Fast sensors have made fast lenses obsolete Locked

Started Jul 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Re: ????? Re: Rather amusing math fail

mh2000 wrote:

LincolnB wrote:

Clearly the OP doesn't shoot any sort of variety of lighting or movement conditions.

The difference between landscapes at noon and indoor sports is, by my calculations, sometimes as much as 12 stops. The other day I was shooting indoor sports with my G3 at ISO 1600, aperture f/4, shutter 1/160th on a tripod. What I REALLY wanted was to be shooting was 1/500th handheld with ISO quality equivalent to 400. Does the OP have any idea how much it costs to buy a camera body that looks as good at ISO 4000 as a G3 at ISO 1600, never mind ISO 400?

What the OP is really saying is that we don't need to shoot with fast lenses because we can't afford fast lenses. It's a really bad argument.

What I read in the OP is a comparison between a f2.8 lens and a f4 lens. Sure, in your situation, one stop would have been helpful, but it wouldn't have been near to getting you what you stated you want -- around 4 stops faster!

I think that the main problem is how much resolution you lose by raising the ISO, compared to how much you lose by going from 2.8 to 1.4. R. Cicala showed that the PL 25mm was losing half or his resolution by going to 1.4.

Same goes for the two Voigtlanders. See here: both are very poor at 0.95.

Surely you don't lose half resolution by staying at 2.8 and leave Auto ISO increasing to 400 ISO.

So this *might* be a case where a faster sensor does better than a faster lens, in terms of resolution.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow