you really are struggling here, that lens isnt an Olympus product, Olympus were not on the list of manufacturers to whom Ludicrous Landscapes 'Open Letter' was addressed
meh 18 months old
if people dont wan to be associated with the 'sisters' they can always change their minds
yeah i mean
You mean, since then many things have changed, and what JW did say then is by now utterly irrelevant? Or why else in this context does 18 months make difference?
This is yet the strangest quibble I have read from you.if people dont wan to be associated with the 'sisters' they can always change their minds
sister
Exposure is expressed in T stops and maked as such on the lens, but we still use F-stops for geometric calculations like FOV and DOF. Those parameters don't change with the light loss.
Now that you said that, it totally makes sense.
Cine lenses are click-less and continually variable. When the lens is stopped down, unlike an SLR, it's stopped down even when the camera isn't running / recording.
It's certainly common to run more than one camera on a scene. To be totally honest, worrying about T stops Vs F stops is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. I'm sure that it never amounts to more than 0.3ev and more likely 0.1ev difference.
Let's think about this. The f/2 on FT gives the same DOF as f/4 on FF. f/2 on FT might come out as T2.2 or such. Two stops versus a fraction of a stop - a bit of a difference.
Yes, that sounds reasonable if we're talking about the t-stop of the lens in itself, but what if we're talking about the combined 't-stop' for the lens/sensor (or lens/microlenses)? If the microlenses are to 'slow', won't the sensor/microlens then 'see' a smaller 'effective' aperture, and won't that affect DoF? Won't the f-stop of the microlens determine how shallow the DoF can get? (just speculating, don't think it's quite clear yet, to me at least, whether DoF is affected or not by this 'pixel-vignetting')
It's not necessarily as straight forward as that (though in practice it is). There was a suggestion by Andy Westlake that these effects would affect the size of the blur circle - presumably round the edges of the circle, the amount of light collected per pixel would be less so the size of the circle would effectively be diminished. Andy produced an example here:
See my response here:
You said it yourself. The exposure time would be shorter, if the f-number and scene luminance was the same (which I assume is what you meant), the exposure would be smaller, hence more noise.
the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, it is fixed when the thing is manufactured. One sensor (the new Aptina) has dual sensitivity, but apart from that, it's fixed.
the extra electronic noise
The reverse is true, since the electronic noise is the same and the gain is higher, when compared and normalised against photon noise, the electronic noise drops.
It has everything to do with the light and time (and f-number), in fact the exposure, and nothing to do with the quality of the sensor at that ISO, since the quality fo teh sensor never changes,
No-one's stopping you.
Perhaps, though this isn't equivalence.
I don't know what you mean by a 'Leica Style Micro Lens System', but even having said this, the answer is 'no'. It is a property of the sensor, what counteracts it is making the microlenses faster. They need to be faster than the taking lens f-number times the silicon fill factor (how much of the silicon can collect light). So, if you want f/1.4=f1/1.4=f/1.4 and you have a silicon fill factor of 0.5 (half of the silicon active) the microlenses need to be f/0.7 or faster.
...you have that rather misplaced. Let's see if I can't help you out. You see, as I discussed earlier in the thread:
So has Joseph realized that he was in error in these past 18 months? Why don't you sport me a link.
Nah -- I think I'll stay associated with "sister" Joseph Wisniewski when it comes to lens design, thank you very much.if people dont wan to be associated with the 'sisters' they can always change their minds
sister
...it had nothing to do with me -- you weren't such a fan of me quoting Joseph Wisniewski upthread, either. But as technical knowledge goes, I quoting myself, or Joseph, or Bob, goes a long way to help people understand.
Interesting stuff. It appears that not even all 70-200 / 2.8s are necessarly "equivalent".
