Wides and Normals: amaziing resolution findings at Lens Rentals...

Understood, so I'll leave it off with just this. Define: snob in Google gives this definition as the second result:

• A person who believes that their tastes in a particular area are superior to those of other people: "a wine snob".

Preferences in shooting style are fine. You can like or hate a style. However, calling someone a snob, or a fool, for liking that style does in turn apply the definition to you. It is my opinion that a photo style is valid as long as any one or two people like it. It may not be for everyone. However, if it's for the intended audience, and they enjoy it, then it was successful. Not every shot has to be a masterpiece that everyone loves. As long as you and who you want to like it love it, then you did great. The means you use to achieve that doesn't change the success.

rrr_hhh said:

rrr_hhh wrote:
The constraints with short flange distance is the angle of incidence of the light striking the sensor : sensor get their best performance when the light strikes them perpendicularly, the shorter the flange distance, the wider the angle, the more problems you will get in the corners. This is one of the main reasons why for a long time digital cameras manufacturers ignored the range finders and only concentrated on producing digital backs for SLR, but not for range finders. As of now, only Leica Ms have got a digital back.

I think that rear protruding elements are more frequent in wide angle lenses than in tele lenses. This was a common feature in wide angle RF lenses. Less so for SLRs because the protruding rear elements would get in the way of the mirror.

--
rrr_hhh

Click to expand...

There is no "constraint" of a short flange distance. Moreover, short flange distance does NOT mean shallow incidence angles. A trivial example: imagine a normal SLR lens, add to it a protruding tube with a single infinitesimally thin flat glass. The optical path for all rays remain unchanged (for a super-thin element) but the rear "flange" can be brought as close to the sensor as you like.

Of course, no one would do it. In fact, extra optical elements positioned closer to the sensor can be (and I believe in many cases are) optimized to improve the lens telecentricity (an overused term I hate, basically make the rays hit the sensor closer to normal).

An example of such design is given in the Metabones' "White paper": http://www.metabones.com/images/metabones/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf

Please check section 8 "It's too good to be true! -- Part 5, Telecentricity is improved". I don't know how to attach files here, I could draw a couple of much simpler optical diagrams myself for illustrative purposes.

And yes, I think the strength of m43 system in wide angles is first and foremost related to the freedom of the optical engineers to get away from the retrofocus design and use the space otherwise occupied by mirror box for design optimization. That very "short flange distance" is a good thing! Once again it may or may not cause shallow incidence angles depending on designer's priorities.

Another factor is 4:3 aspect ratio, so the furthest corner of the frame is closer to the optical axis than in more commonly used 3:2 sensors . Doesn't look like much, but things get very non-linear and much nastier there.

I am not sure how your reply has to do with what I wrote, which ungracefully suggests it is perfectly known to everybody. I contend it is not, and hence the interest of the thread.

Suggesting that fild curvature might be another lovable feature (like good bokeh) in lenses makes me think that extremes meet. If you can't isolate a nostril's hair, then you might react by raping a face with a fisheye: everything will be in focus around the monstruous egg shaped head.

IOW it seems that we are discussing pure unadulterated hubris, not to say a bad word.

A system is obviously a set of compromises even if it might be better in some genres than others. Cicala remarks m4/3 is good for wides and I concur.

My advice is to evaluate a system, and its lenses, as perspective machines. That is how the Camera Obscura was born in the Renaissance and it is still the main constraint in photography: perspective.

You can't avoid it by erasing it with bokeh, and you can't solve it with curvature. You have to learn composition in depth. It is still my main problem after fifty years, and not an easy one to solve in the split second of a decisive moment.

It requires a state of heightened awareness that it is difficult to achieve, and I know that when it happens viewers appreciate it enormously.

Obliterating perspective is worse than a sin, it's a banal error. Details there are millions of them not one more interesting than the other, caught individually. We have perspective so thankfully we are not to be made hostages to others' lame hobbies.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

OK, here we go

and last here as well:



--

Geoff B
http://www.gbphoto.com.au/

You have some very nice images, I like most of them, although I am fundamentally against photographs of cats - so I will reserve comment on the first one I much prefer rabbits myself, hopefully in pie form:


This one needs all the DoF I could get in the dark morning light.

