Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Several times faster than than, @wide open (I tried very hard to find wide aperture images with something in the corner.),
Please find more realistic examples next time.
--
- sergey
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Defining a 'fast' lens
- Thread starter Great Bustard
- Start date
Please find more realistic examples next time.
--
- sergey
Why would you consider this hateful and who do you mean by 'us' anyway?
Personally, I would still consider them fast within their size class. That's what the f-number tells you, because things generally get very expensive as you creep towards f/1 (or f/0.7 really).
However, as a system they are about as fast as a 4/3 camera with kit lens (a bit faster because the 4/3 sensors are behind the curve) or a full frame camera at f/8. Not particularly fast, no.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Yeah, John, you do. Actually, not merely difficulty -- you appear incapable of understanding.
See what I mean? If you cannot understand that the portions of the photo outside the DOF are, by definition , not rendered sharply, then there's no hope for you.
It may be true of your preferred photographic "style". However, that does not for one instant make it true of all photography, which is what you are suggesting that we should all believe.
Let's demonstrate it with a more pretty pic where I stopped down to f/8 to get the DOF I needed to render the scene sharply from corner to corner (I've also posted this for you in the past):
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/60, ISO 100
Now what moron would think it would be sharp corner to corner wide open even if the lens tested sharp corner to corner on a flat surface? Figure it out, John. Please.
John, it is exactly as written.
I have a whole section on exactly those points:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#dof
That basically backs up everything I've said about your technical competence. Check out how you totally contradict yourself all over the place in these three posts:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=31041205
He thought the images from my E510 were every bit as good as those from his D300, and quite possibly better ... It looked very much that the E-510 had better detail in the highlights , specially the white printed areas on the tops of the bins.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33955043
I can assure you that the E-30 is very significantly better for both shadow and highlight detail than my E-510. It is also very, very difficult to blow highlights when using matrix metering for high DR scenes. This is so easy to do with my E-510, that I always use centre spot metering with this camera, except for rare occasions. With my E-510, the detail doesn't disappear into the shadows, it is just not there at all - i.e. its DR is far less than that of my E-30.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33945834
BTW, the D300 does as well as the E-30/620 in JPEG and about the same in RAW, and 'holds' this to around ISO800 (truly a remarkable achievement, IMNSHO) - which is why it is my favourite Nikon body.
No, John, I'm afraid we're on two different planets any way you slice it. That's a good thing, by the way.
Here's you playing yourself the fool on exactly that point:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36479855
It seems that Dr Martin et al disagree with you here, as does almost everyone else ... He seems to be of the opinion that noise is predominantly a pixel-level phenomenon. AND it is very hard to see how it could be otherwise. Of course some (pink and white) noise is added in the attendant post sensor circuitry, but that's what electronics engineers and negative feedback loops are for ...
And now Dr. Martin's reply:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36482291
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Perhaps because the raw data of noise is pixel-level observations, which are the bulk of the data reported in the web article I wrote. But that is just a starting point for the further analysis of how pixel level noise relates to the perception of noise in an image. For that one should at the least take into account how to scale measurements of pixel level noise to noise at some fixed scale in the image, say for instance a fixed percentage of the image diagonal or picture height, or perhaps the circle of confusion. I have endeavored in writings here over the last year or so (basically since Phil's unfortunate blog article on pixel density) to stress the importance of the scaling of noise over fixation on pixel-level noise.
great bustard
think 10 years back, whether there were fast lenses or not.
at that time sensor size did not matter in terms of absolute light quantity and noise, but only to resolution and possibility to enlarge a photo.
and at that time shutter speed depended on film speed used and f-stop number of lens.
and at that time there were fast lenses. they were used to have fast shutter speeds in sports fotography and for nitghtlifefotos. and everybody used fast films if needed. they were available for any cam. and pepole were not talking a f/5.6 becoming a fast lens because of the fast film.
and there the "fast lens" expression is coming from ---> enabling at a given iso a fast shutter speed.
so do not confuse the term "fast lens"
everyone knowledgeable in fotography knows the impact of sensor size in usability of iso settings. and everyone knows that film speed or iso speed is to be distinguished from lens speed.
the actual speed you get by multiplication of lens speed with film speed.
if one would use the expression lens speed in the way you used it before and then does the multiplication of lens speed with film speed as he is used to do so, he would get a completely wrong result - the result would contain quadruple of film speed.
so, be happy that everyone knows that you use a large sensor camera, nearly larger than maximum format with minimum noise at iso 2 million. but please let him
understand this correctly by not confusing him with wrong lens speed.
lens speed is related to exposure, i.e. light quantity hitting each square millimeter of sensor, which then defins shutter speed at given iso.
best regards
gusti
think 10 years back, whether there were fast lenses or not.
at that time sensor size did not matter in terms of absolute light quantity and noise, but only to resolution and possibility to enlarge a photo.
and at that time shutter speed depended on film speed used and f-stop number of lens.
and at that time there were fast lenses. they were used to have fast shutter speeds in sports fotography and for nitghtlifefotos. and everybody used fast films if needed. they were available for any cam. and pepole were not talking a f/5.6 becoming a fast lens because of the fast film.
and there the "fast lens" expression is coming from ---> enabling at a given iso a fast shutter speed.
so do not confuse the term "fast lens"
everyone knowledgeable in fotography knows the impact of sensor size in usability of iso settings. and everyone knows that film speed or iso speed is to be distinguished from lens speed.
the actual speed you get by multiplication of lens speed with film speed.
if one would use the expression lens speed in the way you used it before and then does the multiplication of lens speed with film speed as he is used to do so, he would get a completely wrong result - the result would contain quadruple of film speed.
so, be happy that everyone knows that you use a large sensor camera, nearly larger than maximum format with minimum noise at iso 2 million. but please let him
understand this correctly by not confusing him with wrong lens speed.
lens speed is related to exposure, i.e. light quantity hitting each square millimeter of sensor, which then defins shutter speed at given iso.
best regards
gusti
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
whatever it says...I already addressed that:pity you didnt figure that out before blowing all that gold on f/ 1.2As I just discussed:cluelessI so agree on that. My 5D is what, four years old? I definitely deserve a D3s and Nikon lenses by now.
then you are to be surprised
nikon FF by its mount geometry isnt especially s suitable home for ultra fast glass
f/ 1.2 anyone ?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37229068
f/1.4 works just fine for me.
at least now you can flog it and get 10 more sigmas
ever closer to 28%
lawyers are like thatThe 70-200 / 2.8 EX DG Macro wasn't a duff lens, though, it's just that the Canon 70-200 / 2.8L non-IS I bought at the same time to compare it with was better, ironically at the two points that were supposed to be the strengths of the Sigma -- flare resistance and close focusing.
But not as much as these:minor crops appear to be more necessary more often with canon lenses
i guess we arent talking whole wheat, but it probably stresses the sewage system in a similar mannerI suppose I should say how much I like the grain.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=31572663
Me, too. Roel seemed to like them, though.
consider that without crime he'd be out of work
pretty far from that, i was more often left thinking, this is way out of context, why is it this dork cant see that
they usually involve what you would term 'entertainment, and what is really, 'character assassination'
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
No, John, it's the usual way things go with me when I'm talking to people who are photographers, technically competent, or otherwise unlike you.
The OP was in my name, and you came in just to pick a fight. Now that you've been battered up a bit, you leave. Not that I'm objecting, mind you, but I'm just saying that you should put me on your ignore list and not come in the first place. The same with your bud. It just makes so much more sense.
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
ok someone just messaged me this one from your link which rings of the something familiar to me, something i have also felt
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23701156
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23701156
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
You're wrong. Sensor size did matter. The DSLRs, with the larger sensors, had less noise than the compacts with the smaller sensors for the exact same reasons as today -- they gathered more light for the same exposure.
Film is different from digital in that film has a non-linear response to light, unlike a digital sensor which does have a linear response to light, and where the size of the "grain" is not pre-determined by chemistry.
I understand that.
I am not confusing the term. I am placing the term "fast" in context, where people feel that somehow an f/2 zoom on 4/3 is "superior" to an f/2.8 zoom on FF because it's "f/2". Not so.
Not everyone is knowledgeable, however.
I don't use the term "lens speed" when comparing different formats.
Except "lens speed" in a discussion between formats is rather meaningless in the way you put it, is it not? That's all I'm saying.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Please tell me you're not serious. That's the post I responded to in the link I gave in my post right above.
Really, Rriley. Really.
Just checking, because it sounded awfully like erdipurdi was attempting to speak on behalf of all forum users or Olympus users. I am both of those, so if he did mean it that way, consider this my request to speak for him/herself.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct one of the most common ant-Nikon brand bashes. Of course, this 'can't have Nikon lenses above f/1.4' thing is a story put around by mindless Canon fanboys (originally from Canon propaganda that the wider diameter of the EF mount allowed faster lenses), but gets taken up by other mindless fanboys when that think they'd like a bash at Nikon.cluelessI so agree on that. My 5D is what, four years old? I definitely deserve a D3s and Nikon lenses by now.
then you are to be surprised
nikon FF by its mount geometry isnt especially s suitable home for ultra fast glass
f/ 1.2 anyone ?
It is, of course, completely untrue. Nikon makes f/1.2 lenses in the F mount.
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/mf/normal/50mmf_12/index.htm
There was a post around here some time ago from an optics expert explaining that there was no real problem getting down to f/1.05 on the F mount:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=25518957
Edit: didn't read that post well enough - he's saying the F mount could get down to f/0.9
Just to clarify something, since I know how people interpret such comments. There is no doubt in my mind that the EF mount design is better than the F. I don't think that impacts the overall usability of the two brands' cameras a great deal, however.
--
Bob
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
i can be very serious
as you might expect
after all, you provided the link, and as usual the context about it says more than you say it does (which is really my point). I think the guy makes some points for the learned, after all children are not only within our control, but powerless to prevent this sort of soft exploitation.
i particularly felt the impact of
But i wondered how you felt about those comments he made, or if you ever even considered any of these salient points ?
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
as you might expect
thats what im told
after all, you provided the link, and as usual the context about it says more than you say it does (which is really my point). I think the guy makes some points for the learned, after all children are not only within our control, but powerless to prevent this sort of soft exploitation.
i particularly felt the impact of
it is a bit OT, but then you opened it up, and your threads always are since you dont have any 4/3rds gear to compare.
But i wondered how you felt about those comments he made, or if you ever even considered any of these salient points ?
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
John King
Forum Pro
Just as true here on the OSTF today as it was in 2007 in the Canon forum ...
You mean that you reallybelieve that it is OK for you to quote bits and pieces of 3 year old posts, but it's not alright for someone else to quote this post about you in its entirety?
BTW, I have been aware of that particular post for over a year now, but thought I would refrain from linking it ...
AND before you ask: No, I didn't send Riley the link.
--
-
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Except that my reply showed it to be total BS:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23703515
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Find'em and link'em. Please. I'll start by helping you. I'm gonna give links to all my threads in this forum in the past month (besides this one, of course):
"Bayer vs Foveon -- a different question" (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23699066
"Fine art prints" (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23676376
"5D newbie..." (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23611312
"Direct request for joe mama" (pics, but, duh, at the direct request of someone):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23633017
"Open letter to Canon" (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23552319
"Help with 5D and 580EX II" (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23560353
"What's the point of a 5D?" (pics to support a claim):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23440319
"135f2 or 85mm f1.8 for my 5d" (no pics but a link to an old thread with pics):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23485296
"Full frame or not?" (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23469312
"What are your 3 favoite lenses??" (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23464784
"5D vs. Olympus for macro photography" (links to pics supporting my answer):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23459646
"Canon 5d IQ compared to..." (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23421683
"Need a portrait lens for my new 5D..." (links to pics to supporting my answer):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23421036
"Shooting mode poll" (no pics at all):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23321267
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah -- in fact, every single one of your posts in this thread is OT . Same with your bud, John King. Isn't that something?
Hey! Maybe we can agree on something after all -- this thread is perfect to link back to when you want to show what a "dork" I am, and when I want to show what a, well, er, you know what I want to say, you and your bud are.
Well, that's pretty much every thread, actually, is it not?
I answered them all in my reply -- here's the link again:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23703515
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Once again, you live up to your reputation by missing the mark. Absolutely feel free to link and quote me! But when you come in with a link and quote that you were "just PMd" that was the post that I just posted a link to that I replied to, well, try not to make it sound like I was hiding something. I mean, please.
You know why you've been aware of it? Because I gave you the link:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/dprban/joemamaban.htm
You know when you quote my past IDs as if you're embarrasing me? You know where you got them? From my link:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/dprban/index.htm
So, spare me the "I got you" BS. I stand by everything I've ever written. Yes, I've made mistakes, and I'm not standing by the mistakes, but I've corrected them when they were pointed out to me, in stark contrast to you:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28665818
John got it wrong (re: plate formats), and when his error was pointed out, took zero time to investigate what the truth might be, but stoneheadedly kept to his original position in defiance of all available facts, and threw in some meaningless obfuscation for good measure,
Which is merely a simpler case of what Joe spent his time railing against--willful, indulgent ignorance that would rather fight than learn.
Not to mention all these:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36379784
Please -- entertain us by showing how they were maliciously quoted out of context. I'm particularly interested in how I got it wrong in this one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26759020
I thought we had shown that the 5D cannot even keep up with an E-510. The 40D compared to an E-3 is just laughable. ... ROTFL.
YOUR 5D with an f1.4/24 cannot even start to compare with my E-510 with the kit lenses ...
YES, let's stay on topic. Perhaps some of us should also stop trolling? That is to say, get out before the forum police?
I wasn't going to ask -- don't care.
John King
Forum Pro
Careful Joe, your Freudian slip AND your prejudices are showing ...
No. Just to educate you to try to help you overcome your obvious ignorance and prejudices ...
You try to beat me up behind my back, as usual, then claim that you were the victim all along.
What rot.
You are on my ignore list.
That way I only have to read the drivel you write once ...
However since you generally bad mouth me on a regular basis; ad infinitum, ad nauseam ; I do tend to keep an eye on what tripe and fantasies you are indulging yourself in.
If you didn't infest this forum, a forum in which you have no discernible interest other than for your "entertainment" by disrupting all sensible discussion here, I would have no need to ignore you.
In case you haven't yet noticed (you do appear to be a bit slow on the uptake with many things ... ), I shoot Olympus 4/3rds cameras. You don't.
So I really should be asking: " What are you doing here ? ".
Your putative reason is to correct all the mistakes that people make here, by informing us that your mistakes are totally, incontrovertibly correct; whereas ours, coming as they do from decades of experience (in many cases), with 4/3rds gear (for the 7 past years), are all wrong.
Pull the other leg, sport. The above, and your protestations regarding these things, ring very hollow.
So hollow that they appear to lack even a single grain of truth ...
--
-
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
But you seem to know so much about whatever else as well, not?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32672729
Yeah, "FF" bodies with 'glue gun' lenses; play dough for elements; sharp like a blunt crow bar ... "Upgrade"? Only for the "bigger is better" brigade ... "FF" will be dead within a decade, like 10x8 cameras, IMAO.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26759020
I thought we had shown that the 5D cannot even keep up with an E-510. The 40D compared to an E-3 is just laughable. ... ROTFL.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29168393
This lens [Canon 50 / 1.4], according to DPR's own tests, is far inferior to the 14~42 Olympus kit lens ...
This is when it was pointed to you by one of the lens reviewers at DPR,
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29168781
So what else have we missed?
I would ask you the same question, I thought the forum had something to do with photography, and not just plain bashing what you are completely clueless about.
--
- sergey
Ramón
Forum Enthusiast
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum