Is it the Panasonic Time for m43?

Started Dec 14, 2016 | Discussions thread
Tommi K1 Senior Member • Posts: 3,525
Re: Is it the Panasonic Time for m43?

slartz wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

I would dare arguing that MANY enthusiasts shoot this way (at least most of the people I know shoot this way most of the time....), especially when changing focal length all the time (the reality is that when you zoom in/out, the overall exposure might change anyway... so u will need to change anyway when shooting manually).

Never happened until talking about macro, where you get light loss closer to 1:1 you get.

Sure - but we are not talking about Macro lenses. We are talking about general purpose lenses (7-14, 12-40, 40-150, vs 8-18, 12-60, 50-200). And Macro you anyway shoot with a tripod so again.... specialty work.

Not always, not often even. Macro + Tripod is one of the key things, but Macro is as well done with totally handholding and single frames.

I only use Oly pro lenses anymore (didn't have that with Canon either).

Which is fine, but to me this approach kind of takes away most of the benefit of m43. The PRO lenses are great, but heavy.

Heavy compared to what..... 17-20-25-42.5-45 compared they are heavy, but compare to APS-C or FF lenses they are light and small.

Most people I know mostly shoot manual only for fixed scenes (for instance, you want to shoot landscape, on a tripod, you usually do manual), but in those cases u first figure out the composition anyway.

I shoot manual always, no time to play with camera to guess what I want and then compensate for camera mistakes. I see what I want and I get what I see.

"no time to play with camera to guess". as opposed to "I have tons of time to measure light from multiple sources at the frame and calculate the right lighting" ?!

Yes, the camera doesn't come on my way at all in M mode. In S or A or P modes it comes on my way as it is trying to do only one thing, change exposure to middle gray value based set exposure metering area and then taking in consideration what is the dialed EV correction.

With M I don't need to fight against camera, it doesn't need to try to guess what I want and how I want it.

The difference is very radical. Shooting with M mode is like shooting by selecting AF point and pointing it to the target that you want to be in focus (or using manual focus).

Using automatic exposure modes is like shooting with iESP where you give the camera engineer written algorithms to try to guess what is the subject you want to focus on. When it guesses it right, it is great and fast. But each time when it fails, it is just nothing than terrible. And if it fails more often than 1:20, then it is really a nasty thing for even normal consumer as 5% failure rate is very high already.

I think many will stick with the 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 for that then. Good enough anyways. Then of course 60mm at 1 stop difference is there, or a 25mm extra reach to 12-35mm.

I would hardly qualify the 12-60/3.5-5.6 as good enough. Putting aside the 1 stop diff, or the reach, it is simply a low quality lens. The image quality produced by the 12-60 is, well, that of a consumer kit lens. It's not TOO bad for a consumer kit lens, but it is a FAR CRY from the 12-40 or 12-35 in terms of IQ. I am GUESSING the 12-60/2.8-4 is more likely to have premium IQ.

Put the IQ to context. It stupidity to say that one lens has better IQ when it does not have context on what situation that IQ difference comes.

Otherwise people could make same kind hyperboles like that, by saying "Oh, but you don't see the IQ difference in post stamp size!". As there are two different ends of the IQ evaluation. And somewhere between the two the IQ difference comes to be such where it makes other compared thing where it doesn't meet the IQ requirements.

Does the 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 make good IQ up to 5/7/10/11/14/18/20/24/28/30" or larger?

On what size does the IQ be a lower enough so you can't use that lens?

Then comes the question that how far you can get with the post processing, instead using OOC JPEG? That is same thing with the noise, how much you can work with the post process to overcome the small differences like 1 stop slower aperture? So if it is ISO 2000 vs ISO 4000, in what situations that difference is so huge that you can not solve the image quality requirements problem in post process? This is about denoise, sharpening, flare removing, chromatic aberrations and so on.

For many it isn't a deal breaker at all that they need to remove CA from image, it is after all most often just a two clicks and fixed. For many it is huge problem and they go mad when if they would need to do something like that on computer! Regardless even if the size is such that it wouldn't matter, or that the photo itself is such that content is so bad it definitely doesn't matter!

Ansel Adams spend hours, days to get one print as he wanted. Now we have even more powerful means and tools to get far more out from a single photo than he ever could, and this even fraction of the time spent that He did.

But then again I see Oly 12-100mm f/4 that really is something, even if slightly bigger and heavier but...

so here's my question to you - you prefer a FIXED F/4 lens, over a an F/2.8-4 Lens? This is something I'm struggling with. You could always use an F/2.8-4 lens as an F/4 when u shoot manual, but ALSO get F/2.8 when u need the extra lighting.... To me - an F/2.8-4 lens is a far superior solution.

Yes, I could use it at f4, I explained it. But using it at 12mm f/2.8 and then zooming little in and suddenly having a 20mm f/3.7 ain't fun, as the camera is doing something for the exposure while I do something else (I change focal length, camera changes exposure).

So I would be sticking to it at f/4 anyways, so why should I have f/2.8 even in the first place? And if I want f/2.8, then why I can't have it on 60mm too? Why I need to go to 12mm to get f/2.8, when I want that f/2.8 on 20mm or 60mm or so on?

I would be stuck to f/4 even then as then camera doesn't change exposure no matter how I compose the shot.

Btw - the "variable" vs "fixed" discussion - I understand what your point was, but in all reality, 12-60/2.8-4 is NOT fixed aperture. At 12mm f/2.8 the aperture width is 4.28mm. At 60mm F/4, the aperture width is 15mm. So even F/2.8-4 is a variable aperture lens.

Yes it is. I know.

the same goes pretty much to all variable aperture ratio lenses. Even a simple 14-42/3.5-5.6 goes from a 4mm aperture at 14/3.5 to 7.5mm aperture at 42/5.6.

Yes they do. This is the thing, there ain't fixed aperture lenses anymore really. Some few really exist, but mostly they are something like hyper tele lenses up to 600-1200mm and so on with pump zoom. So a fixed aperture scales exactly by the focal length.

Bottom line - when poeple talk about FIXED aperture they mean fixed aperture rate, at F/2.8 or F/4 usually (for zoom lenses) adn when they talk about variable aperture they mean variable aperture ate such as F/2.8-4, or F/3.5-5.6, etc.

They mean ratio, when they talk about aperture. Just like people compare ultimate IQ difference being huge, while in reality it doesn't even show up, only in hyperboles or in very extreme situations.

Just like with example FF, there is no 2 stop noise difference between 4/3" and 35mm sensor on cameras like E-M1 and A7r2. That is the case between base ISO up to ISO 3200 on prints up to 20-30" diagonal area taken in low light. If you never go pass the limit where the difference comes visible and disturbing, you will never get a benefit from FF.

It is same thing with megapixels, people think and mean that every megapixel increase is huge and mattering thing, 16Mpix to 20Mpix is nothing really, 12.5% or what for width increase? In A4 size print that 12.5% is nothing really as it is 10mm.

People talk about many things, they think all know what they mean but they don't even by themselves know what they mean.

Panasonic 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 is great lens by sharpness, image quality etc. It has very usable aperture range for many situations as you can raise ISO up a lot to compensate it. It real flaw really is that it is f/3.5-5.6 and not like ie. constant f/4 or even f/4.5.

It ain't a such a problem for those who have all the time in the world to go around and play with the camera and let it be in automatic exposure, focusing and even zooming if it would be just possible, and let camera guess what they want.

But that is the thing, there are so many different kind people needing cameras for different kind situations that no one really can say that f/3.5-5.6 is bad or sharpness isn't great on such 12-60mm lens.

For me such is just like a "poin't and shoot" (I use a such lens myself as walkaround lens) where I have time to go around the limitations. But when I don't have time to go around (fast situations, moments and changes) then I don't want camera to change something when I change something else.

And this is why variable aperture is so great and zooms are so great as I can fix aperture ratio to one value or change focal length on the fly without it affecting something else.

Bottom line is, people talk and then they make hyperboles about IQ without knowing the requirements or what the real actual results really would be.

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