Here with DoF control:




Now back to the subject.

I meant something like this, this, this and so on.

This one normally would have been very tempting for me to use shallow DoF, but in the event I think the large DoF works much much better.

This one is using either cropping or telephoto to frame the subjects, but within the frame what we normally would regard as clutter is fully sharp. However, such clutter is indeed part of the story and should have been sharp, I think.

Same here. And I like this one here too. Finally, this probably violates a huge number of the rules that one could find in photography books, but is a very powerful image nonetheless. Had "subject isolation" in the form of DoF control been used it would probably would not have worked or he would not have been able to take the shot.

In almost all of these, the somewhat dismissing, condescending and probably meant to be insulting remark, often seen in this forum, "you could have done that with a compact p&s" would probably be very tempting for people am has angered with his violent language. However, most compacts would probably not have had the response time to accommodate the split second decisions involved.

It's an interesting style; reminds me somewhat of classic 35mm streeet photography, when people used a 28mm or a 35mm lens for it instead of a 70-200mm f/2.8. People are not very interesting to me as subjects, though, so it's not my thing.

Should it be enforced as the single legitimate photographic style? I don't think so. Is it so much harder to do that it deserves additional merit for difficulty? Not really. On a 35mm camera I used to do it by putting a wideangle zoom on the camera, stop down and compose to have all the "distracting" parts cooperate.















But it's just a technique like any other. It's not all that difficult to do, in fact DoF control is much more demanding if you want to do it properly. Neither is particularly "artistic" per se. And no, I don't think one *has* to use DoF control just because he has a camera with a big sensor; you just can, if you feel like it.

amalric said:

The increase in sensitivity and IBIS with primes really does away with the need for ultrafast lenses, except for Subject Isolation.

Click to expand...

You admit that subject isolation will still need ultrafast lenses. Subject isolation is a pretty everyday requirement for most photographers.

So has IBIS and high sensitivity' really done away' with the need for them?

Increasing ISO still makes noise, it does on my GH3 and E-PL5, anyway. So if I want to shoot in the very dim light at my blues club, with my f1.8 I can shoot at f2 ISO 800 for a reasonable shutter speed of 1/125th. At f4 I'm upping that pro rata to around ISO 3200. That is far from noise free.

The need for fast lenses is as great or as little as it has ever been. It depends on the individual's requirements. You shouldn't assume that everyone is the same as you. They are not.

If they were, makers could just ask you what you wanted, make that and we'd all be happy photographers. It sounds an unlikely scenario to me.

You started out with a poor premise and it has been soundly refuted. I'd just admit I was wrong if I were you. ;-)

--

David
www.dthorpe.net

LOL the public can decide for itself if it prefers things dead - or alive.

I have included some Sigma 30/2.8 unprocessed in my Flickr account, and some 14/2.5 street shots.





--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

I still fail to understand your hostility towards subject isolation via DoF control. I understand why one would object to its overuse and clumsy application, but you seem to want to ban it outright.

Yes, Roger dispelled the myth of the absolute greatness of the Panaleica 25. Whole ceilings came crashing down. Yes it's a fast lens, but to be beaten by a lowly $100 Sigma?

And inferiority of the Sigma twin lenses having been dashed on the m43 forum, a similar myth regarding the 19mm Sigma appeared on the Sony NEX forum. Interestingly, that forum became convinced that the 19 was a most inferior lens, whereas the 30 was generally accepted. What is happening, mind control? Rogers tests here show that the 19 and the 30 Sigmas are quite equal in MTF scores.

Oh great, now I gotta sell the PL25 and get the 14mm because the test says it's better. haha. Well, I'm sure there's some value in the numbers posted there, and thanks for posting this. I guess we all judge quality of lenses in different ways. I like the Panny, color, and the quality of bokeh in the background, so I guess I'll have to keep her.

Hen3ry said:

Hen3ry wrote:

…won’t let facts get in the way!

Click to expand...

They know how to interpret the facts. That's why they don't get hung-up on resolution figures. It's just one fact amongst many, and not the most important.

Hen3ry said:

By the way - one of the major things that drove big apertures for lenses back in the good old film SLR days (I'm talking 60s, 70s and 80s here) was the manual focusing. You wanted to focus in any light, bright or dull, you got the fastest lens you could afford.

You nearly always stopped down for taking the picture. Open aperture resolution wasn't that great -- you just needed light on the ground glass focusing screen.

Click to expand...

Rubbish! That was just a fringe benefit. The principle reason I liked fast lenses on film were for control over depth of field, followed by shooting in low light. The viewfinder was bright enough. If that was the main reason I'd never have needed a lens faster than f2.8.

amalric said:

amalric wrote:

LOL the public can decide for itself if it prefers things dead - or alive.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the dead could appear alive ...

Hen3ry said:

Hen3ry wrote:

Hen3ry said:

String wrote:

Amalric, you seem to have this idea that everyone has the same needs as you and that there is no need for fast glass. I guess you've never shot sports in low light where flash is not an option? Concerts, plays, dance? Glamour, fashion? Try shooting kids ice hockey with IBIS and a slow shutter speed, let me know how that works for you.Or a late night football game, see how many of those shots you can sell.

I for one am glad that we have the option of fast glass. IBIS is all great (it's almost halted me carrying a tripod) however low light and fast shutter speeds are still a major part of photography for a lot of people. M43 could never be taken as a serious system without some fast options.

Click to expand...

And there's the point. Some people need fast lenses for the pix they take -- and also fast sensors. The Oly and Panny 16 MPX sensors clearly are a very big step up from the 12 MPX for higher ISO shooting.

This should not be overlooked. Someone with modest lenses (e.g. me!) can get a 2 to 3 stop upgrade for ALL their lenses by upgrading their 12 MPX body to the lastest 16 MPX body and using higher ISOs -- with a change-over price of less than the price of one fast lens in most cases.

Working with the 12 MPX sensor in the E-PL3, I lust after the 16 MPX sensor for wider dynamic range rather than high ISOs. However, while it would be nice to have, for the vast majority of my photography, the 12 MPX sensor more than does the job, so really the 16 MPX is a "want" rather than a "need" at this point.

I have some professional stuff planned, however, where the 16 MPX output will be a distinct advantage. When I get all the production and marketing in place, I'll jump to the 16 MPX sensor.

I might even get a couple of the wider aperture lenses …

Click to expand...

Let me respond to both. I don't see how m4/3 is limiting at all in poor light. Perhaps because I tend to avoid POOR light in the first place.

My argument however is not about this, it is about the pretense of forcing shallow DOF to genres it doesn't belong to at all, like in Street Shooting. There is a fine example here:


What do you earn by forcing a modicum of bokeh in the street, where the onlooker would rather have the complete scene surrounding the subject?

Frankly I don't remember HCB or Doisneau, the masters of the genre, making use of it.

For the simple reason that a large aperture slows you down, since you can't make use of hyperfocal, and since it creates a very busy bokeh with obstacles. And then why hide the mess in the street in the first place?

Do you want to beautify it? Beautification and political correctness are the cardinal sins of the suburban 'culture' Lack of sincerity and lack of perspective are another two.

HCB was a master at selecting the geometry of an image, without using bokeh. I am not sure that at the time there weren't big fast lenses - I myself have a Sonnar 85/2 from the 1950s, but that's the kind of thing you don't use in the street, because it draws too much attention.

Am.

amalric said:

amalric wrote:

Well at least it goes to show that m4/3 can also be an inexpensive system, i.e. democratic, a positive to me, but not to everybody it seems.

The increase in sensitivity and IBIS with primes really does away with the need for ultrafast lenses, except for Subject Isolation.

Click to expand...

Except for subject isolation?

Thats quite a significant exception you just made!

I don't agree anyway. It still has advantages in low light. You get the best IQ with the lowest noise at lower ISO's, and IBIS doesn't help with anything that moves - people for example.

amalric said:

If it's the first thing you look for go get a FF135 body. I have a ZJ 50/1.8, but I don't feel any need for it. TMMV

Click to expand...

