How m4/3 got the reputation it have good lens?

tommiejeep said:

My m43 gear is very good, as is my Nikon gear and Sony gear. I do not 'Love' any of them. Each serves a different purpose. For low light events I will shoot my Nikons (and Sony a7rii if suitable for the Event) .

I have shot the Em-1s for Events, when my wife was abroad and she had committed to cover the Events. Really had to pick my shots with best light I could find. I love the silent shooting of the EM-1 , Pen F and Sony a7rii.

If I could only have one system it would have to be Nikon since I shoot a lot of fast action.

The Pen F is really fun to use, as is my Df and the D500 is great for birds and Sports unless the light really goes to darkness. None of my cameras are perfect for everything. I do not shoot Vids. My now dead, D750, was just about the closest but the 1/4000 is just plain stupid. The newer focus spreads of the latest cameras really are nice.

Love the EVF for some things and not at all for others. At this moment I cannot think of another camera I want or need ( and have a fair bit of money in my gear chest from recent gear sales ) . I am watching the new Sig 135 1.8 Art, Nikon 105 f1.4 , Leica M 135 f3.4 and the new Sony 100 STF but just GAS . Do not need any. A D5 could be well used but , for the money, I'll stick with my D3s. Money will probably be spent on a trip or two.

Enjoy your gear

Click to expand...

OlyPent said:

Peiasdf said:

OlyPent said:

Peiasdf said:

nderstand it right, it means SONY and Zeiss actually designed the lenses to be faster than its F number.

To not be a fanboy, I used D90, E-PL2, X-E1, RX100 mk1, G7 X, GX7 over the past 7 years and just bought A7R II.

Click to expand...

And like all those who just dropped $3000 on a body, you need warming affirmation that your choice was a good one?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JDLaing50 said:

JimKasson said:

JDLaing50 said:

JimKasson said:

OlyPent said:

Pixel Pooper said:

OlyPent said:

When will an optician step-in an tell these math-challenged people that an f/1.2 lens is an f/1.2 lens and that sensors don't change that?

Click to expand...

Eyeglasses don't have apertures, so it's probably not something an optician thinks about too much. Even so, they would probably know that it is irrelevant. The f/number is just the ratio of focal length / aperture, so for lenses with the same field of view, f/1.2 on a smaller sensor is a smaller aperture than it is on a larger sensor.

Click to expand...

Glasses Opticians think of diopters (magnification), astigmatism correction, etc. They aren't concerned with things like aperture, though spectacle lenses have an aperture and it it is dictated by the same optical law that governs camera lenses. 50mm f/1.2 = 41.67mm. THAT is the "aperture." It does not change from sensor to sensor, the optical law is immutable. That is why when the exposure called for is 1/125th of a second at f/1.2 at 100 ISO, it will be the same on the m4/3 or FF camera. Alter that with either camera, you over or under-expose. If you want to talk about ISO performance m4/3rds versus FF or angle of view or effective DOF, they are different with different sensor sizes, but nothing is physically altering the lens itself, any differences in output are down the the sensors.

Click to expand...

Same optical law that governs camera lenses, huh? I'm myopic. How do you calculate the f-stop for a lens with negative focal length?

Click to expand...

Please define negative focal length.

Click to expand...

The convention in optics is to specify the focal length of converging lenses as positive, and diverging ones as negative. That corresponds to the location of the virtual image in the case of a diverging lens, and the focused image in the case of a converging one.

The way this comes to pass is that the focal length is defined as the distance behind the lens of the image for a subject at infinity. This is a positive number for a converging lens. It is a negative number for a diverging lens, since the virtual image is in front of the lens, not behind.

All this makes the math work better, too.

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

Click to expand...

Example of a negative focal length lens?

Click to expand...

jalywol said:

Peiasdf said:

OlyPent said:

Peiasdf said:

nderstand it right, it means SONY and Zeiss actually designed the lenses to be faster than its F number.

To not be a fanboy, I used D90, E-PL2, X-E1, RX100 mk1, G7 X, GX7 over the past 7 years and just bought A7R II.

Click to expand...

And like all those who just dropped $3000 on a body, you need warming affirmation that your choice was a good one?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

karlx said:

Even that isn't true.

Look at Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8.

Has 1.8 Tstop transmission.

There's not many like that but they exist.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

OlyPent said:

sportyaccordy said:

peppermonkey said:

if you only have room for a Mini Cooper, do you go buy a Lambo?

Click to expand...

If I can afford a Lambo, I can afford additional parking :-D

sportyaccordy said:

Besides, with that thought process, why stop at FF?

Click to expand...

Larger systems are nowhere near as versatile or flush with comprehensive lens choices and support. But with MFT the only real upside is the small size/weight.

Click to expand...

Sub-part ancient film lenses or outrageously-priced new lenses.

--
"One great lens is better than three mediocre lenses."

Click to expand...

OK, for the film lenses, I can agree, at least with regard to wide angle stuff. I disagree on normal and tele stuff.

Outrageously priced? Hardly. Granted, I shoot Canon glass, but looking at my kit I'm not seeing what you're talking about. UWA zoom? MFT offerings cost the same as my 17-40L new, while being 2 or more stops slower. 2.8 zoom? Again, how do you want to play it? 28-70 kit zoom matches or beats MFT offerings in light gathering ability while costing less; my Tamron 24-70 costs a hair more while putting 2 stops more light on the sensor wide open. Same story with my 70-300 and my 40 2.8. So with MFT it's very easy to wind up paying a lot more for less- not just in size and weight, but photographic ability as well. A lot of MFT shooters try and down play it.... "nobody needs more"... "FF is sooooo heavy".... but there's two sides to it.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

Click to expand...

digi-user said:

Olympus 7-14 is an f/2.8 lens. I didn't know Canon had a 17-40/1.4 on their product list! Wow, must have cost you a fortune!

Click to expand...

digi-user said:

Seeing your gear list, it seems your Canon 17-40/4 is a stop slower than Oly's 7-14/2.8.

Click to expand...

digi-user said:

FYI, an f/2.8 lens is an f/ 2.8 lens regardless of the format and is gathering more light than an f/4 lens.

Click to expand...

digi-user said:

Well, DOF equivalence is another story though...

Click to expand...

OlyPent said:

karlx said:

Member said:

Usinig DXO's clown methodology, all you have to do is use a 100mp medium format camera and the bottom of the proverbial Coke bottle becomes a "good lens."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

digi-user said:

Olympus 7-14 is an f/2.8 lens. I didn't know Canon had a 17-40/1.4 on their product list! Wow, must have cost you a fortune!

Click to expand...

It seems you don't understand equivalence. Oly would need an F/2 zoom to match my 17-40, not the other way round :-D

sportyaccordy said:

Seeing your gear list, it seems your Canon 17-40/4 is a stop slower than Oly's 7-14/2.8.

Click to expand...

And exposure wise yes the 17-40 is a stop slower than the 7-14/2.8. But with ISO-invariant sensors exposure is largely irrelevant in the context of image quality. It's just a tool for getting the most image quality out of a shot. What determines image quality in the context of "exposure" is how much light the lens is putting on the sensor. In that context the 17-40 >>>> any Oly UWA zoom as it is putting at least 1 stop more light on the sensor wide open.

sportyaccordy said:

FYI, an f/2.8 lens is an f/ 2.8 lens regardless of the format and is gathering more light than an f/4 lens.

Click to expand...

By this silly, poorly thought out logic, why bother with MFT? I'm sure you can get a 1/3" camera with an F/1.8 lens. By your understanding of equivalence that's like F/0.3 in MFT terms :-D

sportyaccordy said:

Well, DOF equivalence is another story though...

Click to expand...

Largely irrelevant in the context of discussions of lenses that have 90+ degree angle of views. Plus in any case I can stop all the way down to F/22 if I want. You cannot open your MFT 2.8 to an equivalent F4 in the FF world.

Click to expand...

digi-user said:

sportyaccordy said:

digi-user said:

Olympus 7-14 is an f/2.8 lens. I didn't know Canon had a 17-40/1.4 on their product list! Wow, must have cost you a fortune!

Click to expand...

It seems you don't understand equivalence. Oly would need an F/2 zoom to match my 17-40, not the other way round :-D

digi-user said:

Seeing your gear list, it seems your Canon 17-40/4 is a stop slower than Oly's 7-14/2.8.

Click to expand...

And exposure wise yes the 17-40 is a stop slower than the 7-14/2.8. But with ISO-invariant sensors exposure is largely irrelevant in the context of image quality. It's just a tool for getting the most image quality out of a shot. What determines image quality in the context of "exposure" is how much light the lens is putting on the sensor. In that context the 17-40 >>>> any Oly UWA zoom as it is putting at least 1 stop more light on the sensor wide open.

digi-user said:

FYI, an f/2.8 lens is an f/ 2.8 lens regardless of the format and is gathering more light than an f/4 lens.

Click to expand...

By this silly, poorly thought out logic, why bother with MFT? I'm sure you can get a 1/3" camera with an F/1.8 lens. By your understanding of equivalence that's like F/0.3 in MFT terms :-D

digi-user said:

Well, DOF equivalence is another story though...

Click to expand...

Largely irrelevant in the context of discussions of lenses that have 90+ degree angle of views. Plus in any case I can stop all the way down to F/22 if I want. You cannot open your MFT 2.8 to an equivalent F4 in the FF world.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

digi-user said:

sportyaccordy said:

digi-user said:

Olympus 7-14 is an f/2.8 lens. I didn't know Canon had a 17-40/1.4 on their product list! Wow, must have cost you a fortune!

Click to expand...

It seems you don't understand equivalence. Oly would need an F/2 zoom to match my 17-40, not the other way round :-D

sportyaccordy said:

Seeing your gear list, it seems your Canon 17-40/4 is a stop slower than Oly's 7-14/2.8.

Click to expand...

And exposure wise yes the 17-40 is a stop slower than the 7-14/2.8. But with ISO-invariant sensors exposure is largely irrelevant in the context of image quality. It's just a tool for getting the most image quality out of a shot. What determines image quality in the context of "exposure" is how much light the lens is putting on the sensor. In that context the 17-40 >>>> any Oly UWA zoom as it is putting at least 1 stop more light on the sensor wide open.

sportyaccordy said:

FYI, an f/2.8 lens is an f/ 2.8 lens regardless of the format and is gathering more light than an f/4 lens.

Click to expand...

By this silly, poorly thought out logic, why bother with MFT? I'm sure you can get a 1/3" camera with an F/1.8 lens. By your understanding of equivalence that's like F/0.3 in MFT terms :-D

sportyaccordy said:

Well, DOF equivalence is another story though...

Click to expand...

Largely irrelevant in the context of discussions of lenses that have 90+ degree angle of views. Plus in any case I can stop all the way down to F/22 if I want. You cannot open your MFT 2.8 to an equivalent F4 in the FF world.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

zurih said:

So last year I bought the affordable Panasonic GX85. And hell, this camera packs some very handy features in such a small package & price.

Click to expand...

MxPhotos said:

I bought the 42.5/1.7, PanaLeica 25/1.4 & 12-35/2.8 with it and I get terrific results with them. I still have the A7 for those low light situations, but honestly 99% of the time I shoot with my GX85.

Click to expand...

osv said:

zurih said:

So last year I bought the affordable Panasonic GX85. And hell, this camera packs some very handy features in such a small package & price.

Click to expand...

like so many other m4/3 bodies, that camera doesn't have pdaf capability...

"I have a Panasonic GM1. It has a serious deflect: It can't refocus during movement. Now the GX80 (GX85) came out with improved video capabilities (in-body stabilization, 4K, DFD autofocus, etc.), so I went to to see if this problem has been corrected. To my great disappointment, it isn't. Please check my demonstration video: Panasonic GX80 (GX85) tracking focus problem 1. Are all micro 4/3 cameras has this trait?" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4003863

the 16mp sensor: "While the Panasonic and Olympus have a lot going for them, in sensor dynamics alone, the Sony is hard to beat. It has lower noise at all ISOs, equivalent to just over +1 EV in our low-light ISO score. Dynamic range is also quite significantly wider at either end of the ISO range, with around a similar +1 EV advantage. While DR isn’t everything in a camera, it is an advantage in sensor performance, and it’s a tangible benefit when trying to compensate for strongly back-lit subjects in post-production. What’s more, with the Sony A6300, the wider dynamic range isn’t restricted just to base or low ISOs." https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G80-G85-sensor-review-Impressive-IQ

osv said:

I bought the 42.5/1.7, PanaLeica 25/1.4 & 12-35/2.8 with it and I get terrific results with them. I still have the A7 for those low light situations, but honestly 99% of the time I shoot with my GX85.

Click to expand...

i'm sure it's a fine camera, for when p.q. and usable autofocus aren't the top priority.

Click to expand...

Stejo said:

This is probably a lost cause and I'm gonna regret getting involved in this, but the thread's about to hit size cap, so there's hope. Here goes:

f/2=f/2. The amount of light that hits the sensor per area is exactly the same as I'm sure you know. If you were to put the same FF f/2 lens on an MFT sensor, the image you get would be identical to a center crop of the FF image.

Click to expand...

Stejo said:

An f/4 lens however does not enable the same exposures as an f/2.8 lens. Cranking up the ISO setting is not the same as having a brighter lens.

Click to expand...

Stejo said:

This is probably a lost cause and I'm gonna regret getting involved in this, but the thread's about to hit size cap, so there's hope. Here goes:

f/2=f/2. The amount of light that hits the sensor per area is exactly the same as I'm sure you know. If you were to put the same FF f/2 lens on an MFT sensor, the image you get would be identical to a center crop of the FF image.

When you're viewing/printing that image your FF camera captured, is that center area of the crop good enough? I'm gonna assume your answer is yes. Why would it not be good enough on MFT then? Because when viewing the image, we don't view it 1:1, pixel per pixel, but we scale them both up to the same size.

Ok, we're onto something here. So scaling is the problem. After how much scaling does the image start exhibiting artifacts that are discernible to the human eye from a normal viewing distance? Well... it depends on a crapton of factors. How large you print, how far you view it from, how good your eyesight is and so forth.

Point being, there is a quantifiable "good enough" barrier that varies from person to person depending on usage and standards. Either way, the captured image is the same, exposure is the same, everything is the same. The only thing making it look different is scaling when you view it.

An f/2.8 zoom is not the same as an f/4 zoom when it comes to exposure. It's only the same when it comes to low light noise performance when viewing both images scaled to the same very large size.

An f/4 lens however does not enable the same exposures as an f/2.8 lens. Cranking up the ISO setting is not the same as having a brighter lens.

Click to expand...

zurih said:

"I have a Panasonic GM1. It has a serious deflect: It can't refocus during movement. Now the GX80 (GX85) came out with improved video capabilities (in-body stabilization, 4K, DFD autofocus, etc.), so I went to to see if this problem has been corrected. To my great disappointment, it isn't. Please check my demonstration video: Panasonic GX80 (GX85) tracking focus problem 1. Are all micro 4/3 cameras has this trait?" https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4003863

Well he used the kit lens 12-32 that came with the camera. If he'd test with the 12-35/2.8 pro grade lens I assure you auto focus is much better than shown in this video. It's not just the camera, but also the lens.

Click to expand...

MxPhotos said:

But personally I just can't justify paying $2500+ for a full frame body with IBIS + 4k video, without a touch screen. Plus the extra weight for a proper constant f2.8 zoom.

Same goes for the E-M1 Mark II, they should've priced it ~$1300-1500 tops.

Click to expand...

osv said:

nobody in the real world buys a ff camera to crop the center out of it, and there isn't any mft sensor that has the same pixel density as a ff sensor... so no, the image is not identical to anything, it's a pointless silly claim.

Click to expand...

Stejo said:

osv said:

nobody in the real world buys a ff camera to crop the center out of it, and there isn't any mft sensor that has the same pixel density as a ff sensor... so no, the image is not identical to anything, it's a pointless silly claim.

Click to expand...

You missed the point and I'm sensing there's gonna be more replies like yours, so you'll excuse me if I don't reply to the rest of them,

Click to expand...

Stejo said:

since I chose my wording very carefully the first time round and don't feel the need to reiterate.

Click to expand...

Stejo said:

I used the concept of identical center crop to drive home the point of scaling being the differentiating factor.

Click to expand...