Canon's release of 600/800mm f11 lenses PROVES you don't need Cannons!

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Hubertus Bigend
Hubertus Bigend Forum Member • Posts: 71
Re: Canon's release of 600/800mm f11 lenses PROVES you don't need Cannons!

knickerhawk wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

Richandhiscat wrote:

MHshooter wrote:

You don't always need hulking $15,000 f4 long-telephotos to do a job. Most cases, whatever is being shot using focal lengths like that will be cropped so even if the likely inexpensive f11 lenses are not fantastic on the edges, it won't matter.

Why are you posting in the m4/3 forum?

Perhaps because those Canon lenses are in principle very similar to what we already have been having for years in Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds, and what he say may be true for some of them, too?

They are 2 shutter speeds slower in poor light than a F5.6 lens. 3 shutter speeds slower than the Olympus 300mm f4 with equivalent 600mm FOV.

No, they aren't. Because the camera is already 2 shutter speeds faster than Olympus, as it can and will be used with 2 steps more ISO, if necessary, without getting into a disadvantage.

The disadvantage is that you've given up any DR advantage you otherwise would have had at equal ISO settings [...]

Yes, but that's not a disadvantage of the Canon compared to the Olympus. It's a tie.

Only if you disregard (i.e., delete) the rest of my post.

Sorry, was a bit quick there.

It can't be a tie because the distribution of the DR relative to middle gray is now basically different between the two systems. Which one ends up better will depend on the scene and the photographer's priorities for protecting highlights vs. improved shadow detail.

I perfectly understand your point, but I still disagree. I don't see the distributon of DR being different specifically "between systems", not even "between manufacturers", but really between cameras, even those of the same manufacturer. Olympus, for example, has more than once changed the distribution of DR from one camera to another, sometimes based on the same sensor. There's no way to predict which next-generation camera in which system and of which manufacturer will more suit one's preferences and which less. So it cannot really be part of this discussion. Specific cameras in a comparison will always deviate a bit from the perfect theoretical 'equivalence' in this or that direction, but I don't see a bias there for one of the two directions in our case.

See my response to Mark Ransom, who made the same point you're making above.

Anyway, regardless how a specific camera implements that DR distribution, there is always a way to get the best of it. Be it with a specific under- or overexposure regime derived from experience in a specific field of photography, or be it by "simply" exposing to the right...

For purposes of comparison we're starting with wide open apertures and assuming we don't want to change that with EC. We also need to assume the same shutter speed. If it's possible to compensate by changing shutter speed on one system and thereby increasing exposure, then it should also be possible to do that on the other (given identical scenic conditions). Of course, increasing shutter speed to compensate is a real no-no as well. We're really only left with the option of adjusting ISO down for the Canon to protect highlights in the DR scenario I'm posing. That can be done but it's also resigning to the "disadvantage" of the Canon's f/11 aperture.

Let's assume the Canon sensor is "equivalent" by hardware, i.e. able to produce exactly the same output when getting two stops less light, independent of what a manufacturer might do to that output by applying tone curves, multipliers and DR distributions.

Then there will always be *some* way to get the exact same shot with the aperture stopped down two steps and with the same shutter speed.

It's just not a given that it will come from an ISO *setting* of exactly two steps more. It might need a change of the ISO *setting* so that the same shutter speed will cause underexposure. Doing this will still retain two steps more *effective* ISO, no matter what the ISO *setting* says, and not cause any additional disadvantage to an f/11 aperture.

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