Why do m4/3 shooters feel threated so by "Equivalence" ???

millsart said:

I see comments about how 135 format is for "dinosaurs"

Click to expand...

What the hell is "135 format" ???

135 was a numerical code for a film (35 mm wide, double perforated) of various lengths, packed in a cartridge. There were many different frame sizes possible and used (24x24 mm, 18x24 mm, 24x23 mm, 24x36 mm, 24x58 mm, etc.)
So what are you referring to by "135 format" ?

bobn2 said:

MadsR said:

When someone starts their thread with "m43 sucks because it can't make DoF of .001mm to make everything but the iris of a portrait completely blurred..." they will get a response about being dinosaurs with huge cumbersome cameras etc... What to expect?

Click to expand...

Has anyone ever started a thread with that?

Click to expand...

Don't know, but I once started a "Shallow DoF sucks" thread (not my brightest idea).

Amin Sabet said:

Anders W said:

According to Wikipedia's definition "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. But for reasons that I have already made clear, I do not agree with your classifying him as a troll inasmuch as his behavior, in my view, does not match the definition. In my view, it is an important rule of conduct in any debate not to speculate about people's motivations. I hate it when people do that to me, not only because they are mostly wrong but also because it is irrelevant. Exactly why people say (or not say) this or that has no bearing on the question of whether they are substantively right or wrong. So I prefer to approach things based on what they say rather than why they say it, particularly since the former is evident and the latter usually not. And I think all discussions, whether on Internet fora or elsewhere, benefit from that approach.

that fast primes in Canon's world are IS'less

On my 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 they are soft, especially in the corners compared to just even slightly stopping them down to say f2.

Of course, when you take a lens like the 50 f2 macro in 4/3rds - you're like a 100 at f4, yet the canon to get to f4 is a stop down on their 100mm macro. So not a biggie.

Sharpness, if I am shooting at f1.2 on either lens is not the priority anyway. Though I enjoy not having to even think about that on a 4/3 designed lens (well - most of them). These newer zooms like the 14-42 and 12-50 do not seem to be up to the level of the 4/3 rds zooms in sharpness wide open. The primes look pretty sweet!

The em5 I have coming has the version 2 of the 14-42. We'll see. I was never a fan of version 1 14-42 on the EP1. That had to be stopped down quite a bit to be what I consider sharp.

The 'holy' trinity of lenses - 12 f2, 45 1.8 and now the new 75 look pretty sweet.

The new Panasonic f2.8 'SHG' lite lens coming out looks pretty sweet too!

I'll probably just pick up a few primes till I see what the OM-D 'pro' mode,l more or less promised, looks like. Might be that one will do some pdaf magic along with cdaf at the sensor level and allow proper use of the SHG lenses.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

Amin Sabet said:

Anders W said:

According to Wikipedia's definition "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Amin ,

Have been following your thoughts relating to matters of "talk about how and why we talk". Something that I find interesting is the seemingly relative intangibility of the phrase "troll bait":

A person who attracts trolls and responds to them unknowingly to their scheme; one who falls prey to the phenomenon of trolling ...

http://www.definition-of.net/troll+bait

... which seems (to me) to imply that exactly how one might go about the business of not contributing to the phenomena of "trollism" appears to be a somewhat unknown art/science ?

"Troll" seems to me to exist as strategically employed social declaration - much in the same manner that psychiatric "diagnoses" commonly become fodder for accusatory missives to be slung about. The meaning and relevance of such concepts is entirely contextual, and seems rather inextricably intertwined with the viewpoint and situation of the "troll caller". As an example, those who might begin conversations where the OP makes an averment with which I might agree are perhaps unlikely to be considered by me as "trolling". Crusades initiated in what I might perceive as a goal of "ending all evil" might not be judged by me as themselves being "evil" undertakings. And so on ...

The very term convers-ation implies the possibility of contrasting views. If human beings all shared a uniform world-view, language itself would likely only be necessary to quantify the exact manner and form in which we would (as a result) find ourselves to be in complete agreement in all matters.

If I were to find that my interactions with another individual (who makes a counter-argument relating to some idea or concept in discussion) engenders a certain degree of personal disdain for that individual, should I refrain from further speech merely because I find that person so lacking ?

If people did not realize some sort of sense of reward emerging from con-versing with others, they would likely (in rather short order) do something that they find more rewarding with their time and energy. Any and all participants are entirely free to "step off the field of play" at any given time ...

Thus, one assumes that essentially all participants likely find some level of enjoyment/entertainment within the processes of interacting with other participants. That alone seems not an indictment ...

How does one fashion a set of rules/norms deriving from personal ideas of "acceptable behaviour" ?

DM ...

John Mason said:

These newer zooms like the 14-42 and 12-50 do not seem to be up to the level of the 4/3 rds zooms in sharpness wide open. The primes look pretty sweet!

The em5 I have coming has the version 2 of the 14-42. We'll see. I was never a fan of version 1 14-42 on the EP1. That had to be stopped down quite a bit to be what I consider sharp.

Click to expand...

I think the Pany 14-45 may well be up to the standards of a good FT zoom like the 12-60, just slower and with a shorter range of FLs. I have tested it rather extensively and do not hesitate to use it wide open at any FL and do not find much reason to switch to a prime as long as the aperture I need is within the range the 14-45 can handle. If you want faster, the new 12-35/2.8 is probably the way to go. But personally, I plan to stay with the 14-45 supplemented by the 12, the 20, and the 45 as required.

Member said:

The 'holy' trinity of lenses - 12 f2, 45 1.8 and now the new 75 look pretty sweet.

Click to expand...

I'd add the 20/1.7 and make it a quartet.

Member said:

The new Panasonic f2.8 'SHG' lite lens coming out looks pretty sweet too!

I'll probably just pick up a few primes till I see what the OM-D 'pro' mode,l more or less promised, looks like. Might be that one will do some pdaf magic along with cdaf at the sensor level and allow proper use of the SHG lenses.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

Click to expand...

... are you guys going to discuss this. Different formats render differently. It's a well known fact and it's been well known since the turn of the century, not the last one but the one before that. I shoot 4/3 and APS C and 35mm and medium formats and I use all of them for all kinds of photography. Although the different formats give different results, what really matters is how I use the gear.

For most people, myself included, taking a couple of weeks off, shooting from early morning to late at night every day with any old (D)SLR and one prime lens has much more potential for improvement than any upgrade to the next format level ever will. It doesn't include the same level of bragging rights though...

Oh, and btw.; there is no equivalence, except in some textbooks. It becomes very apparent when shooting medium format and above. The equivalent focal length and aperture still gives a different look. Buy an old MF camera and some film and have a look yourself.

--
Jorgen, my name is Jorgen

and I like it!

especially if I wanted to go small

It pretty much lives on the ep1

the 25 1.4 is certainly in the same category. The quality of the bokeh on the 25 1.4 in the samples I've seen is more to my liking. Of course the 25 is a much larger lens. (which I can't find in stock anywhere except over priced ebay sales)
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Time for a little (hopefully) useful disagreement again.

Click to expand...

Go to hell, Anders.

Click to expand...

No way.

Click to expand...

Damn. There's no one else here who understands Equivalence well.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Actually, I was completely unaware of your opinion here.

Click to expand...

Remember this thread and the one to which it was a continuation?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=41678322

Click to expand...

Didn't see that as a discussion about the merits of shooting fast primes wide open on FF.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

When it comes to resolution, I can't think of a reason to compare at anything other than the same DOF.

Anders W said:

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?

Click to expand...

Tons.

Anders W said:

And where the use of a lens this wide is essential rather than coincidental?

Click to expand...

"Essential" is a strong word -- how about "desirable"? And, yes, tons. Here's one example -- see if it doesn't have some sort of appeal for you (don't be shy to say you think it sucks -- I'm sure many feel that way):

Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/1.4, 1/1600, ISO 100

Anders W said:

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 ).

Click to expand...

Not all are the "shallow DOF whore" that I am.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Regardless, that was not my point. My point was that I have never hesitated to use my fast primes on FF wide open.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

John said:

These new m4/3 primes look completely usable fully open which lessens the real practical difference between the formats imo.

All my lenses are more than "completely usable fully open", and are used that way more often than not.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I enjoy pointing out the gross hypocrisy of those attacking me personally and intentionally misrepresenting what I say. By the same token, I'd be pleased to see the opportunities for this kind of "entertainment" vanish.

Cause and effect, you know.

Anders W said:

I understand what you are saying. But for reasons that I have already made clear, I do not agree with your classifying him as a troll inasmuch as his behavior, in my view, does not match the definition. In my view, it is an important rule of conduct in any debate not to speculate about people's motivations. I hate it when people do that to me, not only because they are mostly wrong but also because it is irrelevant. Exactly why people say (or not say) this or that has no bearing on the question of whether they are substantively right or wrong. So I prefer to approach things based on what they say rather than why they say it, particularly since the former is evident and the latter usually not. And I think all discussions, whether on Internet fora or elsewhere, benefit from that approach.

Click to expand...

Once again, I appreciate your support. What's your PayPal ID?

John Mason said:

and I like it!

Click to expand...

Good! I thought you might.

Member said:

especially if I wanted to go small

It pretty much lives on the ep1

the 25 1.4 is certainly in the same category. The quality of the bokeh on the 25 1.4 in the samples I've seen is more to my liking. Of course the 25 is a much larger lens. (which I can't find in stock anywhere except over priced ebay sales)

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree about the bokeh. The 25 gives you more perceived blur if that's what you mean (due to the wider max aperture, the more compressed background, and the fact that you can reach the same subject magnification with less perspective distortion). But the quality of the blur (characteristics of the blur disc with respect to shape, outlining, LoCA) is if anything slightly worse on the 25. Neither the 20 nor the 25 has very good bokeh in my opinion, which, however, doesn't matter much to me personally since I ordinarily wouldn't try to use them for subject isolation by means of background blur. Luckily, the 45 and, I am sure, the 75, are much better in this regard.

Great Bustard said:

Once again, I appreciate your support. What's your PayPal ID?

Click to expand...

You can simply make your monetary contributions to Doctor-Detailia.com . All proceeds (after a small administrative fee is extracted) will go towards paying import duties on Anders' OM-D E-M5 !!!

In the event that you may be feeling "super-philanthropic", also note that a separate link exists on the main web-page for those desiring to make contributions towards the involuntary commitment of the Dimmer Twins , so that they will cease from representing a danger to themselves/others ...

Lovely picture GB. Is that your boy?

I will say you use shallow DoF very well, and I enjoy that a lot of your photography is family based, which to me beats every other genre. The fact you do it with a lot of style will be appreciated greatly by your kids.

Ab

--
alatchinphotography.com

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

Great Bustard said:

Didn't see that as a discussion about the merits of shooting fast primes wide open on FF.

Click to expand...

No, but about the quality of different lenses when shot wide open.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

When it comes to resolution, I can't think of a reason to compare at anything other than the same DOF.

Click to expand...

Be my guest. If we do so, the two are roughly on a par. But then the Nikkor has no advantage with regard to light accumulation and shallow DoF. This thing about eating the cake and having it too again.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

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?

Click to expand...

Tons.

Great Bustard said:

And where the use of a lens this wide is essential rather than coincidental?

Click to expand...

"Essential" is a strong word -- how about "desirable"? And, yes, tons. Here's one example -- see if it doesn't have some sort of appeal for you (don't be shy to say you think it sucks -- I'm sure many feel that way):

Click to expand...

It sucks! No more seriously, I can see what you are after. It vaguely reminds me a little of a classic photo by W. Eugene Smith. But I am not sure the effect works so well in this particular case, in part because of the environment which doesn't naturally support the subject isolation by other means, in part because the blur is not sufficiently pronounced.

Great Bustard said:

Not all are the "shallow DOF whore" that I am.

Click to expand...

True! I can't help but think again of the example I used against Bob in our discussion towards the end of the thread to which I linked above, and which illustrates how the photographic mood has changed over time with respect to things like these. Not that the idea of subject isolation by means of background blur is new or that it wasn't desirable in earlier times. But the idea that this is a key advantage of really fast glass, including WAs, is certainly not representative of earlier periods. Consider this ad for the Vivitar 35/1.9 announced in 1974 (a lens I bought soon thereafter and used for more than 30 years).

http://www.djibnet.com/photo/braless/vivitar-35-1-9-advertisment-1974-475124045.html

Here is the text of the ad (since it's a bit tricky to read it in the picture):

"Here is one of the fastest wide angle lenses available.

Why are so many photographers leaving their 50-55 mm lenses at home and using 35 mm as a normal lens? Because of the incredible depth of field possible with a medium wide angle lens. Look at the example on the next page taken with the new Vivitar 35 mm f1.9 lens. In sunlight, stopped down to f11, everything is in focus from 4 feet 8 inches to 14 ft 9 inches. (With a 55 mm lens, the depth of field would only extend from 5 feet 9 inches to 9 feet). You simply prefocus at 7 feet and practically anything interesting that happens on the street can be shot, in focus, without wasting valuable seconds refocusing. When you get the picture, you can then crop to suit. Or shooting indoors with tungsten light and color, the extra depth of field can make the difference between a partially or totally sharp picture. Of course the depth of field is reduced when you shoot wide open with a wide angle lens but it is still greater than that of a normal 50-55 mm lens.

Why is the f1.9 speed so important. Because it is practically as fast as the standard 50-55 lens and opens up that whole wonderful area of "available light" photography. Until recently, there were very few wide angle lenses this fast and they were usually very expensive. Computer design efficiencies have made it possible for Vivitar to offer this lens with top resolution, high contrast and a rational price."

It is quite interesting to compare this ad to the way Panasonic presents its 20/1.7 (actually more like 18.5/1.7 and thus equivalent to 37/3.4), more than 30 years later:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/single.html#i_020mm_f017_panasonic

Detail Man said:

Great Bustard said:

Once again, I appreciate your support. What's your PayPal ID?

Click to expand...

You can simply make your monetary contributions to Doctor-Detailia.com . All proceeds (after a small administrative fee is extracted) will go towards paying import duties on Anders' OM-D E-M5 !!!

Click to expand...

Much appreciated (apart from that thing about fee extraction).

Detail Man said:

In the event that you may be feeling "super-philanthropic", also note that a separate link exists on the main web-page for those desiring to make contributions towards the involuntary commitment of the Dimmer Twins , so that they will cease from representing a danger to themselves/others ...

Click to expand...

DirkL said:

Smaller sensors have more dof, crop factor and noise than larger sensors.

A 35 mm f2.0 lens remains a 35 mm f2.0 independently of sensor size it's used on.
Simple as that, and very, very old news.

Click to expand...

If this wasn't the case, light meters would ask you to fill in the format size, not just ISO and perhaps one of the two main variables -- f/stop and shutter speed.

These are people who have never used a light meter and have never shot anything larger than 35 mm film equivalent sensors, if that.

Anders W said:

I understand what you are saying. But for reasons that I have already made clear, I do not agree with your classifying him as a troll inasmuch as his behavior, in my view, does not match the definition. In my view, it is an important rule of conduct in any debate not to speculate about people's motivations. I hate it when people do that to me, not only because they are mostly wrong but also because it is irrelevant. Exactly why people say (or not say) this or that has no bearing on the question of whether they are substantively right or wrong. So I prefer to approach things based on what they say rather than why they say it, particularly since the former is evident and the latter usually not. And I think all discussions, whether on Internet fora or elsewhere, benefit from that approach.

Click to expand...

Fine, so we understand one another and disagree about what is evident.

One thing which is evident beyond any debate is that Joe repeats himself over and over again, often copy/pasting the exact same passage from his treatise multiple times within a day, even repeating himself verbatim within a single thread with an argument directed towards a single person. All of us share this space, and this kind of endless repetition is another form of trolling. See for example how trolling as defined at Rangefinderforum to include anyone who "argues their point over and over again": http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_terms

Even if you don't agree with RFF that repetitive argument falls under the specific category of "trolling", it is indisputably considered to be bad behavior in online communities. Here are some of the many examples of communities which make it clear that repetitive argument of the type Joe engages in daily is considered to be in the same category as trolling, flaming, and personal attacks, behaviors which drag down the quality of the community for all members:
http://docs.joomla.org/Code_of_conduct
http://wiki.nginx.org/IRC/CoC
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Code_of_Conduct/Draft
http://www.spdx.org/codeOfConduct
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/conduct

Repetitive arguments are disruptive, inflammatory, and disrespectful to an online community. It is self evident that a significant proportion of Joe's posts in this forum consist of repetitive arguments.

--
http://aminsabet.com

I made an honest attempt to understand what you are saying here, and I could not. If I had to guess, I would say that the jist of what you are saying is that by arguing with and calling out Joe for trolling, I am equally responsible for the forum getting trolled.

If that is what you meant, then I disagree. From time to time recently, I would check in on this forum and think about participating, but the fact that the trolling was lowering the overall quality of discussion was evident, and so I chose to stay mostly uninvolved. I did not engage. After a few weeks, I started to realize that it isn't fair for me and quite a few others like me to give up enjoyment of the forum because of a few trolls. Telling people not to feed the trolls is not a successful approach in a forum like this one, because there will always be at least a couple people who can't resist. So the only ways to counter the trolling are to either convince the trolls to stop trolling, which I have been unsuccessful with in personal communication to Joe in the past, or to shine a light on the bad behavior and hope that the community and it's administration will do something about it.

If I completely misunderstood what you meant, then please say it to me again in plainer language, and I'll do my best to respond.

--
http://aminsabet.com

Anders W said:

Detail Man said:

Great Bustard said:

Once again, I appreciate your support. What's your PayPal ID?

Click to expand...

You can simply make your monetary contributions to Doctor-Detailia.com . All proceeds (after a small administrative fee is extracted) will go towards paying import duties on Anders' OM-D E-M5 !!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Much appreciated (apart from that thing about fee extraction).

Click to expand...

In the details one may find many devilish footnotes ... Seriously though, let me know I could assist.

Thanks.
This forum is turning into a wretched mess.....
--
terry
http://www.terrybanet.com