I have, but there are reasons I use MFT as well. That doesn't mean I want to compromise more than I have to. In fact with the smaller sensor fast glass becomes more important. I can't get the shallow DOF I get with FF so why make it even harder?

slimandy said:

slimandy wrote:

slimandy said:

amalric wrote:

Well at least it goes to show that m4/3 can also be an inexpensive system, i.e. democratic, a positive to me, but not to everybody it seems.

The increase in sensitivity and IBIS with primes really does away with the need for ultrafast lenses, except for Subject Isolation.

Click to expand...

Except for subject isolation?

Thats quite a significant exception you just made!

I don't agree anyway. It still has advantages in low light. You get the best IQ with the lowest noise at lower ISO's, and IBIS doesn't help with anything that moves - people for example.

slimandy said:

If it's the first thing you look for go get a FF135 body. I have a ZJ 50/1.8, but I don't feel any need for it. TMMV

Click to expand...

I have, but there are reasons I use MFT as well. That doesn't mean I want to compromise more than I have to. In fact with the smaller sensor fast glass becomes more important. I can't get the shallow DOF I get with FF so why make it even harder?

Click to expand...

Sorry but you are ringing to the wrong bell. I belong to the f/64 club, a very exclusive American one, founded by the forgotten A. Adams.

The Bokeh Madhouse, chaired by Mr. Pilfer, is next door.

Am.

amalric said:

amalric wrote:

amalric said:

slimandy wrote:

amalric said:

amalric wrote:

Well at least it goes to show that m4/3 can also be an inexpensive system, i.e. democratic, a positive to me, but not to everybody it seems.

The increase in sensitivity and IBIS with primes really does away with the need for ultrafast lenses, except for Subject Isolation.

Click to expand...

Except for subject isolation?

Thats quite a significant exception you just made!

I don't agree anyway. It still has advantages in low light. You get the best IQ with the lowest noise at lower ISO's, and IBIS doesn't help with anything that moves - people for example.

amalric said:

If it's the first thing you look for go get a FF135 body. I have a ZJ 50/1.8, but I don't feel any need for it. TMMV

Click to expand...

I have, but there are reasons I use MFT as well. That doesn't mean I want to compromise more than I have to. In fact with the smaller sensor fast glass becomes more important. I can't get the shallow DOF I get with FF so why make it even harder?

Click to expand...

Sorry but you are ringing to the wrong bell. I belong to the f/64 club, a very exclusive American one, founded by the forgotten A. Adams.

Click to expand...

I haven't forgotten him. I saw an exhibition of his work just last month.

He didn't shoot with an MFT camera though. He tends not to shoot anything that needs shallow DOF or in low light either. If you want to shoot @ f64 you're in the wrong forum!

Really, if that's your argument for not needing fast lenses it seems pointless unless we are all exclusively shooting landscapes. I will be using my OMD in Yosemite next month, but if I wasn't travelling light I would choose a different camera all together.

amalric said:

The Bokeh Madhouse, chaired by Mr. Pilfer, is next door.

Click to expand...

You are obviously very narrow minded. In aperture terms I mean.

amalric said:

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

slimandy said:

slimandy wrote:

slimandy said:

amalric wrote:

slimandy said:

slimandy wrote:

slimandy said:

amalric wrote:

Well at least it goes to show that m4/3 can also be an inexpensive system, i.e. democratic, a positive to me, but not to everybody it seems.

The increase in sensitivity and IBIS with primes really does away with the need for ultrafast lenses, except for Subject Isolation.

Click to expand...

Except for subject isolation?

Thats quite a significant exception you just made!

I don't agree anyway. It still has advantages in low light. You get the best IQ with the lowest noise at lower ISO's, and IBIS doesn't help with anything that moves - people for example.

slimandy said:

If it's the first thing you look for go get a FF135 body. I have a ZJ 50/1.8, but I don't feel any need for it. TMMV

Click to expand...

I have, but there are reasons I use MFT as well. That doesn't mean I want to compromise more than I have to. In fact with the smaller sensor fast glass becomes more important. I can't get the shallow DOF I get with FF so why make it even harder?

Click to expand...

