Reading mode: Light Dark

Folks..it just doesn't happen (to me anyway)..you?

Go to last post
We now start to discuss in the 'had they', 'very likely' and 'full frame' domain which is useless at best.

You can always crank more megapixel out of a lense which should not be confused with resolution. The Canon G10/G11 story is telling in this respect.

Show me good examples of the Canon 300 f4 wide open on the 7D at 100%.
Rikke Rask said:
Andreas,

Lenstip.com has measured about 50 line pairs per millimeter with the ZD 150/2. That means 665 line pairs per picture height.

They have measured about 40 line pairs per millimeter with the Canon 300/4 IS on a 20D. Had they used a 5D2 or 1Ds3 they would very likely have gotten a higher MTF50 value.

But let's go with the 40 lp/mm figure. On FF that means 960 line pairs per picture height. More than 40% better than the Oly result and very likely it would actually be even better on the bodies I mentioned.

We have established that we get more resolution with the Canon 300/4 IS on FF. Despite the Canon being both lighter and cheaper. Furthermore we can put 21 MP behind it with a 5D2 or 1Ds3, whereas we can only put 12.3 MP behind the ZD at the moment.

--
Rikke
Click to expand...
--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski
 
light_bulb said:
Rikke, it was you who mentioned (somewhere above) that you usually do not practice tele photography.
Click to expand...
"Usually" is the operating word. I did not say "never". I have ample experience.
light_bulb said:
If I can take serious what you are writing here, then I will not have to meet you to know about it.
Click to expand...
You can, but you will have to pay attention to what is written. Look above.
light_bulb said:
I do a lot of tele and close up work using the ZD 150 f2 including the ECs 14 and 20 as well as the extension tube EX25. This combination is very versatile and flexible and offers substantial quality considering its price and bulk.
Click to expand...
And I showed you that it is heavier than comparable solutions from other vendors. It is also a more expensive lens. The EC20 is also far more expensive than the Canon 2x EF Extender II. On top of that, you have also been shown that you get less resolution in the final image with the Olympus solution.
light_bulb said:
So don't try teaching me.
Click to expand...
Stop spreading gibberish. You have made errors is basically all your posts in this thread. Errors that clearly indicate lack of knowledge. Yet you dare talk about other peoples experience. There are words for that but they can't be used in polite company.

--
Rikke
 
light_bulb said:
We now start to discuss in the 'had they', 'very likely' and 'full frame' domain which is useless at best.
Click to expand...
No. See below.
light_bulb said:
You can always crank more megapixel out of a lense which should not be confused with resolution.
Click to expand...
More megapixels always make you get more out of the lens. Period.

The MTF50 value will not be worse with a 21 MP FF sensor compared to an 8.2 MP 1.6x crop sensor.
light_bulb said:
Show me good examples of the Canon 300 f4 wide open on the 7D at 100%.
Click to expand...
How the heck did the 7D enter the equation? I talked about 5DII (and 1DsIII).

--
Rikke
 
You have demonstrated nothing but simply extended on your spec sheet logic.

You have even failed to refer to the fact that more DOF can be desireable (which you should be familiar with based on your experience with medium format).

You are one of the ones frequently advertising other systems on this forum for whatever reason.
Rikke Rask said:
light_bulb said:
Rikke, it was you who mentioned (somewhere above) that you usually do not practice tele photography.
Click to expand...
"Usually" is the operating word. I did not say "never". I have ample experience.
Josefin said:
If I can take serious what you are writing here, then I will not have to meet you to know about it.
Click to expand...
You can, but you will have to pay attention to what is written. Look above.
Josefin said:
I do a lot of tele and close up work using the ZD 150 f2 including the ECs 14 and 20 as well as the extension tube EX25. This combination is very versatile and flexible and offers substantial quality considering its price and bulk.
Click to expand...
And I showed you that it is heavier than comparable solutions from other vendors. It is also a more expensive lens. The EC20 is also far more expensive than the Canon 2x EF Extender II. On top of that, you have also been shown that you get less resolution in the final image with the Olympus solution.
Josefin said:
So don't try teaching me.
Click to expand...
Stop spreading gibberish. You have made errors is basically all your posts in this thread. Errors that clearly indicate lack of knowledge. Yet you dare talk about other peoples experience. There are words for that but they can't be used in polite company.

--
Rikke
Click to expand...
--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski
 
billyy said:
this rates as WHO CARES.

This thread is exact proof of whats wrong with this forum.

If i were a mod, are there even mods on this forum, I would ban anyone who comes into threads like you do so often.
Click to expand...
Are threads not there for people to contribute to? I thought that was the idea, but maybe I've got it wrong.

In any case, one of the reasons I'm here so often is responding to posts like this.
 
The whole thing works like this: if the 7Ds do not do the 'job' then switching to 'full frame' will. You have to stick to something and stay with it for proper comparison.

Full frame means much less reach in tele work and very bulky equipment for the same reach. And do not come with cropping. Who carries all that bulk in order to regularly crop must be mad.
Rikke Rask said:
light_bulb said:
We now start to discuss in the 'had they', 'very likely' and 'full frame' domain which is useless at best.
Click to expand...
No. See below.
Josefin said:
You can always crank more megapixel out of a lense which should not be confused with resolution.
Click to expand...
More megapixels always make you get more out of the lens. Period.

The MTF50 value will not be worse with a 21 MP FF sensor compared to an 8.2 MP 1.6x crop sensor.
Josefin said:
Show me good examples of the Canon 300 f4 wide open on the 7D at 100%.
Click to expand...
How the heck did the 7D enter the equation? I talked about 5DII (and 1DsIII).

--
Rikke
Click to expand...
--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski
 
Bootstrap said:
it would be funny.
My screen capture of half of this thread.

Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you're doing what you're doing. Ignoring the people who know what they're talking about but letting through the abusive idiots doesn't seem the best way to go about things.
But everyone has their own way, I suppose.
 
light_bulb said:
You have even failed to refer to the fact that more DOF can be desireable (which you should be familiar with based on your experience with medium format).
Click to expand...
You can achieve the same deep DOF with other systems. If you can't find a lens that stops down far enough, use a shorter focal length and add a tele converter.

For example, the ZD 150 stops down to f/22. The Canon 300/4 only stops down to f/32 but it would need to stop down to f/44 to get the same DOF as the Zuiko.

A solution could be to use a 200/2 or 200/2.8 with a 1.4x TC. Instant 280 mm with a minimum aperture of f/45.3.

Why anybody in they right mind would stop that far down is another question, but hey, horses for courses.
light_bulb said:
You are one of the ones frequently advertising other systems on this forum for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
I am not advertising anything. I am countering ignorance and fanboyism. This may surprise you, but I happen to think the E-3 is a very nice camera.

--
Rikke
 
light_bulb said:
The whole thing works like this: if the 7Ds do not do the 'job' then switching to 'full frame' will. You have to stick to something and stay with it for proper comparison.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it usually goes the other way around. Most people looking for more reach go or the smaller format because the smaller formats usually have the highest pixel density (for a given generation of camera). A 500 / 4L IS on 1.6x, for example, is much smaller, lighter, and less expensive than an 800 / 5.6L IS on FF.

In any case, the 300 / 4L IS on 1.6x is equivalent to a 240 / 3.2 on 4/3, not a 150 / 2. It is close, however, to a 150 / 2 + 1.4x TC on 4/3 which gives results in 210mm f/2.8.
light_bulb said:
Full frame means much less reach in tele work and very bulky equipment for the same reach. And do not come with cropping.
Click to expand...
Well, using FF and cropping as necessary would make perfect sense if FF has the same pixel density as the smaller formats.
light_bulb said:
Who carries all that bulk in order to regularly crop must be mad.
Click to expand...
One could say that anyone that buys a 150 / 2 over a 50-200 / 2.8-3.5 is similarly mad. Anyway, here's some more reading on the subject of the lens vs sensor in terms of resolution:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#lensvssensor
 
light_bulb said:
The whole thing works like this: if the 7Ds do not do the 'job' then switching to 'full frame' will. You have to stick to something and stay with it for proper comparison.
Click to expand...
I did. I stuck to FF. You suddenly brought the 7D into the discussion.
light_bulb said:
Full frame means much less reach in tele work and very bulky equipment for the same reach. And do not come with cropping. Who carries all that bulk in order to regularly crop must be mad.
Click to expand...
Andreas, I compared the ZD 150 to 300 mm on FF precisely because they have equivalent focal lengths.

It turned out that the 300 mm f/4s, which happen to be the FF equivalents of the ZD 150, are lighter and at least one of them yields more line pairs per picture height on FF than the ZD 150 does on 4/3.

Add to that that the chosen 21 MP pixel FF bodies gives you the ability to crop and still put at least as many pixels behind the lens as an E-30. They actually have potentially more reach.

A 300/2.8 on FF is not the equivalent of the ZD 150/2. It is the equivalent of something that doesn't exist. A 4/3 150/1.4. Now that would be a true monster.
--
Rikke
 
Rikke Rask said:
Tyrone Wellhung said:
I'm not sure why you're doing what you're doing. Ignoring the people who know what they're talking about but letting through the abusive idiots doesn't seem the best way to go about things.
Click to expand...
Where does that put poor Steen?
Click to expand...
I didn't say letting through only abusive idiots. Anyhow, it only requires one of Steen's lucid insights and he'll be being ignored too.
 
Rikke Rask said:
A 300/2.8 on FF is not the equivalent of the ZD 150/2. It is the equivalent of something that doesn't exist. A 4/3 150/1.4. Now that would be a true monster.
Click to expand...
As is pointed out here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=36013175

we can make our lens collections sound much more impressive by quoting them in P&S equivalents. My 300/4 is equivalent to a 64/0.85 on a Canon G11, the 150/2 is equivalent to a 32/0.42 - now that's impressive.
 
light_bulb said:
Full frame means much less reach in tele work and very bulky equipment for the same reach.
Click to expand...
Let's try another approach:

E-3 + BLM-1 + EC1.4 + EC20 + ZD150 = 2,745 g (without tripod adapter)
E-30 + BLM-1 + EC1.4 + EC20 + ZD150 = 2,590 g (without tripod adapter)

5D2 + LP-E6 + 1.4x + 2x + 300/4 IS = 2,565 g (including tripod adapter, I think)

Very bulky, maybe, but certainly not heavier. And the 21 MP gives you some added possibilities compared to 10 or 12.3. And you get more line pairs per picture height to boot.

I don't think Olympus really delivers in this domain.

--
Rikke
 
Rikke Rask said:
light_bulb said:
You have even failed to refer to the fact that more DOF can be desireable (which you should be familiar with based on your experience with medium format).
Click to expand...
You can achieve the same deep DOF with other systems. If you can't find a lens that stops down far enough, use a shorter focal length and add a tele converter.

For example, the ZD 150 stops down to f/22. The Canon 300/4 only stops down to f/32 but it would need to stop down to f/44 to get the same DOF as the Zuiko.

A solution could be to use a 200/2 or 200/2.8 with a 1.4x TC. Instant 280 mm with a minimum aperture of f/45.3.

Why anybody in they right mind would stop that far down is another question, but hey, horses for courses.
Click to expand...
The reason they don't stop down so far is because the designers think that critical users wouldn't want to subject themselves to that much diffraction blur. Old MF Nikkors would only stop down to f/16, while everyone else went to f/22 - Nippon Kogaku's argument was always that they had higher standards. Olympus seems to believe its users are up for more than twice the diffraction blur of old Nikon users, and by what is said on these forums, they got it about right.

To offer f/22 on FT, where the apertures are half the size, of course requires more precision engineering, and the observation that some of the Zuikos don't suffer quite as much diffraction as they ought suggests they aren't actually closing to the stated f-number.
 
Where I am not interested in less DOF something that offer less of it can by no means be equivalent, whatever the world famous 'EQUIVALENCE THEORY' that everybody has to obey is telling us.

Hardly any pros use full frame for tele action shots. Based on your reasoning they must be plain wrong.

I do not want a ZD 150 that offers the same DOF as the 300 2,8 on full frame. I am interested in speed and image quality at lower cost and bulk combined with a shorter minimum focussing distance.

I don't know why this is so hard to digest to some.

I will finnish this discusion here as it is useless.
Rikke Rask said:
light_bulb said:
The whole thing works like this: if the 7Ds do not do the 'job' then switching to 'full frame' will. You have to stick to something and stay with it for proper comparison.
Click to expand...
I did. I stuck to FF. You suddenly brought the 7D into the discussion.
Josefin said:
Full frame means much less reach in tele work and very bulky equipment for the same reach. And do not come with cropping. Who carries all that bulk in order to regularly crop must be mad.
Click to expand...
Andreas, I compared the ZD 150 to 300 mm on FF precisely because they have equivalent focal lengths.

It turned out that the 300 mm f/4s, which happen to be the FF equivalents of the ZD 150, are lighter and at least one of them yields more line pairs per picture height on FF than the ZD 150 does on 4/3.

Add to that that the chosen 21 MP pixel FF bodies gives you the ability to crop and still put at least as many pixels behind the lens as an E-30. They actually have potentially more reach.

A 300/2.8 on FF is not the equivalent of the ZD 150/2. It is the equivalent of something that doesn't exist. A 4/3 150/1.4. Now that would be a true monster.
--
Rikke
Click to expand...
--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski
 
Rikke Rask said:
light_bulb said:
Full frame means much less reach in tele work and very bulky equipment for the same reach.
Click to expand...
Let's try another approach:

E-3 + BLM-1 + EC1.4 + EC20 + ZD150 = 2,745 g (without tripod adapter)
E-30 + BLM-1 + EC1.4 + EC20 + ZD150 = 2,590 g (without tripod adapter)

5D2 + LP-E6 + 1.4x + 2x + 300/4 IS = 2,565 g (including tripod adapter, I think)

Very bulky, maybe, but certainly not heavier. And the 21 MP gives you some added possibilities compared to 10 or 12.3. And you get more line pairs per picture height to boot.

I don't think Olympus really delivers in this domain.
Click to expand...
What you fail to point out is that the Zuiko is 150mmx100mm against the Canon's 221x90. So the Zuiko is nearly three inches shorter, by my standards not much, but by everyone else's substantial.

Of course, we could look at bounding box size, in which case the Zuiko occupies 1500ml while the Canon occupies 1782ml. That's 282ml more, almost exactly half a pint .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top