Of course the lenses are different. The only similarity is the effective field of view.
You are right, but I think that what he means is: you can use 2 stops higher ISO on (for example) the D3/D700 and get the same results, because the sensor is so much bigger and S/N is so much better.
Well, I give up. In case you are really interested:
I don't understand what's going on in this discussion, but I'll just add... that the 4x as much light is spread over 4x the area so the INTENSITY of light is the same. That's why f4 is a non-dimensional measure.
I guess you mean their DSLRs. That's been pretty extreme and creates expectations of prices of new products to come down a lot in the future too, which is bad for them.
Lumix is now the #1 selling brand in France (and also in Sweden there is a lot of interest for Lumix compacts) but in the US, they had not made the inroads they had hoped for, so the pricing could reflect where they are most keen to grow.
The Nikon was 700 for a long time, IIRC. The Lumix has the stepless aperture and video AF over the Nikkor. So from a video perspective the price may be defended (especially when bought in a kit). But for someone buying one for their G1, the price seems steep.
Depends on what they mean by "HD". According to a graph, the 7-14 is almost as silent as the 14-140. Since AF or MF is hardly an issue with the 7-14, I wouldn't hesitate to use it for video.
I'm not surprised, but what graph are you talking about, Greg?
I think HD also means continuous aperture. Now, I don't think that would have to add very much to the price of a lens, but it's a least one thing they can point to when trying to charge a high price.
This one:
Yes, but actually the 7-14 is noisier then the 14-140 in this regard, but then again, most people wouldn't have any problems MF-ing this lens.
Good point, I got a bit carried away when I saw the noise level of the aperture is the same as the HD lens, but you are right, this doesn't necessarily mean they use the same continuous mechanism.I think HD also means continuous aperture. Now, I don't think that
would have to add very much to the price of a lens, but it's a least
one thing they can point to when trying to charge a high price.
The 7-14 lens can maintain a constant f/4 aperture over the entire zoom range, so the continuous aperture adjustment capability of the 14-140 lens isn't as important.I think HD also means continuous aperture. Now, I don't think that
would have to add very much to the price of a lens, but it's a least
one thing they can point to when trying to charge a high price.
Maybe my ears aren't what they once were, but I've never noticed any sound at all coming from my "noisy" 14-45 lens during focusing. I realize the microphone is much closer to the lens than my ears are, but would it really pick up that much sound?
I'm not sure what you mean. When you zoom in with the 14-140 the aperture blades don't move (most likely) even though the f-number increases. The continuous aperture mechanism is useful when the exposure changes, eg. pnning, change in the lighting conditions, or deliberate overriding EV+ -. These conditions also occur when shooting UWA.The 7-14 lens can maintain a constant f/4 aperture over the entireI think HD also means continuous aperture. Now, I don't think that
would have to add very much to the price of a lens, but it's a least
one thing they can point to when trying to charge a high price.
zoom range, so the continuous aperture adjustment capability of the
14-140 lens isn't as important.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing, 46 db is equivalent to a dishwasher! These db readings are probably measured extremely close to make them look more dramatic than they really are. But personally, even if these lenses sounded like firecrackers when stopped down, I don't think it would stop me from using them for video. The true advantage of of this infamous new continuous mechanism is the elimination of the annoying 'EV shifts'.Maybe my ears aren't what they once were, but I've never noticed any
sound at all coming from my "noisy" 14-45 lens during focusing. I
realize the microphone is much closer to the lens than my ears are,
but would it really pick up that much sound?
I was forgetting that the f/4 aperture isn't a constant diameter, but varies by focal length. So the constant f/4 of the 7-14 would actually require moving the blades as you zoom. My mistake.
Like Greg said, the aperture blades only move when you actively stop down (or up).
Yes. The logical place to measure would be at the built-in microphones.
A good thing would be if the noise was confined to a narrow band of frequencies, similar to a sine wave. Then it would be possible to tidy up the audio with a band-reject filter without too much damage to the rest of the sound.
As seen with the D90 demo movie in the D90 review on this site.
Well, not necessarily. It depends on the design. The 7-14 looks like an IF (internal focusing) lens. So it depends on the moving elements and where the aperture blades are placed. I don't think we can tell for sure until somebody gets a closer look. But your reasoning is correct had it been a protruding zoom design (like the 14-140).
Well, good question. I haven't though about that too much, since I've never used a video camera in manual mode, not to mention, mortals haven't had to opportunity to shoot motion pictures with (effective) DOF control before! 8mm film, an all these sub 1/2" sensors are almost hyperfocal. I'm not even sure if most mini-DV cams have real aperture blades or simply ND filters.
Thanks (and also thanks to Ehrik) for setting me straight. I know little about lens design (obviously).
