GH4 DFD wins in all categories!! Great review here!

Started May 25, 2014 | Discussions thread
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: All they have to do?
1

PerL wrote:

Anders W wrote:

PerL wrote:

Ontario Gone wrote:

PerL wrote:

Lab D wrote:

Is there a reason for PDAF anymore because legacy lenses that will eventually be replaced?

Do we all agree that software based CDAF and DFD have more potential?

There are 100 million C+N PDAF lenses on the market. The range exceeds anything else, including super exotics, extremely expensive to develop and manufacture. The AF performance is good enough for every reasonable scenario. They won't go away.

That existing lens base is going to lock them into an aging technology. That is why Panasonic has the advantage, they have been making CDAF lenses from the start, and now they have a CDAF system that can surpass the rest. As processing speeds get faster, so will this new system, all they have to do is make the lenses to match.

How long will it take until you have native 12 mm F0.7, 17. F0.7, 25 F 0,6, 42 F 0.6, 67 F1.0, 100 F1.0, 7-12 F 1.4, 12-35 F 1.4, 35-100 F 1.4, 150 F1.4, 200 F1.4, 250 F 2.0, 300 F 2.0, 400 2.8 lenses? Just to mention a few.

Interesting. Do you have links to the place(s) where we can buy all these superfast C+N AF lenses and where we can read more about their specs? Or are these just equivalence numbers that you are toying around. If so, what's the point.

Of course it is equivalence - if you want the same options that is available as PDAF lenses in terms of DOF control and used by pros today.

The pros of tomorrow will settle for less DoF control. What you haven't quite realized is that those fast lenses were never originally developed for what is today known as "DoF control" (a euphemism for too shallow DoF). They were developed for low light at a time when the recording medium (film/sensors) was much inferior to what it is today and where every last photon counted.

For a while, there is/will be this fad of extremely shallow DoF, which historically never drove the development of faster lenses. It was the thirst for light that did it. But the (extremely) shallow DoF fad won't last forever. It's just a temporary phenomenon, driven primarily by the fact that FF was exotic in the early digital days (but no longer is) and shallow DoF was something that separated it from the crop-sensor crowd. And even if it does persist (which I consider unlikely), it'll soon be done just as effectively in PP.

Have a look at this ad for the Vivitar 35/1.9, announced in 1974, and bought by me a year or two later (although not because of that ad ), and you get a feel for how things actually developed and where they'll end up.

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."

And what will they cost in the small series they will sell? Olympus originally tried to sell a m43 300 2.8 at almost twice the price of Nikon and Canons 300 2.8. A Sony 500 F4 costs 13.000 dollars, a Nikon 500F4 costs 8.000 dollars - you pay 5.000 dollars extra for the privilege of buying an odd brand.

-- hide signature --

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

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