Sorry but you are ringing to the wrong bell. I belong to the f/64 club, a very exclusive American one, founded by the forgotten A. Adams.

Click to expand...

I haven't forgotten him. I saw an exhibition of his work just last month.

He didn't shoot with an MFT camera though. He tends not to shoot anything that needs shallow DOF or in low light either. If you want to shoot @ f64 you're in the wrong forum!

Really, if that's your argument for not needing fast lenses it seems pointless unless we are all exclusively shooting landscapes. I will be using my OMD in Yosemite next month, but if I wasn't travelling light I would choose a different camera all together.

slimandy said:

The Bokeh Madhouse, chaired by Mr. Pilfer, is next door.

Click to expand...

You are obviously very narrow minded. In aperture terms I mean.

slimandy said:

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

... humour a long forgotten art in the Land of Ambrose Bierce...

The Devil

PS Tedolph the Blue Meanies are forbidding me toshoot Landscape and Street.Help!..

amalric said:

amalric wrote:

amalric said:

Hen3ry wrote:

amalric said:

String wrote:

Amalric, you seem to have this idea that everyone has the same needs as you and that there is no need for fast glass. I guess you've never shot sports in low light where flash is not an option? Concerts, plays, dance? Glamour, fashion? Try shooting kids ice hockey with IBIS and a slow shutter speed, let me know how that works for you.Or a late night football game, see how many of those shots you can sell.

I for one am glad that we have the option of fast glass. IBIS is all great (it's almost halted me carrying a tripod) however low light and fast shutter speeds are still a major part of photography for a lot of people. M43 could never be taken as a serious system without some fast options.

Click to expand...

And there's the point. Some people need fast lenses for the pix they take -- and also fast sensors. The Oly and Panny 16 MPX sensors clearly are a very big step up from the 12 MPX for higher ISO shooting.

This should not be overlooked. Someone with modest lenses (e.g. me!) can get a 2 to 3 stop upgrade for ALL their lenses by upgrading their 12 MPX body to the lastest 16 MPX body and using higher ISOs -- with a change-over price of less than the price of one fast lens in most cases.

Working with the 12 MPX sensor in the E-PL3, I lust after the 16 MPX sensor for wider dynamic range rather than high ISOs. However, while it would be nice to have, for the vast majority of my photography, the 12 MPX sensor more than does the job, so really the 16 MPX is a "want" rather than a "need" at this point.

I have some professional stuff planned, however, where the 16 MPX output will be a distinct advantage. When I get all the production and marketing in place, I'll jump to the 16 MPX sensor.

I might even get a couple of the wider aperture lenses …

Click to expand...

Let me respond to both. I don't see how m4/3 is limiting at all in poor light. Perhaps because I tend to avoid POOR light in the first place.

Click to expand...

You're hardly a good judge then.

amalric said:

My argument however is not about this, it is about the pretense of forcing shallow DOF to genres it doesn't belong to at all, like in Street Shooting. There is a fine example here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51247571

What do you earn by forcing a modicum of bokeh in the street, where the onlooker would rather have the complete scene surrounding the subject?

Frankly I don't remember HCB or Doisneau, the masters of the genre, making use of it.

Click to expand...

Really? I do...

http://sobrefotografia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/henri-cartier-bresson-7.jpg

amalric said:

For the simple reason that a large aperture slows you down, since you can't make use of hyperfocal, and since it creates a very busy bokeh with obstacles. And then why hide the mess in the street in the first place?

Click to expand...

If you want to isolate your subject you don't need hyperfocal. You focus on you subject.

This is street, not landscape.

amalric said:

Do you want to beautify it? Beautification and political correctness are the cardinal sins of the suburban 'culture' Lack of sincerity and lack of perspective are another two.

HCB was a master at selecting the geometry of an image, without using bokeh. I am not sure that at the time there weren't big fast lenses - I myself have a Sonnar 85/2 from the 1950s, but that's the kind of thing you don't use in the street, because it draws too much attention.

Click to expand...

HCB principally used a Leica rangefinder. Leica make some of the fastest glass in the world.

amalric said:

Am.

Click to expand...