. Big zoom is easy to understand. One has to understand photography to know why F2.0 is better than F2.8. And most Americans are stupid.

 

[Tricia]

Probably they did marketing research that shows stupid camera
buyers like big zoom better than fast lens. Big zoom is easy to
understand. One has to understand photography to know why F2.0 is
better than F2.8. And most Americans are stupid.

Bob, you certainly seem to have a low opinion of everyone but yourself.

 

[Ken Huckeba]

I agree. We're stupid. Stupid for supplying the rest of the world with food, technology, protection, entertainment, and medical advancements that would it not be for us, the rest of the world would still have one hand in the tree or crapping in holes. Yeah, we're stupid alright. Sell stupid somewhere else, we're just all bought out here.

Stupidly Yours,
Ken

I understand that an f2.0 lens is beter than f2.8 .. why would the
minolta people put an f2.8 on the d5 and an f3 on the s304?

what benefits would it have? wouldn't it lead to less light coming
in through the lens & so darker indoor images?

I have this problem with my sony P1 & find it strange that
manufacturers keep doing it when they could do better... unless
there was an advantage i can't see?

please inform me.. maybe i'll get it.
thanks
marmar

 

[Andreas P.]

....with food, technology, protection, entertainment, and medical
advancements that would it not be for us, the rest of the world
would still have one hand in the tree or crapping in holes.

This is an interesting point of view! I wonder where all those cams are developed?!

Regards,

Andreas

 

[Aguru]

This statement just proves that Ken is quite right about himself.

I agree. We're stupid. Stupid for supplying the rest of the world
with food, technology, protection, entertainment, and medical
advancements that would it not be for us, the rest of the world
would still have one hand in the tree or crapping in holes. Yeah,
we're stupid alright. Sell stupid somewhere else, we're just all
bought out here.

Stupidly Yours,
Ken

 

[hatem tawfik]

Guys

this is absolutely the funniest thread on DPreview since i started browsing here, please keep it living, I cant stop laughing.

Reminds me; about 12 years ago when I was visiting a scottish friend, and on the last day before leaving scotland, I had a Sony Walkman on me, and my arrogant scottish friend said " so you are going back from civilization to Egypt with all those British toys", so I flipped the walkman and STUPIDLY told him " but it's made in Japan just like everything else I've seen here in Scotland"
Hatem Tawfik
Cairo, Egypt

 

[marmar42643]

Ken.. what about Aristotle ? Pharoes? Avi sina?Elrazzi & all these famous scholars & scientists?... do you think we'd be hanging from trees if the Americans were still cowboys killing Red Indians?

Read the History books & take a look at where the Arab(muslim) world was when the rest of the world was in the dark ages!!

If you study history without bias you will only feel humble towards the rise & fall of civilisations..and understand how every civilisation was built on the knowledge of those before.

i.e. No one nation is nor will stay on top of the world..

what about the f2.8 on the d5?

Guys
this is absolutely the funniest thread on DPreview since i started
browsing here, please keep it living, I cant stop laughing.
Reminds me; about 12 years ago when I was visiting a scottish
friend, and on the last day before leaving scotland, I had a Sony
Walkman on me, and my arrogant scottish friend said " so you are
going back from civilization to Egypt with all those British toys",
so I flipped the walkman and STUPIDLY told him " but it's made in
Japan just like everything else I've seen here in Scotland"
Hatem Tawfik
Cairo, Egypt

 

[Peter G]

At f2.8 they are actually doing a pretty good job.

It is a tradeoff to make the bigger zoom. An f2.8 7x zoom is pretty damn good. Personally I think this is one of the nicest lenses on a digicam right now. 28-200 covers everything I need or expect and it has little distortion and just about NO chromatic abberations. A very fine Job.

Now they could probably give you a fixed 50mm equivalent lens with F1.8 or maybe even f1.4, but you would loose that beautiful Zoom range.

Even Sony's Zeiss 5x zoom on the f505v is an f2.8 apeture. Where do you get the idea that it is easy to make a 7x f2.0. Do you want this camera to cost $5000?

Everyone will be making a camera with this sensor and I expect Canon or Sony will have 2.0 3x zoom. You can wait for that if you like. Personally I'll take the zoom (if I could only justify the the $2500 CDN this camera will cost).

Peter

I understand that an f2.0 lens is beter than f2.8 .. why would the
minolta people put an f2.8 on the d5 and an f3 on the s304?

what benefits would it have? wouldn't it lead to less light coming
in through the lens & so darker indoor images?

I have this problem with my sony P1 & find it strange that
manufacturers keep doing it when they could do better... unless
there was an advantage i can't see?

please inform me.. maybe i'll get it.
thanks
marmar

 

[gene]

I understand that an f2.0 lens is beter than f2.8 .. why would the
minolta people put an f2.8 on the d5 and an f3 on the s304?

what benefits would it have? wouldn't it lead to less light coming
in through the lens & so darker indoor images?

I have this problem with my sony P1 & find it strange that
manufacturers keep doing it when they could do better... unless
there was an advantage i can't see?

please inform me.. maybe i'll get it.
thanks
marmar

price. Putting an f2 lens on the camera would increase the cost more than people are willing to pay?

If you goto http://www.bhphotovideo.com and do a search:

Lens -> import - usa

Minolta normal 50MM 1.4 -> $229.95 - $249.95
Minolta normal 50MM 1.7 -> $76.95 - $79.95

Minolta Macro 50MM 2.8 -> $359.95 - $369.95
Minolta Macro 50MM 3.5 -> $214.95 - $224.95

Minolta 24 - 105MM 3.5 - 4.5 D AF -> $359.95 - $389.95

Minolta 24 - 85MM 3.5 - 4.5 AF -> $329.95 - $399.95

Minolta 28-105MM 3.5-4.5 AF -> $299.95 - $314.95

Minolta 35-70MM 3.5-4.5 MZ -> $89.95 - $89.95

And if you want a straight fstop all the way through...

Minolta 28 - 70MM 2.8 G -> $999.95 - $1059.95

good thing someone came up with the variable fstop ;-D

Actually, after going though all this, don't know.

The bottom line would be, in order to even get 0.2 of an fstop, they would have to increase the size of the glass/lens in order to allow that much more light into the camera.

 

[Bryan Biggers]

price. Putting an f2 lens on the camera would increase the cost
more than people are willing to pay?

This is exactly right. Going from f/2.8 to f/2.0 is exactly one f-stop, or doubling of light. That means that the f/2.0 lens would have to have twice the surface area, and be sqr(2) larger. So instead of being 49mm (or whatever the D7 is) it would have to be 49mmx1.1414=69mm in diameter. That is getting into the Big Expensive territory and I'll bet would have put this camera into the $2000 price range. In addition, it would have been much harder to make a lens that big color free, just adding to the cost. I'm sure that it could have been done, but would people be as interested in this camea for $2000+ with an f/2.0 lens... that is getting into the price range of the S1.
Bryan

 

[marmar42643]

ok I think i understand the general idea..so its either zoom or light for this price range.

Just another questoion...Was that issue the same with film cameras? They seem to have very good zooms... & although i never looked at the size of their lens, they did well in low light. I have a digital camera (sony P1)with an f2.8 but its very poor in lowlight. Doea that mean the d5 will do the same in low light, since it has the same lens size?

Thanks.

price. Putting an f2 lens on the camera would increase the cost
more than people are willing to pay?

This is exactly right. Going from f/2.8 to f/2.0 is exactly one
f-stop, or doubling of light. That means that the f/2.0 lens would
have to have twice the surface area, and be sqr(2) larger. So
instead of being 49mm (or whatever the D7 is) it would have to be
49mmx1.1414=69mm in diameter. That is getting into the Big
Expensive territory and I'll bet would have put this camera into
the $2000 price range. In addition, it would have been much harder
to make a lens that big color free, just adding to the cost. I'm
sure that it could have been done, but would people be as
interested in this camea for $2000+ with an f/2.0 lens... that is
getting into the price range of the S1.
Bryan

 

[Peter G]

As you will note from the examples of a previous most consumer 35mm zooms start at f3.5 so they are no better. What makes film cameras better in low light is the fact that you can get quite decent ASA 400 film where with a digital cameras you are pretty much stuck with ASA 100 equivalent if you want quality. So the film camera can get by on only 1/4 as much light as a digital.

Digital need 4x light to do a decent job and its not the lens its the ISO 100.

Peter

Thanks.

price. Putting an f2 lens on the camera would increase the cost
more than people are willing to pay?

This is exactly right. Going from f/2.8 to f/2.0 is exactly one
f-stop, or doubling of light. That means that the f/2.0 lens would
have to have twice the surface area, and be sqr(2) larger. So
instead of being 49mm (or whatever the D7 is) it would have to be
49mmx1.1414=69mm in diameter. That is getting into the Big
Expensive territory and I'll bet would have put this camera into
the $2000 price range. In addition, it would have been much harder
to make a lens that big color free, just adding to the cost. I'm
sure that it could have been done, but would people be as
interested in this camea for $2000+ with an f/2.0 lens... that is
getting into the price range of the S1.
Bryan

 

[marmar42643]

Thanks Peter.. i understand now..and since i'm a person that takes a lot of indoor images a camera with an f2 is better for me, since i'd rather not bother with the complications of extra flashes & manual ISO settings(which will lead to noise & photoshop correction!!)

Thanks.

Digital need 4x light to do a decent job and its not the lens its
the ISO 100.

Peter

Thanks.

price. Putting an f2 lens on the camera would increase the cost
more than people are willing to pay?

This is exactly right. Going from f/2.8 to f/2.0 is exactly one
f-stop, or doubling of light. That means that the f/2.0 lens would
have to have twice the surface area, and be sqr(2) larger. So
instead of being 49mm (or whatever the D7 is) it would have to be
49mmx1.1414=69mm in diameter. That is getting into the Big
Expensive territory and I'll bet would have put this camera into
the $2000 price range. In addition, it would have been much harder
to make a lens that big color free, just adding to the cost. I'm
sure that it could have been done, but would people be as
interested in this camea for $2000+ with an f/2.0 lens... that is
getting into the price range of the S1.
Bryan

 

[Bryan Biggers]

ok I think i understand the general idea..so its either zoom or
light for this price range.
Just another questoion...Was that issue the same with film cameras?
They seem to have very good zooms... & although i never looked at
the size of their lens, they did well in low light. I have a
digital camera (sony P1)with an f2.8 but its very poor in lowlight.
Doea that mean the d5 will do the same in low light, since it has
the same lens size?

In addition to what Peter said, the thing about 35mm film cameras is that the lens systems are not as critical! The film is a lot larger than the typical CCD that we have now, and the focal lengths are a lot longer. For example, a 35mm lens might have 38mm focal length, while the corresponding digital lens has to be about 7mm focal length... much harder to make a good lens at that short focal length. The focal length of the lens used in the D5/D7 is actually something like 7mm to 50mm, which would be a VERY expensive lens to buy for your 35mm camera because of all the very curved surfaces involved. The focal lengths of the lenses used in your typical 35mm point and shoot are probably something like 30mm to 100mm.

BTW, I missed that this thread was about the D5, I based my prices on the D7.
Bryan

 

[Ken Huckeba]

price. Putting an f2 lens on the camera would increase the cost
more than people are willing to pay?

This is exactly right. Going from f/2.8 to f/2.0 is exactly one
f-stop, or doubling of light. That means that the f/2.0 lens would
have to have twice the surface area, and be sqr(2) larger. So
instead of being 49mm (or whatever the D7 is) it would have to be
49mmx1.1414=69mm in diameter. That is getting into the Big
Expensive territory and I'll bet would have put this camera into
the $2000 price range. In addition, it would have been much harder
to make a lens that big color free, just adding to the cost. I'm
sure that it could have been done, but would people be as
interested in this camea for $2000+ with an f/2.0 lens... that is
getting into the price range of the S1.
Bryan

So, is this all to say that there ISN'T a digital camera with an F2 lens?

 

[gene]

As I posted earlier, ther do have a 35MM f2.8 28mm - 70mm. But it is quite expensive:

Minolta 28 - 70MM 2.8 G -> $999.95(imp) - $1059.95 (usa). But lets say you have a 1.6x multiplier like the D30 (I think), you would need a 17mm lens to get 27.2mm. Saying it was, you would be looking at this lens:

Minolta Super Zoom 17 - 35MM F3.5 -> $1499 - $1549 - but that's a solid fstop all the way through.

