Michael Reichmann's take on smaller full frame Sony FE mount lenses

Started Dec 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: It is about usability
1

dpreviewreader wrote:

Anders W wrote:

dpreviewreader wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

Lab D wrote:

EarthQuake wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Your example above presumes that MFT users want to match fast FF lenses in equivalence terms. I certainly don't want to do that. Rather, I am ready to sacrifice some speed (in equivalence terms) to have smaller and lighter lenses since this in turn makes it far more likely that I actually have them with me when I need them.

Right, I think its silly to assume M43rds users want "equivalent" lenses in terms of not only FL but also DOF and light gathering....

Most M43 users want "usability". They want the best tool for getting pictures that reach the quality threshold they have defined.

Exactly. An M43 user has decided that the smaller sensor gives him system size and weight benefits that he wants in exchange for less control over DOF and less ability to enlarge noise-limited images for viewing or printing at very large sizes. So it is sensible for an M43 user pick lenses that are "equivalent" in terms of field of view and exposure and ignore "equivalence" in terms of DOF or total light gathering (i.e., noise suppression).

An FF user on the other hand, must presumably want more DOF control and/or ability to print noise-limited images at larger sizes. If not, then why would such a user pay more for the large sensor?

Putting a slow lens on an FF camera in order to save size or weight seems kind of silly to me because it negates most of the advantages of the FF system.

And putting an FF DOF/noise-equivalent fast lens on an M43 camera is similarly silly since it negates most of the advantages of the M43 system.

Now I can certainly understand wanting to have one or two of these "silly" lenses to use in special circumstances, but in terms of the overall system and a collection of lenses they would surely be more the exception than the rule.

m43 needs to strive to be a system that can be used for serious as well as casual work.

Sure. But serious work is not the same as very shallow DoF in my book. If you do think you need more "DoF control" that MFT can provide, you are better off with FF. If instead, you want more "FL control" (more lenses in your bag rather than in a drawer back home), you may be better off with MFT.

I am not coming from the DOF angle but from the SNR and DR angles. One stop wider will give m43 competitive SNR and DR against FF.

It does not matter from which angle you come at it. You buy the additional SNR/DR at the expense of DoF. There is no way you can have both. And if you want more SNR/DR and are ready to accept the shallow DoF that comes with it, you are better off with FF.

This means it should enable users to shoot a stop faster than FF in most situations. For this the f/2 zooms are imperative for the system to be complete, in addition to the telephotos that Olympus is working on.What is silly is insisting that m43 is only about size and nothing else.

No I don't think it makes much sense for MFT to develop f/2 zooms. Those zooms are likely to be bigger, heavier, more expensive, and less-well performing at equivalent apertures than the corresponding f/4 zooms for FF. If you think you need faster zooms than f/2.8 on MFT, corrresponding to f/5.6 on FF, you are better off going FF.

The f/2 zooms will certainly be bigger, heavier and more expensive and I am not interested in equivalent apertures but what will improve m43 image quality to make it competitive. So a f/2 zoom will allow a m43 body to shoot at least one stop wider - actually two stops in most cases - than a FF f/2.8zoom. Same applies for f/2.8 m43 zooms vs. f/4 FF zooms.

I'd certainly appreciate having f/2 zooms too, if they could be made light and small and still perform well. But I am quite sure that's not the case. Rather, as I said, they are likely to be bigger, heavier, more expensive, and less well performing at equivalently wide apertures than a corresponding f/4 zoom for FF. Since that's the case, it's better to go FF if you think you need f/2 zooms with MFT.

With primes, you can of course go faster than f/2.8 and still get lenses that are pretty small, light, well-performing and not all that expensive. But eventually, you hit the limit here too. For example, the CV f/0.95 primes for MFT are bigger, heavier, more expensive and less well performing at equivalently wide apertures than corresponding f/1.9 (or thereabout) primes for FF.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
G L
G L
G L
G L
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow