Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
I appreciate you saying that, and, I might add, very much enjoy the conversations we have had.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why do m4/3 shooters feel threated so by "Equivalence" ???
- Thread starter millsart
- Start date
J
John Mason
Guest
Love that link
I've shot with 4x5 down to 1/2 frame in film days
Equivilance is really just being aware of what choices and compromises to make for your desired intent as you work within different formats.
The OP point is most likely coming from people that tend towards the argument that FF gives the best balance of compromises in the current market. Then use that position to deride anyone not using FF. We used to get this a lot on the Olympus SLR forum from a couple of Nikon users (trolls) rather consistently.
I might even agree with that view if control of DOF effects is your primary selection criteria in a camera.
Still, you can get pretty much any DOF effect from any format by changing other factors like distance to the subject verses focal length selected.
The new 75 coming out for m4/3rds should allow from a new level of DOF 3d effect in a m4/3rds format which is probably why the lens was designed. The shooting distances will be just as inconvenient as shooting a 150mm on FF
And thus I just used equivilance in a sentence!
The odd thing is that a lot of times with the fast primes I have in FF I'm stopping down a bit just to make sure my DOF is not too thin. You can get silly with a lens like the 85 1.2 if you are not careful. Also many of the FF fast lens choices are not at their best wide open in terms of sharpness.
These new m4/3 primes look completely usable fully open which lessens the real practical difference between the formats imo.
That being said, I love my fast FF lenses and I am disappointed I can't seem to find any 25 1.4 pany's on the web today since I finally found an EM5 in stock. A fast prime with Olympus's great ibis is going to be great fun!
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
I've shot with 4x5 down to 1/2 frame in film days
Equivilance is really just being aware of what choices and compromises to make for your desired intent as you work within different formats.
The OP point is most likely coming from people that tend towards the argument that FF gives the best balance of compromises in the current market. Then use that position to deride anyone not using FF. We used to get this a lot on the Olympus SLR forum from a couple of Nikon users (trolls) rather consistently.
I might even agree with that view if control of DOF effects is your primary selection criteria in a camera.
Still, you can get pretty much any DOF effect from any format by changing other factors like distance to the subject verses focal length selected.
The new 75 coming out for m4/3rds should allow from a new level of DOF 3d effect in a m4/3rds format which is probably why the lens was designed. The shooting distances will be just as inconvenient as shooting a 150mm on FF
And thus I just used equivilance in a sentence!
The odd thing is that a lot of times with the fast primes I have in FF I'm stopping down a bit just to make sure my DOF is not too thin. You can get silly with a lens like the 85 1.2 if you are not careful. Also many of the FF fast lens choices are not at their best wide open in terms of sharpness.
These new m4/3 primes look completely usable fully open which lessens the real practical difference between the formats imo.
That being said, I love my fast FF lenses and I am disappointed I can't seem to find any 25 1.4 pany's on the web today since I finally found an EM5 in stock. A fast prime with Olympus's great ibis is going to be great fun!
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
TEBnewyork
Forum Pro
Now you are talking double talk. How can you talk about raising the ISO two stops on a FF camera if the camera doesn't go any higher. What if I'm comparing a current generation m4/3 camera vs. a full frame sensor that can't even get to ISO 6400. How can you make your arguments if you now say the sensor doesn't matter. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
And I can tell you for sure on my MF back I can't do a long exposure that I can do on a m4/3 camera. So, no equivalence measure even remotely helps.
You now have more than 200 posts on this topic....when is enough just enough.
Do you actually shoot or have any intention of using m4/3 that has crappy slow lenses that can't gather enough light to cover the tiny sensor?
terry
http://www.terrybanet.com
And I can tell you for sure on my MF back I can't do a long exposure that I can do on a m4/3 camera. So, no equivalence measure even remotely helps.
You now have more than 200 posts on this topic....when is enough just enough.
Do you actually shoot or have any intention of using m4/3 that has crappy slow lenses that can't gather enough light to cover the tiny sensor?
--
terry
http://www.terrybanet.com
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Bingo!
Absolutely. Personally, I love ultra shallow DOF photography, and that is why I shoot FF. However, I have never been of the opinion that others should shoot the way I do, and find it irritating that people falsely accuse me of this all the time.
Absolutely. It's just that systems with larger sensors typically have more perspective-framing-DOF options . But those options come at a cost, in terms of size, weight, and money.
The Sigma 150 / 2.8 macro was a favorite of mine on FF, but, like a fool, I sold it and replaced it with the 70 / 2.8 macro and 200 / 2.8L. The next lens I buy will either be that lens, or the new OS version.The new 75 coming out for m4/3rds should allow from a new level of DOF 3d effect in a m4/3rds format which is probably why the lens was designed. The shooting distances will be just as inconvenient as shooting a 150mm on FF
On the other hand, look at the size differential between an EM5 + 75 / 1.8 vs 5D3 + 150 / 2.8 OS macro -- it's massive! Of course, it is a macro lens, but I'm just saying.
In all honesty, I'd love an EM5 + 12-2 + 45 / 1.8 + 75 / 1.8 -- but it's just too expensive for me to add right now.
Yes -- ultra shallow DOF is a tricky beast.
On that point I completely disagree -- I don't hesitate in the least to shoot wide open with fast primes on FF. In fact, it's why I have the fast primes.
And that brings up a major gripe I have with Canon -- no sensor IS! Not only do none of my lenses have IS, there aren't even IS versions of any of my lenses. And Canon put out a BS "white paper" saying how much better lens IS is. Even if it were (and the evidence most certainly does not support that), what good is lens IS if none of your lenses have it?
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
No, you're being ridiculous -- read on.
Tell me, under what conditions am I going to need to raise the ISO two stops over the ISO 102400?
What if you keep the lens cap on the FF camera? Sheesh. OK, in your extremely unlikely scenario that the FF shooter with the older generation camera needs the same DOF as the mFT shooter at ISO 6400, they shoot RAW, underexpose two stops, and push two stops in conversion, and end up with a much more noisy photo because the sensor is less efficient.
Or, they just suck up the more shallow DOF and shoot the same shutter speed and f-ratio.
That's an operational disadvantage of the MF back, just like the lack of IBIS is an operational disadvantage of Canon and Nikon FF cameras.
bobn2
Forum Pro
As are you and do you. The thing about Joe and myself is, though, that we also know how to carry out a discussion in a disorderly and uncivil way. Personally I take as I find, if someone engages me in a civil discussion, I will return the compliment, and usually a productive discussion ensues, quite often one where I learn something.
On the other hand, if someone decides they'd like to partake of some 'shenanigans' then I'm quite happy to oblige in kind. So, if you find discussions orderly and civil, that is because that is the way you go about things yourself.
--
Bob
Anders W
Forum Pro
Time for a little (hopefully) useful disagreement again.Bingo!
Absolutely. Personally, I love ultra shallow DOF photography, and that is why I shoot FF. However, I have never been of the opinion that others should shoot the way I do, and find it irritating that people falsely accuse me of this all the time.
Absolutely. It's just that systems with larger sensors typically have more perspective-framing-DOF options . But those options come at a cost, in terms of size, weight, and money.
The Sigma 150 / 2.8 macro was a favorite of mine on FF, but, like a fool, I sold it and replaced it with the 70 / 2.8 macro and 200 / 2.8L. The next lens I buy will either be that lens, or the new OS version.The new 75 coming out for m4/3rds should allow from a new level of DOF 3d effect in a m4/3rds format which is probably why the lens was designed. The shooting distances will be just as inconvenient as shooting a 150mm on FF
On the other hand, look at the size differential between an EM5 + 75 / 1.8 vs 5D3 + 150 / 2.8 OS macro -- it's massive! Of course, it is a macro lens, but I'm just saying.
In all honesty, I'd love an EM5 + 12-2 + 45 / 1.8 + 75 / 1.8 -- but it's just too expensive for me to add right now.
Yes -- ultra shallow DOF is a tricky beast.
On that point I completely disagree -- I don't hesitate in the least to shoot wide open with fast primes on FF. In fact, it's why I have the fast primes.
As I think you already know, I am with John on this. While there are some similarly fast (in f-stop terms) FF lenses that might keep up with lenses like the 12/2, the 20/1.7, the 45/1.8, and (presumably) the 75/1.8, they are not that common, usually of recent origin, and often quite expensive. I don't know which specific lenses you personally have and what your standards of acceptable performance is, but if we are talking systems performance rather than personal preferences and criteria, I agree with John that the good wide-open performance of these MFT primes lessens the practical difference between the formats.Now we can agree again.
Very happy about the appearance of the E-M5 in this regard. I never even considered a Pen due to the lack of a built-in VF and the rather poor 12 MP sensor. But I always wanted IBIS (as I used to have on my Pentax). Fortunately, I can now get it all.
Anders W
Forum Pro
Thanks! Yes I know it takes two to tango. But I am not sure I am any better than Joe or you when I encounter people prone to hit me under the belt. Although I do my best to stay out if these useless fist fights, they sometimes occur anyway, sometimes with real trolls (remember HappyVan?), sometimes with people who cannot distinguish between a discussion and a row.
Amin Sabet
Veteran Member
What are you talking about??? My understanding was that that stuff transpired in the Olympus SLR forum during a period of time that I was not participating. From a distance, I suspected that things were heated to an unreasonable extent, but only recently did I become aware of the attempts at harm by seeing posts from you and others referencing those things in the past tense. I don't even know when exactly anything took place and certainly was never aware of any such thing going on in my presence. If you think I sat there and watched it happen, link me to a thread that gave you that impression, and lets clear this up right now.
My issue with you all is a recent development, limited to the past several weeks as I became more and more aware how much you were trolling the Micro 4/3 forum. It's been years since I cared what was going on in the Oly SLR forum. There was a time a few years ago when I felt thet Joe was trolling, but I let a few threads fly and then dropped it. Mostly I tried to convince him in direct personal communication that what he was doing, however well intentioned, was effectively a form of trolling. Despite that belief, I still considered him to be a good person. I don't look at things in absolutes. You can ask Joe, and he'll tell you that I was outspoken in my support of him when he was banned, and I refuted the people who made false arguments against him.
Now I've come back to thinking that Joe is trolling pretty badly. I still think he's a good person, though, and I've said as much in personal communication to Riley, Zoran, and others who think less of him. I actually don't think Joe realizes that his behavior here amounts to trolling. I don't really know you one way or the other, so I don't presume to know whether you're a good person or not. Regardless, as much as I may criticize you guys for lowering the quality of this forum for Micro Four Thirds users with your trolling - Joe being the worst of all in this regard - and as much as I may get irritated by your effect on this forum, I have never approved, actively or passively, of any attempt to harm anyone. Having used my real name on forums since day 1, I have personally experienced scary threats from a crazy member on a different forum, and I would never wish that on anyone.
For what it's worth, I completely agree with an opinion you expressed in a recent thread about people having the right to their anonymity on the web, for whatever personal or professional reasons whatsoever, and I think it is absolutely wrong for whoever it was that outed your name here to have done that.
--
http://aminsabet.com
TrapperJohn
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,677
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
Not to drag this out (and I'm watching D700 prices closely, when a clean one gets under $1k, I'm grabbing it), but...
I checked both Nikon One and NEX forums. No FF trolling, no M43 trolling that I could see. There was one person making idiotic M43 posts in open talk, but he seems to have vanished quickly. Just this forum, and it's just the determined efforts of a couple of people.
Note that they only came over here when the EM5 did so well against their two new flagships. How dare that little runt challenge our huge price tag? Methinks they're getting a bit nervous, might tend to explain their persistence.
So they can get a whole forum into an uproar - that's a noble life's purpose.
Enough said on the subject. It's not the FF camera, it's just some of the rubbish that happens to own one or two of them.
I checked both Nikon One and NEX forums. No FF trolling, no M43 trolling that I could see. There was one person making idiotic M43 posts in open talk, but he seems to have vanished quickly. Just this forum, and it's just the determined efforts of a couple of people.
Note that they only came over here when the EM5 did so well against their two new flagships. How dare that little runt challenge our huge price tag? Methinks they're getting a bit nervous, might tend to explain their persistence.
So they can get a whole forum into an uproar - that's a noble life's purpose.
Enough said on the subject. It's not the FF camera, it's just some of the rubbish that happens to own one or two of them.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Go to hell, Anders.Time for a little (hopefully) useful disagreement again.
Actually, I was completely unaware of your opinion here.
None of which has any bearing on my point.
Lessens, but does not remove. The Canon 24 / 1.4L II or Nikon 24 / 1.4G, are much larger and more expensive than the 12 / 2, for example, but handsomely outperform it, both in terms of light gathering ability, DOF options, and MTF-50 on their respective systems.
Regardless, that was not my point. My point was that I have never hesitated to use my fast primes on FF wide open.
I have bitched for years about Canon's refusal to implement IBIS. Years. Canon's refusal to implement sensor IS is as sad as their inability to compete with Nikon (Sony) in their sensor tech.Now we can agree again.
jeffharris
Forum Pro
Yep, I just call it annoying...
D
dpalugyay
Guest
Why bring up a thread like this? Do you love controversy? You certainly invite it.
I now know to "ignore" you and not read your posts anymore. Thank you.
I now know to "ignore" you and not read your posts anymore. Thank you.
rpm40
Senior Member
...again?
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Let it fade into the ether, at least for a day or two.
deleted_081301
Senior Member
the problems start when fools start to tell us that F stops change with the sensor size ..suddenly an F8 aperture becomes something else ....... this is wrong and always has been ... F stops were worked out and used in photography because they are Constant IE: F8 is F8 regardless of what size film (It was first used with film) you were using..... I have an incident light meter and an exposure of 1/500 sec @ F8 at 100 iso/asa is constant no matter whether i use my 5" x 4" ..my 66 rolie or my 4/3rds digital.....
Apertures allow the same amount of light through no matter what format you use
(Exceptions being light absorbed by Glass in complex zooms ....for which T-stops are used to compensate esp in the movie industry )
Apertures allow the same amount of light through no matter what format you use
(Exceptions being light absorbed by Glass in complex zooms ....for which T-stops are used to compensate esp in the movie industry )
Agree
I just got an OM2n & pixel peepers would have a field day berating the results it produces.
But do I enjoy using it and seeing the images it produces? You bet!
Amin Sabet
Veteran Member
As Joe can attest, there have been times when I would have defended him with very similar words to your own. Over the years I've come to think highly of Joe as a person and also find him generally likable, which leads to my feeling conflicted about whether he is really trolling here.
However, I currently feel that Joe's behavior in this forum is a strong form of trolling based on the following:
1) I believe his actual level of interest in the Micro 4/3 system to be very modest. This is based on the overall gut feeling I get from his posts plus the degree to which I know ultra-shallow DOF to be a signature aspect of his photographic style. With a low level of interest in MFT, there is little constructive reason for him to spend so much time in this forum.
2) The net effect of his posts is strongly inflammatory. You have argued that the actual substance of his posts is not inflammatory, and I have looked through the same lenses you are wearing now at different times in the past, but Joe knows that his effect on this forum is disruptive, and he knows that there are Micro 4/3 users in this forum who will generally make the same points he makes without a similarly disruptive effect.
It certainly seems to me that Joe enjoys the disruptive and emotional effects of his inflammatory role in this forum and that he otherwise has little reason to speed so much time here. I feel that he thus convincingly fits your Wikipedia definition of a troll. However, I certainly understand and respect where your're coming from, having once been there, despite the fact that I don't subscribe to your point of view.
--
http://aminsabet.com
R
Raist3d
Guest
Combine those two and kaboom. The concept is really so simple. It basically tells you what a given focal length and aperture will do in terms of final photograph work in another format.
So F1.8 75mm m/43rds = F3.6 150mm FF. This in terms of DOF and effective focal length/field of view/frame. In terms of light/iso the F1.8 acts as an F1.8 FF.
Some things that people seem to get lost on:
Of course an F2 70-200mm in FF would be heavy and expensive but in this comparison completely irrelevant because the F4 lens gives you the same effect.
Also of course, an F2 70-200mm in FF would require an F1 35-100 in 4/3rds if we want to quip about making one to do the same photographic effect.
The whole thing is the problem of defending a brand out of the insecurity of simply not accepting the pros and cons as a whole of each format and choosing accordingly.... without having to think one is inferior to the other.
--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
So F1.8 75mm m/43rds = F3.6 150mm FF. This in terms of DOF and effective focal length/field of view/frame. In terms of light/iso the F1.8 acts as an F1.8 FF.
Some things that people seem to get lost on:
- Olympus has the SHG super expensive lens. They are good, but pricey and heavy. This in 4/3rds. Apparently some people feel the need to defend that a 35-100 F2.0 does not give you the same effect of an F4.0 70-200mm in FF.
Of course an F2 70-200mm in FF would be heavy and expensive but in this comparison completely irrelevant because the F4 lens gives you the same effect.
Also of course, an F2 70-200mm in FF would require an F1 35-100 in 4/3rds if we want to quip about making one to do the same photographic effect.
The whole thing is the problem of defending a brand out of the insecurity of simply not accepting the pros and cons as a whole of each format and choosing accordingly.... without having to think one is inferior to the other.
--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
bobn2
Forum Pro
Anders W
Forum Pro
No way.Go to hell, Anders.Time for a little (hopefully) useful disagreement again.
Remember this thread and the one to which it was a continuation?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=41678322
On your personal use of your FF lenses, no. On the systems comparison, yes.
Light gathering ability, yes. DoF options, yes. MTF-50 no. Some figures from DxO, FF-normalized lp/mm at MTF-50, 1/3 from center, green channel, average between sagittal and tangential (for simplicity).
Nikkor 24/1.4G on D4 (16 MP):
1.4 23
2.0 27
2.8 31
Olympus 12/2 on GH2 (16 MP):
2.0 30
2.8 33
But I agree that these 24s are top-notch FF lenses. However, my point is that it takes something like these up-to-date, very big, and very expensive, pro-level lenses to match MFT in this regard.
BTW: Do you have any examples of creative use of shallow DoF with a 24 on FF? And where the use of a lens this wide is essential rather than coincidental? I guess they might exist but I have to admit that, possibly due to a lack of imagination, I can't remember using my Hexanon 24/2.8, nor for that matter my Vivitar 35/1.9, for such purposes back in the day when I shot FF (known then as 35 mm film
).Perhaps. But you disagreed with John whose point was about the systems comparison rather than your personal habits and criteria. So I took it from that end.
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum