4/3 and SA delimma

Manikin · Dec 19, 2005

DaSigmaGuy said:
DaSonyGuy said:

so I would stop buying sigma
lenses until its clear whats the future of Sigma cameras.

Click to expand...

Thats not a problem for me as I dont buy Sigma lenses, period!....I
stopped using Sigma lenses about 6 months ago, I have been using
M42 and M645 mount lenses ever since and I shall carry on doing so
no matter what Sigma decide to do in the future as they outperform
many popular Sigma lenses.

Hi DSG

I have to ask 'why?' Why restrict yourself to MF lenses on a AF body (with the handicaps of a smaller VF and MF and stopped down metering)

I'm a simple guy: I come on here to learn. I have the OM adaptor for 4/3rds but once I caught on to the imprecticalities of using it (and OM glass) on my body it soons lost it's appeal. In fact, when you have to close up the 50/1.8 by 2 stops so's not to degrade image quality, I'm finding myself thinking 'what the f... are these guys masochists? Y'know, purposely doing things the hard way for no other reaso that 'bcos they can'.

I can see why someone who already owned OM gear would use the adaptor now & again if he had a long tele that DZ glass doesn't fill yet. But anyone with a DZ kit lens doesn't need a OM 50/1.8. It just doesn't compute with me.

Why do you prefer MF and ignore the proper sigma AF gear?

thanks

DaSonyGuy · Dec 20, 2005

Manikin said:
DaSigmaGuy said:

Manikin said:

so I would stop buying sigma
lenses until its clear whats the future of Sigma cameras.

Click to expand...

Thats not a problem for me as I dont buy Sigma lenses, period!....I
stopped using Sigma lenses about 6 months ago, I have been using
M42 and M645 mount lenses ever since and I shall carry on doing so
no matter what Sigma decide to do in the future as they outperform
many popular Sigma lenses.

Click to expand...

Hi DSG
I have to ask 'why?' Why restrict yourself to MF lenses on a AF
body (with the handicaps of a smaller VF and MF and stopped down
metering)

I'm a simple guy: I come on here to learn. I have the OM adaptor
for 4/3rds but once I caught on to the imprecticalities of using it
(and OM glass) on my body it soons lost it's appeal. In fact, when
you have to close up the 50/1.8 by 2 stops so's not to degrade
image quality, I'm finding myself thinking 'what the f... are these
guys masochists? Y'know, purposely doing things the hard way for no
other reaso that 'bcos they can'.

I can see why someone who already owned OM gear would use the
adaptor now & again if he had a long tele that DZ glass doesn't
fill yet. But anyone with a DZ kit lens doesn't need a OM 50/1.8.
It just doesn't compute with me.

Why do you prefer MF and ignore the proper sigma AF gear?

1) Cost:

Some of the more well-off Sigma users can easily muster sufficient funds to buy several expensive Sigma EX lenses at once, but my meagre finances dont allow such extravagence, so instead of saving my pennies I simply decided to buy lenses that I COULD afford to buy, mainly M42 screw mount lenses and leter Mamiya 645 lenses (M645).

2) Sharpness and lack of CA:

Many M42 mount prime lenses are actually very good,...Just as good if not better than comparable FL Sigma lenses, yet they cost a tiny fraction of the price.

3) Ease of use:

After using nothing but manual-focus/manual stop down lenses for many months I honestly no longer see any need for AF.

The two Sigma AF lenses I did have, the 18-50mm and 55-200mm DC kit lenses proved to be no faster to use in practice than my all-manual, non-Sigma lenses and actually I really dont find the lack of AF a hardship at all,...If anything I find it much more fun!

4) Did I mention cost?

My M645 80mm f2.8 is amazingly sharp (Simply great for portraits!), very well built, reasonably small and light and it only cost me 59 pounds, about half the price of a "cheapo" Sigma DC kit lens!

Another goodun is my Pentacon 50mm f1.8, probably just as sharp as the Sigma 50mm EX, yet its cost me only 6 pounds, including the postage!

Most M645 lenses are better than most M42 mount lenses and needless to say they are often priced much higher, yet the most expensive one out the four M645 lenses I have was only 110 pounds, less than half the price a Sigma 50mm f2.8 EX.

The average price I have paid for my current, high-quality, lens line-up is about 40 pounds each, that would'nt even buy you the box a Sigma lens comes in!

...You seem to think I am missing out on having AF, in fact I cherish NOT having it, and I dont miss it at all.

Regards

DSG
--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

Laurence Matson · Dec 20, 2005

DaSigmaGuy said:
Manikin said:

Why do you prefer MF and ignore the proper sigma AF gear?

Click to expand...

DaSonyGuy said:
The average price I have paid for my current, high-quality, lens
line-up is about 40 pounds each, that would'nt even buy you the box
a Sigma lens comes in!

...You seem to think I am missing out on having AF, in fact I
cherish NOT having it, and I dont miss it at all.

I will be the first to agree that Alf can be a royal pain in the äss. However, if we are honest we have to agree that we all benefit from his vast experience with non-Sigma lenses.

--
Laurence

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com (eternal test site)

DaSonyGuy · Dec 20, 2005

Laurence Matson said:
DaSigmaGuy said:

Manikin said:

Why do you prefer MF and ignore the proper sigma AF gear?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Laurence Matson said:

The average price I have paid for my current, high-quality, lens
line-up is about 40 pounds each, that would'nt even buy you the box
a Sigma lens comes in!

...You seem to think I am missing out on having AF, in fact I
cherish NOT having it, and I dont miss it at all.

Click to expand...

I will be the first to agree that Alf can be a royal pain in the
äss.

I can assure you no Donkeys have ever been hurt by my replies!

However, if we are honest we have to agree that we all benefit

Laurence Matson said:
from his vast experience with non-Sigma lenses.

And a merry Christmas to you too Laurence.

Regards

DSG
--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

Erik Magnuson · Dec 20, 2005

DaSigmaGuy said:
DaSonyGuy said:

I will be the first to agree that Alf can be a royal pain in the
äss.

Click to expand...

I can assure you no Donkeys have ever been hurt by my replies!

Since you are actually a subject of a royal, my first thought was:

"By Appointment of Her Majesty the Queen, Alf DaSigmaGuy is hereby designated the official supplier of Sigma/MF lens expertise and unwavering Sigma loyalty..."

--
Erik

NarrBL · Dec 20, 2005

Very much season's spirit in that, Erik, and made me smile -- Alf is getting something he deserves I think, for his good spirit too

.

Best wishes of the times to each of you, of course L. and Joe just as much. Joe, I think your 'dog food' was Friskies this time, but no matter

.

A peaceful night....

Clive

Erik Magnuson said:
DaSigmaGuy said:

Member said:

I will be the first to agree that Alf can be a royal pain in the
äss.

Click to expand...

I can assure you no Donkeys have ever been hurt by my replies!

Click to expand...

Since you are actually a subject of a royal, my first thought was:

"By Appointment of Her Majesty the Queen, Alf DaSigmaGuy is hereby
designated the official supplier of Sigma/MF lens expertise and
unwavering Sigma loyalty..."

--
Erik

marf · Dec 20, 2005

I was reading everything, will not add more posts
except ... if Sigma builds a four thirds camera, then it may
be possible that I am again interrested in sigma cams,
one of the two positive things I remember from my SD10 was
the perfect dynamic range.
--
cheers
Martin F

--------------------------------------------
My equipment is in my profile.
Sorry if there are typing errors in my texts.
I usually do not check that before sending.

Frits Thomsen · Dec 20, 2005

marf said:
I was reading everything, will not add more posts
except ... if Sigma builds a four thirds camera, then it may
be possible that I am again interrested in sigma cams,
one of the two positive things I remember from my SD10 was
the perfect dynamic range.

And what was the other positive thing ???

marf said:
cheers
Martin F

--------------------------------------------
My equipment is in my profile.
Sorry if there are typing errors in my texts.
I usually do not check that before sending.

--
Frits Thomsen
See my pictures at
http://www.pbase.com/yoicz

marf · Dec 20, 2005

--
c

JohnClif · Dec 20, 2005

Manikin said:
I have to ask 'why?' Why restrict yourself to MF lenses on a AF
body (with the handicaps of a smaller VF and MF and stopped down
metering)

The "handicap" of a smaller VF exist regardless of the lens you're using; the viewfinder size is fixed by the camera body.

Re MF versus AF, I have found that for many subjects I can manually focus better than the camera's AF. I know what the 'center of focus' should be and I don't want to have to center it in my viewfinder. Also, I've tested many AF camera bodies and all are subject to at least a little AF inaccuracy at times. I find myself using MF even with my AF lenses.

Re stopped down metering, I use the aperture-priority mode with my Sigma SD10, by first setting the exposure comp to the # of f-stops between f/1 and my lens' max aperture, e.g., +1 for my 50/1.4, leave the camera body's aperture set to f/1, and then I can just aim and shoot. Often the light is bright enough for me to focus and shoot stopped down; if not, I use the 'manual/auto' switch on the lens to open the aperture, then I focus and compose, switch back to 'manual' on the lens to stop down, and then take the picture. Easier done then said.

Manikin said:
I'm a simple guy: I come on here to learn. I have the OM adaptor
for 4/3rds but once I caught on to the imprecticalities of using it
(and OM glass) on my body it soons lost it's appeal. In fact, when
you have to close up the 50/1.8 by 2 stops so's not to degrade
image quality, I'm finding myself thinking 'what the f... are these
guys masochists? Y'know, purposely doing things the hard way for no
other reaso that 'bcos they can'.

Why do you have to stop down your 50/1.8 by two stops to "not degrade image quality?" Sounds like a lens problem to me. My M42 Pentax SM Tak 50/1.4 has no image problem wide open (although it DOES have an extremely narrow depth of field). I tend to shoot at f/4 to f/8 most of the time, but the wide aperture makes it ridiculously easy to focus.

Manikin said:
Why do you prefer MF and ignore the proper sigma AF gear?

Why do I like M42 lenses? Because I am AMAZED at the quality of lens I can buy for 10 to 25 cents on the dollar compared to a new Sigma EX lens. My Pentax SM Tak 50/1.4 is the sharpest lens I own; it's sharper than Sigma's 50/2.8 EX macro for about 20% of the cost. Plus I can use cheap extension tubes to get better than 1:1 macro shots. Try using an extension tube with the Sigma... wait, they don't make extension tubes! (They should! But that might dig into the sales of the 105, 150, and 180mm macros).

If I owned an Oly 4/3rds camera system, I'd probably look at buying some cheap wide-angle M42 lenses and use 'em with an M42-4/3rds adapter. Or, I'd throw on a good Pentax or Sonnar 135mm or 200mm lens for a bright, sharp telephoto.

I have to admit that folks like Alf and others opened my eyes to the possibilities of M42 lenses. Perhaps the best thing about these lenses is that if I decide to go to some other brand for my next dSLR I can STILL use the M42 lenses with an adapter... unlike my 70-200/2.8 EX or my 50/2.8 EX macro.

--
'Do you think a man can change his destiny?'
'I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed.'

Joseph S Wisniewski · Dec 20, 2005

Manikin said:
.. the vagaries of the mind can reduce a going concern with it's
own in-house magazine into a one-man basement operation! My
partners always used to say I do talk shxte sometimes!

Hey, that happens.

Birger mounts are popular with those uf us doing industrial camera. We had them in the old lab...

--
Detroit Reds Wings - Original Six Hockey with Motown Style!
Twenty two, nine, and three, we're back on track!
Ottawa is a fluke, the cup is coming home to Detroit!

Detroit Pistons - Nineteen and Three!
Number 1 in the NBA!

Detroit Lions - Third from the bottom, and we will take it!
Four and ten, even when when we lose, we do it right.

(I remember the 'good old days' of the net, when any signature over four lines was considered 'rude')

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski · Dec 20, 2005

DaSonyGuy said:
1) Cost:
2) Sharpness and lack of CA:
3) Ease of use:

OK, maybe not on "ease of use". I go back and fourth between AF and MF lenses on my Nikons, and I do prefer AF, and wide open metering.

Stop down metering reminds me of the screw mount Vivitar 220 SLR that I had when I was 13.

DaSonyGuy said:
4) Did I mention cost?

My M645 80mm f2.8 is amazingly sharp (Simply great for portraits!),
very well built, reasonably small and light and it only cost me 59
pounds, about half the price of a "cheapo" Sigma DC kit lens!

Which brings us to....

5) It helps fill "holes" in the Sigma lineup. One of my biggest complaints about the Sigma lens line is that there isn't a lens in it that I like for portraits. Alf's medium format lens, or a used, affordable, manual focus Nikon, Pentax, heck there are Zeiss bargains out there, really helps.

--
Detroit Reds Wings - Original Six Hockey with Motown Style!
Twenty two, nine, and three, we're back on track!
Ottawa is a fluke, the cup is coming home to Detroit!

Detroit Pistons - Nineteen and Three!
Number 1 in the NBA!

Detroit Lions - Third from the bottom, and we will take it!
Four and ten, even when when we lose, we do it right.

(I remember the 'good old days' of the net, when any signature over four lines was considered 'rude')

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Erik Magnuson · Dec 20, 2005

JohnClif said:
The "handicap" of a smaller VF exist regardless of the lens you're
using; the viewfinder size is fixed by the camera body.

I think that the point is that the combination of the smaller VF with a brighter screen makes using MF lenses harder than it used to be back when the MF lenses were designed. The current bodies have compromises that favor AF.

JohnClif said:
Sounds like a lens problem to me. My M42
Pentax SM Tak 50/1.4 has no image problem wide open

I'd bet it does. 50mm lenses have not changed very much over the years. That lens is probably similar to the modern Pentax SMC-FA 50/1,4. Check out the photodo.com measurements for this lens. The MTF at 40lp/mm at f1.4 is in the 30% range as opposed to 75% at f/8. And you will see similar performance degradation for all of the major 50mm f/1.x lenses -- both MF and AF. Even one stop down improves the score of all of these lenses by quite a bit. Most of us knew this back in the film days, but we were more willing to trade some sharpness for more light.

JohnClif said:
If I owned an Oly 4/3rds camera system, I'd probably look at buying
some cheap wide-angle M42 lenses and use 'em with an M42-4/3rds
adapter.

IIRC, cheap wides (which would be normals on the 4/3) in those days were typically neither fast nor good unless well stopped down. And if you really wanted wide on 4/3 (e.g. 15mm or less), then it gets even worse.

--
Erik

Jay Turberville · Dec 20, 2005

JohnClif said:
If I owned an Oly 4/3rds camera system, I'd probably look at buying
some cheap wide-angle M42 lenses and use 'em with an M42-4/3rds
adapter. Or, I'd throw on a good Pentax or Sonnar 135mm or 200mm
lens for a bright, sharp telephoto.

I just shot about 800 pictures at the USATT Nationals (table tennis) using an E-500. I'd have loved to have had a fast, sharp 50mm and an m42 to 4/3s adapter. As it was, I found it easier to get good results when shooting wide open and using manual focus and manual exposure. I expect a mechanically focusing lens to be even better than the "fly-by-wire" manual focus of the Oly lenses.

JohnClif said:
I have to admit that folks like Alf and others opened my eyes to
the possibilities of M42 lenses. Perhaps the best thing about these
lenses is that if I decide to go to some other brand for my next
dSLR I can STILL use the M42 lenses with an adapter... unlike my
70-200/2.8 EX or my 50/2.8 EX macro.

I'm really hoping that Sigma delivers a camera with a higher resolution Foveon sensor (at an affordable price). I could then use the M42 lenses I expect to collect for use on the E-500 on the new Sigma as well.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

JohnClif · Dec 20, 2005

Erik Magnuson said:
Member said:

Sounds like a lens problem to me. My M42
Pentax SM Tak 50/1.4 has no image problem wide open

Click to expand...

I'd bet it does. 50mm lenses have not changed very much over the
years. That lens is probably similar to the modern Pentax SMC-FA
50/1,4. Check out the photodo.com measurements for this lens. The
MTF at 40lp/mm at f1.4 is in the 30% range as opposed to 75% at
f/8. And you will see similar performance degradation for all of
the major 50mm f/1.x lenses -- both MF and AF. Even one stop down
improves the score of all of these lenses by quite a bit. Most of
us knew this back in the film days, but we were more willing to
trade some sharpness for more light.

Most of the time, when you're using a 50/1.4 wide open in a real-life situation (as opposed to taking a picture of a resolution target), the subject is in the foreground and the background is far enough away so that the lack of depth-of-field covers up any lack of resolving ability.

You are right in that these lenses sharpen up remarkably at f/2.8 and above, but for that specific low-light close-range candid the performance wide-open is adequate.

Member said:
Member said:

If I owned an Oly 4/3rds camera system, I'd probably look at buying
some cheap wide-angle M42 lenses and use 'em with an M42-4/3rds
adapter.

Click to expand...

IIRC, cheap wides (which would be normals on the 4/3) in those days
were typically neither fast nor good unless well stopped down. And
if you really wanted wide on 4/3 (e.g. 15mm or less), then it gets
even worse.

Yep, not a lot of great choices... but are there a lot of great choices with Oly lenses? Shooting a M42 fisheye at f/8 to f/11 will be good enough... and you'll have lots of change in your pocket.

BTW, the 2x crop factor is one reason I'm not a big fan of the 4/3rds system. I actually think that 1.3 to 1.4x is optimal.

--
'Do you think a man can change his destiny?'
'I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed.'

Just Looking · Dec 20, 2005

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
Just Looking said:

But seriously, that's an interesting patent, all about making the
lens mount opening big enough to use a nearly-telecentric lens on a
predetermined sensor size. Is there any chance this is valid?
Wouldn't any old big-bellows view camera with a smaller film back
be the prior art to knock it out? Where is the novelty?

Click to expand...

Interesting defence. The patent claims a combination of the 4:3
aspect ratio, interchangable lenses, and a certain ratio of lens
mount size to image diagonal.

There are medium format digital backs with a 4:3 aspect ratio, and
adapters to place them on a large format camera, but one would have
to argue that the changable lens board, not the screw in mount in
the middle of the board, constituted the "lens side mount portion
for attaching the interchangeable lens to said camera body"

Exactly. The claim reads on the prior art, so it can't be valid. I didn't see any claims that looked novel. Just including a specific numerical parameter like 4:3 is not enough to establish novelty so it's pretty irrelevant (and not part of some other claims).

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

And where do you (I mean he) find evidence of this aggressive defense?

Click to expand...

Something I learned a long time ago, when it comes to dealing with
intellectual property. Ask. If they say no, go through different
channels in the same company until you find someone who says yes,
or until you' get tired or have asked everyone in authority.

If you ask, and no one replies, ask again, and keep asking
different people until someone says "no". If you persistantly ask
multiple people, including their corporate concil marketing folks,
and any management people you can correl, and you can't get anyone
to give you a "yes or no" answer, don't proceed: because they're
going to play the "plausable deniability" hand, and will get
agressive if you do launch a product.

I see. They wouldn't answer your request, which implies they are aggressively defending their patent. I'd say more like they're passively hoping people will be put off by the patent, because it's not defensible.

j

Mark Thornton · Dec 31, 2005

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
You built those. I could built them for four thirds. Or take a 4/3
T mount and use a medium format to T adapter (those exist, off the

Does anyone make a 4/3 T mount yet?

(Sorry to comment to such an old thread.)

paulbod3 · Jan 10, 2006

It might even be possible an AF adapter, mixing mounts from different brands but mantaining AF>

Say Canon or Nikon lens, 4/3rds body and an adapter that mantains af contacts.

wepwawet · Jan 10, 2006

The 4/3rds system is still in its infancy. I for one would not feel confident investing too much money in it until its gets a reasonably large community (Olly releasing a new 4/3rds pro body would help here!).
If you want a respectable lens mount that's probably here to stay, go Nikon.
--
Wepwawet
----------------

Please visit my gallery: http://www.mpibpc.mpg.de/abteilungen/071/start/people/bbouvie/gallery/

Jay Turberville · Jan 10, 2006

Member said:
I'd bet it does. 50mm lenses have not changed very much over the
years. That lens is probably similar to the modern Pentax SMC-FA
50/1,4. Check out the photodo.com measurements for this lens. The
MTF at 40lp/mm at f1.4 is in the 30% range as opposed to 75% at
f/8. And you will see similar performance degradation for all of
the major 50mm f/1.x lenses -- both MF and AF. Even one stop down
improves the score of all of these lenses by quite a bit. Most of
us knew this back in the film days, but we were more willing to
trade some sharpness for more light.

No doubt John is exaggerating a bit, but it does seem like the 50mm f/1.4 Takumar is an exceptional example of a 50mm f/1.4 design.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/238813/0

It is hard to find anything but praises for this lens.

Member said:
Member said:

If I owned an Oly 4/3rds camera system, I'd probably look at buying
some cheap wide-angle M42 lenses and use 'em with an M42-4/3rds
adapter.

Click to expand...

IIRC, cheap wides (which would be normals on the 4/3) in those days
were typically neither fast nor good unless well stopped down. And
if you really wanted wide on 4/3 (e.g. 15mm or less), then it gets
even worse.

Well heck, where are you even going to get a fast normal for the 4/3 system?

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

4/3 and SA delimma

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts