Reading mode: Light Dark

About DOF: wide angle comparison of 24mm (FF) on MFT and APS-C

Go to last post
ahaslett said:
I apologise if you already mentioned it but is the Fuji your chosen system?

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Click to expand...
I has been since 2013 but have used other formats alongside, including a GX8 and the Pen-F plus 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 zooms plus the 12/2.0 Oly 45/1.8 Oly and 43/1.7 Pana and the 75/1.8 Oly.

I have used the D800 and Canon 5D II plus SONY RX1 and RX1r alongside other formats.

But also had Fuji, mainly for studio portraits where I found the MFTs a bit small and because I could only read the values when looking through the EVF I find I had a lot of "lifting" routines happening where I would set the Fujis by just looking down. A small issue of course but isn't it often small stuff we like or dislike?

In short: I don't have a "chosen" system as such, but I am now leaning towards the Fuji, since I upgraded my X-T1 to the X-Pro2 ...

It's just gear, tools that might or might not work for you. Not a religion but often matter of personal taste and also workflow.

Regarding my original post, I guess I like the options I have with the Fuji glass better when it comes to wide angles. Like this one, not particularly noteworthy but fun to shoot:



f5be7ee1b2d84f12a0b1239c2ab90264.jpg

These grow on graves (!!!??) at a cemetary here in Auckland and I have no idea what they are ;-)
 
I'm pretty happy with my gear. I guess we like different things. Flowers make me reach for my Zuiko 50/2 and focus stacking comes to mind. Most of the time, I'm not that keen on shallow DoF, probably missing something.

Enjoy your gear.

Andrew
 
ahaslett said:
I'm pretty happy with my gear. I guess we like different things. Flowers make me reach for my Zuiko 50/2 and focus stacking comes to mind. Most of the time, I'm not that keen on shallow DoF, probably missing something.

Enjoy your gear.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Click to expand...
Exactly! People have different needs - or wants - so this shouldn't ever be a matter of personal attacks, but a matter of friendly debate. I don't mind robust as long as it stays within a remotely respectful framework.

Regarding the flower and stacking, there was a rather strong wind blowing so stacking would possibly not come tom mind as such. Also, I hardly ever take photos of flowers, but I do a lot of portraits studio as well as "otherwise" I guess would be the term.

Shallow DOF is often used to get rid of background, not just softening it:



d39635486b8e4054895bbffe4ff3c046.jpg

The background was pavers and some carpets ... EXIF there if you are interested.

The lens used is an 85/1.8 equivalent in terms of FOV and DOF. I have used first a Pentax Takumar 85/1.8 and then a Nikkor 85/1.8 so know this focal length well. The Fuji 56/1.2 a notch up from the Nikkor, but don't have Takumar files in digital format so wouldn't know about the Pentax ...

With the Pen-F and before the GX8 I had to think differently as the 43/1.7 - as brilliant as it was - is only an F3.4 in FF world ...

Here is a quick shot taken with the Pen-F and 43/1.7



d1579e0c66e14428a44b4a1c3b3a3979.jpg

.. and in typical Apples vs Walnuts, a shot taken with a Fuji. Flash was used in both cases.

c1861d6127284ba8819f685a37cccf3f.jpg

The Pen-F is of course in this case the higher res camera. But for portraits I guess I simply prefer the Fuji(s). I tried the Pen-F for a variety of portrait shoots, including some with the 75/1.8 but didn't think it was up to the same level as the Fuji(s).

When I went to Vietnam and Cambodia I left the Fuji at home, was briefly tempted to get an X-Pro2 in Hanoi as the prices are quite competitive there but didn't in the end and used the Pen-F without any regrets.

Just different, but won't repeat this. One of the things I had to learn if you like was how much movement there is in people's movements e.g. I tried to shoot some kids drawind pictures onto the pavement at dusk and thought that maybe 1/30s with IS would get me at least a couple of images in focus but they were all slightly "out" and high ISO not the forte of the Pen-F as such. Here is an example

Pen-F ISO1600 1/60s f2.2



c112bd5f34a3400c981c26698d9e0de2.jpg

100% crop



f105dadefbb44e9298606b38d74d37e4.jpg

Not bad but not that great either ... I think I had somehow overestimated the usefulness of IBIS, but photos like the one above often had swishy faces at 1/13s ...

Sorry got carried away, whatever works for you is cool ... I guess I could have saved that rather verbose response??

Deed
 
averagejoe576 said:
JamesWillis said:
Bhima78 said:
averagejoe576 said:
Bhima78 said:
averagejoe576 said:
Bhima78 said:
Getting good control over subject separation with m43's will cost more than larger sensor offerings. You can close the gap on that Fuji/Oly example a bit by using the PL12 (which is also the sharpest edge to edge 24mm equiv. lens out there), but again, that lens costs quite a bit of money.

Its clear that if DoF control is of supreme importance, the best way to go is with an older FF camera like an A7, 6D or older Nikon... then buy some relatively inexpensive f1.8 glass.

I find m43's gives me mostly enough DoF control, but I had to pay for it with the Nocticron, and eventually either an Oly 17mm f1.2 or (hopefully) a mitakon 17mm f0.95.
Click to expand...
I personally like 1 wide lens for shallow DoF, but prefer compactness for my other lenses which keep me from hopping systems. The 15/1.7 is great but leaves me wanting more control, and the Voitg 17.5/0.95 leaves me wanting AF, and I'd prefer not to swap between, or even carry, both, it defeats the whole point of compactness. Hopefully at some point (prob 2 years from now) I will be able to sell both to afford a used Oly 17/2. I considered 12mm but think maybe the price is still much too high for only f1.4
Click to expand...
Oly's 17mm f1.2 will likely be the same price as their 25mm. So, what... $1,200 at retail? You can pawn the voigt for $600 easy, and the 15 can sell for $350. You'd only be $250 away :)
Click to expand...
$1200 will be awesome but have a sneaking suspicion its will be more like $1400 due to being WA (the PL 12/1.4 was $1400). So have to wait it to actually come out and then for the price to drop a bit and/or show up used

Saying all these prices then thinking about the Sony FE 28/f2 at $400 does induce a tinge of regret, but then I remember I am in a otherwise happy monogamous relationship with my G7 at it'd be silly to cheat for a single lens
Click to expand...
The Sony 28mm f2 is a fine lens, but its not amazing:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-28mm-f2-sel28f20/review/

(make sure to press the FF option not the APS-C to see the proper blur chart)

Compared to what is likely going to be the case for the Oly 17mm f1.2:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.2-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/
Click to expand...
Those measurements aren't comparable across sensor sizes.
Click to expand...
Honestly don't care either way about the sharpness difference. For me its a $1000 tax for having m43 but wanting DoF control + autofocus. The m43 option will also be bigger/heavier as well with less DoF control.
Click to expand...
DOF control difference won't be very significant, less than half a stop. But yeah, Sony is better bang for the buck in this case.
 
Last edited:
Clayton1985 said:
Bhima78 said:
You cannot make the PL12 smaller and still have it be as sharp as it is at f1.4. It is sharper than all of the Nikon, Canon and Sigma offerings for FF at 24mm wide open across the frame, including Fuji's 16mm f1.4. This takes quite a bit of glass to make happen, much like the Otus is a hell of a lot bigger than Canon's 50mm f1.4.

For reference:

Fuji 16mm blur chart:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-16mm-f1.4-r-wr/review/

Panasonic 12mm:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/12mm-f1.4-asph-leica-dg-summilux/review/
Click to expand...
To be fair the Fuji lens is ridiculously good and f1.4 on aps-c is really a bonus as compared to m4/3. If you compare the Fuji lens at f2 to the m4/3 lens at f1.4 then they are about equal. I'm not taking anything away from the Panasonic lens, just pointing out that the Fuji lens is easily as good and in some areas better.
Click to expand...
Not sure there is even a half-stop difference between a Fuji and the EM1ii at this point, let alone 1 stop which you are suggesting (f1.4 to f2 is a full stop). I'm sure there will be as the next gen of APS-C will leapfrog current m43's tech, but its not there yet.

Even if you did that comparison, they look virtually identical on that blur map (PL12 at f1.4 and Fuji at F2). I'm not aware as to how fast focusing the 16mm is, but the PL12 is lightning on my GX8 when I tested it.
 
JamesWillis said:
averagejoe576 said:
JamesWillis said:
Bhima78 said:
averagejoe576 said:
Bhima78 said:
averagejoe576 said:
Bhima78 said:
Getting good control over subject separation with m43's will cost more than larger sensor offerings. You can close the gap on that Fuji/Oly example a bit by using the PL12 (which is also the sharpest edge to edge 24mm equiv. lens out there), but again, that lens costs quite a bit of money.

Its clear that if DoF control is of supreme importance, the best way to go is with an older FF camera like an A7, 6D or older Nikon... then buy some relatively inexpensive f1.8 glass.

I find m43's gives me mostly enough DoF control, but I had to pay for it with the Nocticron, and eventually either an Oly 17mm f1.2 or (hopefully) a mitakon 17mm f0.95.
Click to expand...
I personally like 1 wide lens for shallow DoF, but prefer compactness for my other lenses which keep me from hopping systems. The 15/1.7 is great but leaves me wanting more control, and the Voitg 17.5/0.95 leaves me wanting AF, and I'd prefer not to swap between, or even carry, both, it defeats the whole point of compactness. Hopefully at some point (prob 2 years from now) I will be able to sell both to afford a used Oly 17/2. I considered 12mm but think maybe the price is still much too high for only f1.4
Click to expand...
Oly's 17mm f1.2 will likely be the same price as their 25mm. So, what... $1,200 at retail? You can pawn the voigt for $600 easy, and the 15 can sell for $350. You'd only be $250 away :)
Click to expand...
$1200 will be awesome but have a sneaking suspicion its will be more like $1400 due to being WA (the PL 12/1.4 was $1400). So have to wait it to actually come out and then for the price to drop a bit and/or show up used
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
We have to see the humour here - someone fronts up US$1,200 for this wonderful lens and then presumably on-sells it and takes a financail tumble because they don't like the narower dof at wide .... :)
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
Saying all these prices then thinking about the Sony FE 28/f2 at $400 does induce a tinge of regret, but then I remember I am in a otherwise happy monogamous relationship with my G7 at it'd be silly to cheat for a single lens
Click to expand...
The Sony 28mm f2 is a fine lens, but its not amazing:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-28mm-f2-sel28f20/review/

(make sure to press the FF option not the APS-C to see the proper blur chart)

Compared to what is likely going to be the case for the Oly 17mm f1.2:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.2-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/
Click to expand...
Those measurements aren't comparable across sensor sizes.
Click to expand...
Honestly don't care either way about the sharpness difference. For me its a $1000 tax for having m43 but wanting DoF control + autofocus. The m43 option will also be bigger/heavier as well with less DoF control.
Click to expand...
DOF control difference won't be very significant, less than half a stop. But yeah, Sony is better bang for the buck in this case.
Click to expand...
 
Bhima78 said:
Not sure there is even a half-stop difference between a Fuji and the EM1ii at this point, let alone 1 stop which you are suggesting (f1.4 to f2 is a full stop). I'm sure there will be as the next gen of APS-C will leapfrog current m43's tech, but its not there yet.
Click to expand...
The stop is there in terms of DoF and IMO at least a half stop in terms of noise and possibly a little more. That's just my opinion and since Fuji makes it difficult to measure with X-Trans there aren't too many good places to compare. At any rate I think you'd really be splitting hairs to find much difference between the Panasonic at f1.4 and the Fuji at f2. And you still have the option to use the Fuji at f1.4 and trade the softer corners for DoF and a little bit better noise performance.
Bhima78 said:
Even if you did that comparison, they look virtually identical on that blur map (PL12 at f1.4 and Fuji at F2). I'm not aware as to how fast focusing the 16mm is, but the PL12 is lightning on my GX8 when I tested it.
Click to expand...
Not sure how the AF speed would compare. The Fuji lens is good but not as fast as their lenses with the linear motors so the Panasonic may have the edge here.
 
JamesWillis said:
Bhima78 said:
averagejoe576 said:
Bhima78 said:
averagejoe576 said:
Bhima78 said:
Getting good control over subject separation with m43's will cost more than larger sensor offerings. You can close the gap on that Fuji/Oly example a bit by using the PL12 (which is also the sharpest edge to edge 24mm equiv. lens out there), but again, that lens costs quite a bit of money.

Its clear that if DoF control is of supreme importance, the best way to go is with an older FF camera like an A7, 6D or older Nikon... then buy some relatively inexpensive f1.8 glass.

I find m43's gives me mostly enough DoF control, but I had to pay for it with the Nocticron, and eventually either an Oly 17mm f1.2 or (hopefully) a mitakon 17mm f0.95.
Click to expand...
I personally like 1 wide lens for shallow DoF, but prefer compactness for my other lenses which keep me from hopping systems. The 15/1.7 is great but leaves me wanting more control, and the Voitg 17.5/0.95 leaves me wanting AF, and I'd prefer not to swap between, or even carry, both, it defeats the whole point of compactness. Hopefully at some point (prob 2 years from now) I will be able to sell both to afford a used Oly 17/2. I considered 12mm but think maybe the price is still much too high for only f1.4
Click to expand...
Oly's 17mm f1.2 will likely be the same price as their 25mm. So, what... $1,200 at retail? You can pawn the voigt for $600 easy, and the 15 can sell for $350. You'd only be $250 away :)
Click to expand...
$1200 will be awesome but have a sneaking suspicion its will be more like $1400 due to being WA (the PL 12/1.4 was $1400). So have to wait it to actually come out and then for the price to drop a bit and/or show up used

Saying all these prices then thinking about the Sony FE 28/f2 at $400 does induce a tinge of regret, but then I remember I am in a otherwise happy monogamous relationship with my G7 at it'd be silly to cheat for a single lens
Click to expand...
The Sony 28mm f2 is a fine lens, but its not amazing:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-28mm-f2-sel28f20/review/

(make sure to press the FF option not the APS-C to see the proper blur chart)

Compared to what is likely going to be the case for the Oly 17mm f1.2:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.2-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/
Click to expand...
Those measurements aren't comparable across sensor sizes.

Case in point, 28mm scores "better" on Nex-7 than on A7R, despite the fact that A7R combo beats Nex7 on every sharpness measurement, including in the corners (field map on links below).

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-A7R__917

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-NEX-7__736

4c9c794d272c4b2a9b059559b2a6270b.jpg.png

c6bdbc8795ea4e468da4123875550453.jpg.png
Click to expand...
The problem with DXO's heatmap is that it is based off of megapixel sharpness which is highly dependent on the MP of the given sensor. Imaging-Resource's blur unit measurement is completely divorced from the sensor's MP count. And of course it makes sense that a FF lens would be sharper in the corners on an APS-C sensor, just like IR's measurement shows. Even then, its no where near as good as the Oly 25. Not even the same ballpark.
 
Last edited:
Clayton1985 said:
The stop is there in terms of DoF and IMO at least a half stop in terms of noise and possibly a little more. That's just my opinion and since Fuji makes it difficult to measure with X-Trans there aren't too many good places to compare. At any rate I think you'd really be splitting hairs to find much difference between the Panasonic at f1.4 and the Fuji at f2. And you still have the option to use the Fuji at f1.4 and trade the softer corners for DoF and a little bit better noise performance.
Click to expand...
DoF "advantage" (if thin DoF is what you desire) of APS-C over MFT when using equivalent focal lengths is, has been and always will be 2/3 of a stop. That's just simple math. If you used an MFT lens at f/1.4 and the equivalent Fuji lens at f/2, Fuji would be at a "disadvantage" of 1/3 of a stop. And still nobody would care one way or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M_G
Bhima78 said:
JamesWillis said:
Those measurements aren't comparable across sensor sizes.

Case in point, 28mm scores "better" on Nex-7 than on A7R, despite the fact that A7R combo beats Nex7 on every sharpness measurement, including in the corners (field map on links below).

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-A7R__917

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-NEX-7__736

4c9c794d272c4b2a9b059559b2a6270b.jpg.png

c6bdbc8795ea4e468da4123875550453.jpg.png
Click to expand...
The problem with DXO's heatmap is that it is based off of megapixel sharpness which is highly dependent on the MP of the given sensor.
Click to expand...
That is not a problem if one is interested in actual results rather than lens measurements in a vacuum.
Bhima78 said:
Imaging-Resource's blur unit measurement is completely divorced from the sensor's MP count.

And of course it makes sense that a FF lens would be sharper in the corners on an APS-C sensor, just like IR's measurement shows.
Click to expand...
Which is of little relevance to photographer when the same lens paired with an APS-C camera gives you less sharp results everywhere, including in the corners. APS-C will use sharper part of the lens but it will also magnify all the lens flaws because it is sampling smaller area.

So again, it depends whether you are interested in lens measurements for their own sake or actual results.
Bhima78 said:
Even then, its no where near as good as the Oly 25. Not even the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
It does not have to be. The larger the sensor the more relaxed the lens requirements.
 
Last edited:
by "focus" i mean people'ss misguided over-fixation on DOF as the holy grail of photographic tool.

and by "people" i mean largely the novice and the forum-warriors, typically who just splashed money for their first 'real' camera having used only smartphones and ultracompacts in the past.

this is not a critique of you, your arguments, or your photos, but since you posted the photos, i thought i'd latch on to them as an illustration of my thoughts:

[1-industrial pipework] the valve wheel stands out more for its color than its focus range. for best effect one can further desaturate the background and punch up the red.

[2-small controller] framing plays a larger role, and the object of interest stands out more when shot against a clearer background. again, DOF plays only secondary role.

[3-portrait against flower] i agree, some of the olympus lenses arent the best for defocused quality... particularly the 40-150/pro. though now this is about specific lens design rather than sensor format.

this is not at all dismissing the important of DOF. i like DOF isolation. sometimes one really is physically restricted in composition and framing. in which case, purely apples to apples, a larger sensor system is betetr in that it allows more DOF control.

except things are never, ever purely apples to apples.

i like horsepower. purely apples to apples, i like a car that has more horsepower than one that has less.

but when one fixates purely on DOF at the expense of everything else, thats a pretty silly thing to do. like dismissing a porsche gt3 for a bugatti veyron which is worse in most ways except horsepower and price.
 
b0k3h said:
by "focus" i mean people'ss misguided over-fixation on DOF as the holy grail of photographic tool.

and by "people" i mean largely the novice and the forum-warriors, typically who just splashed money for their first 'real' camera having used only smartphones and ultracompacts in the past.

this is not a critique of you, your arguments, or your photos, but since you posted the photos, i thought i'd latch on to them as an illustration of my thoughts:

[1-industrial pipework] the valve wheel stands out more for its color than its focus range. for best effect one can further desaturate the background and punch up the red.

[2-small controller] framing plays a larger role, and the object of interest stands out more when shot against a clearer background. again, DOF plays only secondary role.

[3-portrait against flower] i agree, some of the olympus lenses arent the best for defocused quality... particularly the 40-150/pro. though now this is about specific lens design rather than sensor format.

this is not at all dismissing the important of DOF. i like DOF isolation. sometimes one really is physically restricted in composition and framing. in which case, purely apples to apples, a larger sensor system is betetr in that it allows more DOF control.

except things are never, ever purely apples to apples.

i like horsepower. purely apples to apples, i like a car that has more horsepower than one that has less.

but when one fixates purely on DOF at the expense of everything else, thats a pretty silly thing to do. like dismissing a porsche gt3 for a bugatti veyron which is worse in most ways except horsepower and price.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you said. Industrial pipeworks are not really high on my list as such, but served as a point of some mild interest, that could be replicated.

I think that for me it boils down to scope, menaing the range of apertures from max to defraction. I have conducted some (more accurate regarding framing etc) diffraction tests using a cityscape. The Oly was "clean" up to F8 and F11 already had some serious softening, which didn't look ok-soft but just like deteriorating by way of diffraction softening. But of course F1.7-F8 4-stops and a bit. My FF held up to F18 ok and the Fuji to about F14 where F16 is not unpleasant as such. So not just doubling the aperture or multiplying by 1.5 but the general "look" is more forgiving as sensor size goes up.

But maybe it's more simple than all this as I can stop down a lens - but generally stop up. So when people complain (certainly the wrong term here, but you know what I mean) about DOF being too shallow, you can - and I do - stop down.

As an example for scope regarding available combinations, I took the RX1r alongside the Pen--F to Indochine in Oct/Nov last year. The Pen I would normally shoot from wide open to F8 whereas the RX1r I shoot from wide open to F20 - those files are still usable imo. So not only about DOF here.

Likewise I shoot the Fuji in the studio down to F16 where with the Pen I would still stick to F8. And there it's not about shallow DOF.
 
Stejo said:
DoF "advantage" (if thin DoF is what you desire) of APS-C over MFT when using equivalent focal lengths is, has been and always will be 2/3 of a stop. That's just simple math. If you used an MFT lens at f/1.4 and the equivalent Fuji lens at f/2, Fuji would be at a "disadvantage" of 1/3 of a stop. And still nobody would care one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Point taken but as I said before I'm not trying to promote one lens over the other, just pointing out that while I'm sure there are a few differences I don't think you're losing anything with the Fuji lens if Fuji is your system of choice.
 
JamesWillis said:
Bhima78 said:
JamesWillis said:
Those measurements aren't comparable across sensor sizes.

Case in point, 28mm scores "better" on Nex-7 than on A7R, despite the fact that A7R combo beats Nex7 on every sharpness measurement, including in the corners (field map on links below).

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-A7R__917

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-NEX-7__736

4c9c794d272c4b2a9b059559b2a6270b.jpg.png

c6bdbc8795ea4e468da4123875550453.jpg.png
Click to expand...
The problem with DXO's heatmap is that it is based off of megapixel sharpness which is highly dependent on the MP of the given sensor.
Click to expand...
That is not a problem if one is interested in actual results rather than lens measurements in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Actually, this IS what is interesting. Bodies and sensor tech comes and goes... its the lenses of the system that are kept for years and years. A great example is someone that bought the Oly 150mm F2 lens back in the 12MP four thirds days. If you looked at DXO, you'd think the lens was shyte. But now you can throw it on an EM1ii and all of a sudden, its amazing. Is it magic? No, its because the lens was ALWAYS amazing, its just that the older sensor tech has been kicked to the dust bin, and now that already stellar lens can begin to show its true colors.
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
Imaging-Resource's blur unit measurement is completely divorced from the sensor's MP count.

And of course it makes sense that a FF lens would be sharper in the corners on an APS-C sensor, just like IR's measurement shows.
Click to expand...
Which is of little relevance to photographer when the same lens paired with an APS-C camera gives you less sharp results everywhere, including in the corners. APS-C will use sharper part of the lens but it will also magnify all the lens flaws because it is sampling smaller area.
Click to expand...
This does not seem to hold up under scrutiny. The corner sharpness almost uniformly gets sharper with every FF lens paired to an APS-C sensor, regardless of the extra magnification. You can see it in the lab graphs, and on every single real world test done by CameraLabs.
JamesWillis said:
So again, it depends whether you are interested in lens measurements for their own sake or actual results.
Click to expand...
Im interested in lens measurements because, when we are talking about buying a bunch of lenses for a given system, one is likely to stick with that system for awhile. Again, the bodies come and go, the lenses stay as long as the system survives.
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
Even then, its no where near as good as the Oly 25. Not even the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
It does not have to be. The larger the sensor the more relaxed the lens requirements.
Click to expand...
No, the higher the MP of the sensor, the more relaxed the lens requirements. Size of the sensor in this case is mostly irrelevant to lens performance (though pixel pitch does have an effect, especially on mediocre lenses).
 
Bhima78 said:
JamesWillis said:
Bhima78 said:
JamesWillis said:
Those measurements aren't comparable across sensor sizes.

Case in point, 28mm scores "better" on Nex-7 than on A7R, despite the fact that A7R combo beats Nex7 on every sharpness measurement, including in the corners (field map on links below).

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-A7R__917

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-NEX-7__736

4c9c794d272c4b2a9b059559b2a6270b.jpg.png

c6bdbc8795ea4e468da4123875550453.jpg.png
Click to expand...
The problem with DXO's heatmap is that it is based off of megapixel sharpness which is highly dependent on the MP of the given sensor.
Click to expand...
That is not a problem if one is interested in actual results rather than lens measurements in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Actually, this IS what is interesting. Bodies and sensor tech comes and goes... its the lenses of the system that are kept for years and years. A great example is someone that bought the Oly 150mm F2 lens back in the 12MP four thirds days. If you looked at DXO, you'd think the lens was shyte. But now you can throw it on an EM1ii and all of a sudden, its amazing. Is it magic? No, its because the lens was ALWAYS amazing, its just that the older sensor tech has been kicked to the dust bin, and now that already stellar lens can begin to show its true colors.
Click to expand...
Nothing that you said in above paragraph explains why it is useful to ignore sensor resolution while comparing sharpness of M43 and FF combos. Do you expect M43 sensors to keep increasing in resolution and FF sensors to stagnate until they finally meet at same resolution?

If you think it is an accident that there is not a single M43 lens and camera combo (and less than a handful of aps-c combos) that appear in the top 250 of dxomark's lens sharpness table, or if you believe that this will significantly change in the future, you are sadly mistaken.
Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:
Imaging-Resource's blur unit measurement is completely divorced from the sensor's MP count.

And of course it makes sense that a FF lens would be sharper in the corners on an APS-C sensor, just like IR's measurement shows.
Click to expand...
Which is of little relevance to photographer when the same lens paired with an APS-C camera gives you less sharp results everywhere, including in the corners. APS-C will use sharper part of the lens but it will also magnify all the lens flaws because it is sampling smaller area.
Click to expand...
This does not seem to hold up under scrutiny. The corner sharpness almost uniformly gets sharper with every FF lens paired to an APS-C sensor, regardless of the extra magnification. You can see it in the lab graphs
Click to expand...
You can see this with every lens in graphs that ignore (by your account) on average greater resolution of FF sensors and don't take into account the fact that even if sensor resolution is the same aps-c will require greater lens sharpness to break even. Also by misinterpreting lp/mm resolution charts and not understanding the difference between lp/mm and lp/ph.
Bhima78 said:
, and on every single real world test done by CameraLabs.
Click to expand...
That you are misintrepreting.
Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:
So again, it depends whether you are interested in lens measurements for their own sake or actual results.
Click to expand...
Im interested in lens measurements because, when we are talking about buying a bunch of lenses for a given system, one is likely to stick with that system for awhile. Again, the bodies come and go, the lenses stay as long as the system survives.
Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:
Even then, its no where near as good as the Oly 25. Not even the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
It does not have to be. The larger the sensor the more relaxed the lens requirements.
Click to expand...
No, the higher the MP of the sensor, the more relaxed the lens requirements.

Size of the sensor in this case is mostly irrelevant to lens performance (though pixel pitch does have an effect, especially on mediocre lenses).
Click to expand...
You are not making any sense.

If pixel pitch is the same FF will have greater resolution.

If resolution is the same FF will have larger pixel pitch.

You are simultaneously claiming 1) that higher resolution matters 2) that larger pixel pitch has an effect 3) that sensor being larger doesn't matter (despite the fact that it will result in either #1 or #2).
 
Last edited:
JamesWillis said:
Bhima78 said:
JamesWillis said:
Bhima78 said:
JamesWillis said:
Those measurements aren't comparable across sensor sizes.

Case in point, 28mm scores "better" on Nex-7 than on A7R, despite the fact that A7R combo beats Nex7 on every sharpness measurement, including in the corners (field map on links below).

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-A7R__917

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-28mm-F2-mounted-on-Sony-NEX-7__736

4c9c794d272c4b2a9b059559b2a6270b.jpg.png

c6bdbc8795ea4e468da4123875550453.jpg.png
Click to expand...
The problem with DXO's heatmap is that it is based off of megapixel sharpness which is highly dependent on the MP of the given sensor.
Click to expand...
That is not a problem if one is interested in actual results rather than lens measurements in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Actually, this IS what is interesting. Bodies and sensor tech comes and goes... its the lenses of the system that are kept for years and years. A great example is someone that bought the Oly 150mm F2 lens back in the 12MP four thirds days. If you looked at DXO, you'd think the lens was shyte. But now you can throw it on an EM1ii and all of a sudden, its amazing. Is it magic? No, its because the lens was ALWAYS amazing, its just that the older sensor tech has been kicked to the dust bin, and now that already stellar lens can begin to show its true colors.
Click to expand...
Nothing that you said in above paragraph explains why it is useful to ignore sensor resolution while comparing sharpness of M43 and FF combos. Do you expect M43 sensors to keep increasing in resolution and FF sensors to stagnate until they finally meet at same resolution?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it does in the context of judging lens quality, read it again. And no I don't expect FF or APS-C to stagnate in resolution, but I DO expect there to be very large diminishing returns in terms of practical image quality.
JamesWillis said:
If you think it is an accident that there is not a single M43 lens and camera combo (and less than a handful of aps-c combos) that appear in the top 250 of dxomark's lens sharpness table, or if you believe that this will significantly change in the future, you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...
Its not an accident when the scale used by DXO is used to measure lenses based off the MP of the sensor. And again, I don't care that it won't change in the future, because I don't think DXO's scales are the best way to determine how good a LENS is.
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
Imaging-Resource's blur unit measurement is completely divorced from the sensor's MP count.

And of course it makes sense that a FF lens would be sharper in the corners on an APS-C sensor, just like IR's measurement shows.
Click to expand...
Which is of little relevance to photographer when the same lens paired with an APS-C camera gives you less sharp results everywhere, including in the corners. APS-C will use sharper part of the lens but it will also magnify all the lens flaws because it is sampling smaller area.
Click to expand...
This does not seem to hold up under scrutiny. The corner sharpness almost uniformly gets sharper with every FF lens paired to an APS-C sensor, regardless of the extra magnification. You can see it in the lab graphs
Click to expand...
You can see this with every lens in graphs that ignore (by your account) on average greater resolution of FF sensors and don't take into account the fact that even if sensor resolution is the same aps-c will require greater lens sharpness to break even. Also by misinterpreting lp/mm resolution charts and not understanding the difference between lp/mm and lp/ph.
JamesWillis said:
, and on every single real world test done by CameraLabs.
Click to expand...
That you are misintrepreting.
Click to expand...
Not really. Go look at all of his lens tests where he shows you crops from FF and APS-C. The APS-C one is clearly sharper in the corners because, surprise surprise, its using more of the center of the lens and not the extreme corners as the FF sensor would.
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
So again, it depends whether you are interested in lens measurements for their own sake or actual results.
Click to expand...
Im interested in lens measurements because, when we are talking about buying a bunch of lenses for a given system, one is likely to stick with that system for awhile. Again, the bodies come and go, the lenses stay as long as the system survives.
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
Even then, its no where near as good as the Oly 25. Not even the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
It does not have to be. The larger the sensor the more relaxed the lens requirements.
Click to expand...
No, the higher the MP of the sensor, the more relaxed the lens requirements.

Size of the sensor in this case is mostly irrelevant to lens performance (though pixel pitch does have an effect, especially on mediocre lenses).
Click to expand...
You are not making any sense.

If pixel pitch is the same FF will have greater resolution.

If resolution is the same FF will have larger pixel pitch.

You are simultaneously claiming 1) that higher resolution matters 2) that larger pixel pitch has an effect 3) that sensor being larger doesn't matter (despite the fact that it will result in either #1 or #2).
Click to expand...
Higher resolution does matter for DXOs scale. This is not up for debate. Pixel pitch does matter for DXO scale (though no where near as much as resolution), but its effect is most pronounced on mediocre lenses, not on the good ones.
 
Last edited:
Bhima78 said:
JamesWillis said:
Nothing that you said in above paragraph explains why it is useful to ignore sensor resolution while comparing sharpness of M43 and FF combos. Do you expect M43 sensors to keep increasing in resolution and FF sensors to stagnate until they finally meet at same resolution?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it does in the context of judging lens quality, read it again.
Click to expand...
Do you use lenses as paper weight and just admire pretty purple graphs? Or do you sometimes use them to take photos?

What matters more, which graphs look prettier, or which lens produces sharper photos?
Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:
Bhima78 said:
Imaging-Resource's blur unit measurement is completely divorced from the sensor's MP count.

And of course it makes sense that a FF lens would be sharper in the corners on an APS-C sensor, just like IR's measurement shows.
Click to expand...
Which is of little relevance to photographer when the same lens paired with an APS-C camera gives you less sharp results everywhere, including in the corners. APS-C will use sharper part of the lens but it will also magnify all the lens flaws because it is sampling smaller area.
Click to expand...
This does not seem to hold up under scrutiny. The corner sharpness almost uniformly gets sharper with every FF lens paired to an APS-C sensor, regardless of the extra magnification. You can see it in the lab graphs
Click to expand...
You can see this with every lens in graphs that ignore (by your account) on average greater resolution of FF sensors and don't take into account the fact that even if sensor resolution is the same aps-c will require greater lens sharpness to break even. Also by misinterpreting lp/mm resolution charts and not understanding the difference between lp/mm and lp/ph.
Bhima78 said:
, and on every single real world test done by CameraLabs.
Click to expand...
That you are misintrepreting.
Click to expand...
Not really.
Click to expand...
Yes really.
Bhima78 said:
Go look at all of his lens tests where he shows you crops from FF and APS-C. The APS-C one is clearly sharper in the corners because, surprise surprise, its using more of the center of the lens and not the extreme corners as the FF sensor would.
Click to expand...
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens Image Quality

Surprise! FF photo is sharper everywhere, including in the corners, even when comparing sensors with the same resolution. Something that you insisted doesn't happen.