That's slightly more $$$ than just the Dimage7. But that's an extreme example. But I feel sorry for the D30 owner that wants a 28MM equiv if the Canon prices are like the example I given :-(

As for your original question, let me reiterate.

In order to increase the fstop in th s304, even from f3 -> f2.8 would require either changing focal lengths, size of glass, redesign of camera demensions, all corrosponding to a higher $$$.

Digital need 4x light to do a decent job and its not the lens its
the ISO 100.

Peter

Thanks.

price. Putting an f2 lens on the camera would increase the cost
more than people are willing to pay?

This is exactly right. Going from f/2.8 to f/2.0 is exactly one
f-stop, or doubling of light. That means that the f/2.0 lens would
have to have twice the surface area, and be sqr(2) larger. So
instead of being 49mm (or whatever the D7 is) it would have to be
49mmx1.1414=69mm in diameter. That is getting into the Big
Expensive territory and I'll bet would have put this camera into
the $2000 price range. In addition, it would have been much harder
to make a lens that big color free, just adding to the cost. I'm
sure that it could have been done, but would people be as
interested in this camea for $2000+ with an f/2.0 lens... that is
getting into the price range of the S1.
Bryan

 

[Ken Huckeba]

I understand that marmar, and I believe that the severe dilution of ethics and standards WILL be the downfall of this country. I'm just very tired of anti-American rhetoric, period.

As far as the f2.8, I know this has been beat to death but looking at the thread below, it's very expensive to put an f2.0 lens on a camera. The E-10 has that "mythical" lens and it's low light capability proves it out. Many people have been crapping on the E-10. I for one don't take many action shots where this is required. I DO take a lot of pictures where lighting conditions could be better. I've always been amazed by the low levels of light in which digital cameras function. I burned a LOT of 35mm film up trying to do what I've been doing easily with the E-10 but I'm of the serious opinion that people just using digital cameras goes a long way toward excellence. They get much more practice, easy previewing and low cost for errors. I look at the samples forum all of the time and rarely do I see a cruddy picture, I like them all.

Ken

Read the History books & take a look at where the Arab(muslim)
world was when the rest of the world was in the dark ages!!

If you study history without bias you will only feel humble towards
the rise & fall of civilisations..and understand how every
civilisation was built on the knowledge of those before.

i.e. No one nation is nor will stay on top of the world..

what about the f2.8 on the d5?

Guys
this is absolutely the funniest thread on DPreview since i started
browsing here, please keep it living, I cant stop laughing.
Reminds me; about 12 years ago when I was visiting a scottish
friend, and on the last day before leaving scotland, I had a Sony
Walkman on me, and my arrogant scottish friend said " so you are
going back from civilization to Egypt with all those British toys",
so I flipped the walkman and STUPIDLY told him " but it's made in
Japan just like everything else I've seen here in Scotland"
Hatem Tawfik
Cairo, Egypt

 

[Theo Lumens]

F2.8 isn't so bad for a long zoom lens. Most zoomlenses for common (film based) SLR's don't come closer than f4.5. So f2.8 is really not bad for a 7x zoom lens.

Theo

I understand that an f2.0 lens is beter than f2.8 .. why would the
minolta people put an f2.8 on the d5 and an f3 on the s304?

what benefits would it have? wouldn't it lead to less light coming
in through the lens & so darker indoor images?

I have this problem with my sony P1 & find it strange that
manufacturers keep doing it when they could do better... unless
there was an advantage i can't see?

please inform me.. maybe i'll get it.
thanks
marmar

 

[marmar42643]

to summerize it all Again:

For this price range: one either gets the f2 lens with a x3 zoom & the choice of using add on zoom lens when the occasion arises..
Or

get a x7or more zoom lens with an f2.8 or more & the choice of using an external flash when the occasion arises..

Hence each person makes his choice based on his most frequent use of the camera..
********

I thank this forum & its people for the wealth of information i'm getting..its amazing to me (&my family ) how much I've come to know about photography in general & digital in spacific..

I only wish for one thing..That i can print some of these very informative threads as a whole document to save for later reference.

I wish Phil would pass by this request ,or someone could convey this message to him> > > Is it possible to provide "printer friendly" versions of the threads?

Maybe I'll bring it up in the "open talk" forum.
Thank you.