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!

cosmicnode wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

the point is that when the m4/3 and FF reaches the max iso of 25600 to get 1/1000 sec shutter speed at f11 m4/3 can can retain this shutter speed at f5.6 where the Canon has to drop to 1/250 sec when the light is poor. and when using a 300 f4 on m4/3 it can still shoot at 1/1000sec when the Canon has to drop to 1/125sec.

Do you really use m4/3 at ISO 25600? I'd never dare to go that high, not even sure it's possible with my camera. The only time I'd even be tempted is if I saw Bigfoot at dusk.

The point is that whatever your limit is on m4/3, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to go 2 stops higher on FF.

I don't and I would use 2 more stops more on a FF even less. The extra 2 stops shutter speed is more important, even during the heat and brightness of a summers day when you shoot at fast shutter speeds the ISO is high, This was shot at 1/4000 sec I normally don't shoot at shutter speeds this high but I was looking for sharp details of different cars, I do shoot at faster shutter speeds when the car is coming towards me but normally around 1/1000 sec. This was shot at 550mm, 1/4000 sec and iso 1800, at the brightest part of a july day. if I had shot at f11 this would have been ISO 7200. these ISO settings increase when the light level is lower. A f5.6 lens is far more practical for shooting sport than a slow f11, Forget equivalents for a minute this is the the way it is for sport. f5.6 is already a compromise but a economic and weight compromise. f11 is simply to much of a compromise to be useful except on a bright summers day for the midday hours.

You're still wrong. Yes, with FF you would have had to use ISO 7200. No, the result wouldn't have become worse. Not the file quality, not the depth of field, nothing. The f/11 lens is not even just a bit less "practical" there, except maybe if it would still be a bit larger and slightly less comfortable to handle, which is what these new Canon lenses seem to be at least in comparison to, say, the MFT 100-300, and there I'm not even speaking about versatility yet.

But, and that's the point here – f/11 as such is not the problem.

You don't seem to realise I am talking about the shutter speed not equivalents, if you look at the photo you will see it was taken on FF, That iso of 7200 is in the middle of a bright summers day. if you do the math for 1/1000 of a sec at f11 the iso would be 1800. That is the middle of the day , it obviously gets worse as the light disappears when you reach dawn or dusk or a overcast or rainy day you are struggling to get, a fast enough shutter speed to stop action. To many here are completely caught up on the theory of equivalents and cant see the requirement of a fast enough shutter speed to get the shot. this may not a problem with short focal lengths where you may not need such a fast shutter speed the ibis will help compensate but most turn ibis or vr off for long lenses and action.

I said this somewhere else in the thread already – no, you won't get into a situation in which a current FF camera would enforce slower shutter speeds than MFT, because you can expect the FF camera to always offer two steps more ISO (the current RF Canons do). And even in case it wouldn't, you could underexpose and push, coming up with a very similar image, too. At highest ISO, image quality will be nothing to write home about, anyway – both for MFT and FF.

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