This demonstrates that FF can achieve greater sharpness and detail while using less sharp lens (or less sharp part of the lens).

And I am being too nice to APS-C camera by comparing it against FF of the same resolution, at the same fstop. If I was being mean I would compare it to FF with the same pixel pitch, at equivalent fstops, resulting in this (7d II image upscaled to 5dsr resolution, click on "original size" for 100% view):

90370ba78e9a40d6a04ec976c06b9538.jpg.png

Gotta love those sharp APS-C corners, they are really taking advantage of the lens sweet spot. :-P
 
Last edited:
JamesWillis said:
Bhima78 said:
JamesWillis said:
Nothing that you said in above paragraph explains why it is useful to ignore sensor resolution while comparing sharpness of M43 and FF combos. Do you expect M43 sensors to keep increasing in resolution and FF sensors to stagnate until they finally meet at same resolution?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it does in the context of judging lens quality, read it again.
Click to expand...
Do you use lenses as paper weight and just admire pretty purple graphs? Or do you sometimes use them to take photos?

What matters more, which graphs look prettier, or which lens produces sharper photos?
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
JamesWillis said:
Imaging-Resource's blur unit measurement is completely divorced from the sensor's MP count.

And of course it makes sense that a FF lens would be sharper in the corners on an APS-C sensor, just like IR's measurement shows.
Click to expand...
Which is of little relevance to photographer when the same lens paired with an APS-C camera gives you less sharp results everywhere, including in the corners. APS-C will use sharper part of the lens but it will also magnify all the lens flaws because it is sampling smaller area.
Click to expand...
This does not seem to hold up under scrutiny. The corner sharpness almost uniformly gets sharper with every FF lens paired to an APS-C sensor, regardless of the extra magnification. You can see it in the lab graphs
Click to expand...
You can see this with every lens in graphs that ignore (by your account) on average greater resolution of FF sensors and don't take into account the fact that even if sensor resolution is the same aps-c will require greater lens sharpness to break even. Also by misinterpreting lp/mm resolution charts and not understanding the difference between lp/mm and lp/ph.
JamesWillis said:
, and on every single real world test done by CameraLabs.
Click to expand...
That you are misintrepreting.
Click to expand...
Not really.
Click to expand...
Yes really.
JamesWillis said:
Go look at all of his lens tests where he shows you crops from FF and APS-C. The APS-C one is clearly sharper in the corners because, surprise surprise, its using more of the center of the lens and not the extreme corners as the FF sensor would.
Click to expand...
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens Image Quality

Surprise! FF photo is sharper even in the corners, even when comparing sensors with same resolution. Something that you said doesn't happen.

And I am being too nice to APS-C camera by comparing it against FF of the same resolution, at the same fstop. If I was being mean I would compare it to FF with the same pixel pitch, at equivalent fstops, resulting in this (7d II image upscaled to 5dsr resolution, click on "original size" for 100% view):

90370ba78e9a40d6a04ec976c06b9538.jpg.png

Gotta love those sharp APS-C corners, they are really taking advantage of the lens sweet spot. :-P
Click to expand...
Cameralabs test of the Nikon 24mm f1.4, Sigma 24, and Samyang 24:

Loading…

www.cameralabs.com

In every example with each of those lenses the corners are sharper with the DX crop, than FX. Yes, Gordon is shooting with a D810 the whole time and swapping between APS-C crop mode and FF mode. There is absolutely no reason why this should change if he used a Nikon APS-C camera in anyway since, an APS-C sensor is merely a cropped FF sensor. The obvious pattern here is: larger glass designed for larger sensor has better corners on smaller sensor. That isn't magic, its pretty obvious. Its also the reason why m43's can get such sharp corners wide open, because it doesn't have to control LoCA as hard since the angle of light is LESS severe on a smaller sensor.
 
Bhima78 said:
Cameralabs test of the Nikon 24mm f1.4, Sigma 24, and Samyang 24:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24mm_f1-4G_ED/sharpness.shtml

In every example with each of those lenses the corners are sharper with the DX crop, than FX. Yes, Gordon is shooting with a D810 the whole time and swapping between APS-C crop mode and FF mode. There is absolutely no reason why this should change if he used a Nikon APS-C camera in anyway since, an APS-C sensor is merely a cropped FF sensor. The obvious pattern here is: larger glass designed for larger sensor has better corners on smaller sensor
Click to expand...
The only thing your link proves is that the corners of the lens are less sharp than the rest of the lens, which we already knew. It does not prove that corners on a DX sensor are sharper.

Both shots were taken from the same distance from the target, so while FX captured entire target DX only captured the middle part of it.

For a proper comparison one would have to step back further away when taking a DX shot to ensure entire target is in the frame and then upscale the resulting photo to 36MP to compare images at the same output size.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top