G3 heralds the end of APS-C DSLRs

Started May 13, 2011 | Discussions thread
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 51,880
Re: Even if you were right, you'd be wrong

Anders W wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Depends on what I'd want to do there. I routinely go with my 24-105/4L IS and my Sigma 15mm fisheye. The 24-105 is as fast as your primes but far more flexible.

No, that kit is neither as fast, nor as flexible with respect to FOV as the one I proposed.

24-105 is equivalent to f2 on 4/3, over the entire range. That's faster.

The fish is wider, faster and better optically than the 7-14.

The fish is a fish.

And it defishes quite excellently. I've pretty much stopped using my rectilinear ultrawide because the fish is faster, wider, and more flexible.

You can't shoot this shot with a rectilinear.

But I can shoot rectilinear shots with the fish.

We can discuss it in relation to the Panasonic fish if you like. But I am talking about rectilinear lenses. What do you propose to go with your Canon 5D kit here apart from the 24-105/4L IS that you already mentioned.

The fisheye, just like I said. It's equivalent to an f/1.4 fisheye on 4/3. It's quite good in low-light, and I was shooting with it at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 just the other day.

If I really needed long-reach in a small package, there'd be no way to get something as effectively slow as the 45-200 so it would be bigger (and two stops faster, which is often important at the long end).

OK. It seems you have difficulties here. So let me propose my Minolta MD 85/2 (54 mm long, 280 g) as an alternative to the 45-200 and see what you can come up with.

That's equivalent to about 170mm and f/4 on full-frame. The 24-105 is a bit short for that. If that was important, I might switch to something like the 17-40L and 70-200/4L IS, which just about covers the equivalent of 8.5mm to 100mm all at f/2 on 4/3.

Now on to what you have to say about the T3 kit versus the GH2 kit


It has a far-superior viewfinder

In what respect? That of the GH2 is larger, brighter, has 100% coverage, covers the frame exactly, and allows magnification.

The T3 has no lag, unlimited dynamic range and it uses no power.

autofocus system

Accuracy according to optyczne.pl
T3i: 32.5 % perfectly accurate shots
GH2: 87.5% perfectly accurate shots

Useless test, as I've gone into in the past. I have a T2i and it basically doesn't miss at all on stationary shots, and it'll track fast-moving subjects with reasonable performance. These guys have no clue how to test focus performance if they think the T3 only gets 1/3 of its shots in focus. I have nearly 20,000 shots to prove otherwise, some of which were in very tough conditions.

AF-times/shutter lag according to Imaging Resouces:
T3i full AF: 0.283 s
GH2 full AF: 0.273 s

T3i prefocused: 0.087 s
GH2 prefocused: 0.068 s

T3i manual focus: 0.114 s
GH2 manual focus: 0.077 s

I don't know what the hurry is on stationary subjects. Time to achieve initial focus is irrelevant. Try tracking moving subjects and the story will be vastly different. Try low-contrast small subjects and the story will be different as well. Contrast detect doesn't allow precision focusing (focusing on tiny portions of the frame, ignoring the rest). Try focusing in the iris without focusing on the eyelashes with ultra-shallow DOF and you'll see what I mean. Try focusing on a subject behind a wire mesh and you'll have similar trouble. No problem with PDAF.

and sensor

The DxoMark DR curves (which not only provides good indications of DR per se but also of shadow noise at higher ISO) is virtually a copy of that for the GH2, in spite of the smaller area of the m43 sensor.

And the images I posted in response to the OP of this thread demonstrate conclusively otherwise.

and it has video crop modes which can be really useful sometimes.

Like which ones superior to those found on the GH2?

640x480 at 7x (100%).

Tokina 10-17

Doesn't exist.

That's odd. I have one.

Again, I thought we were discussing rectilinear lenses rather than special-effects things.

A fish is not a special effects thing. A fish is superior to rectilinear lenses in many areas.

It's quite a nice lens. Very flexible. Twice as wide as the 7-14, but can be a rectilinear from around 13mm and up that's just as wide.

The Tokina 10-17 is a fisheye at all focal lengths. What do you propose as a replacement within your 1.7 kig limit when it comes to rectilinear lenses?

The fisheye. This was taken with it. Is this not rectilinear enough for you?

Tamron 18-270VC

Mediocre optically like most superzooms.

Actually, it's quite good, and I've used it myself on a high-pixel-count 1.6-crop camera. I was quite surprised.

Based on the tests I have seen, it's about as mediocre as you'd expect from any superzoom. You can't expect one of those to go equal with two separate zooms, both of which in the 3X to 4X range.

And yet, it produces sharp shots across the full range in good light.

Canon 50 1.8

No star optically. Cheap build. Not on a par with the Minolta MD 50/1.4.

And, on top of that, where's your equivalen to the Panasonic 20/1.7?

I was using the 50/1.8 for both, if you don't like that use the 35/2 and 85/1.8, both of which are superior, especially the 85/1.8 which is one of the fastest focusing lenses ever built. Very small and light, and I've owned and used both (still own the 85/1.8).

How can a 50 on APS-C replace a 40 on m43? And how do you fit both of these within the overall weight restriction?

Add it up. I was well under before, the 35 is about the same size as the 50 and the 85 is small and light as well. I might be a hundred grams or so over.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D +22 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow