Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony FF vs Olympus EM1-II: Creative choices vs. user experience

Go to last post
Iliah Borg said:
BW negative, from ISO 6:93 (second edition), "Photography - Black-and-white pictorial still camera negative film/process systems - Determination of ISO speed" https://www.iso.org/standard/3580.html

"The method for determining speed is illustrated in figure I. Point m is located on the curve at a density of 0,10 above base plus fog density. Point n is located on the curve where the base 10 logarithm of the exposure is 1,30 (log10, ib) units greater than that at point m. The development time of the negative material is so chosen that the density difference, ΔD, between points m and n is 0,80 (see annex A). Then, Hm represents the exposure, in lux seconds, corresponding to point m when the above condition is satisfied."

193893df1d514bbeae44657e47b73bfd.jpg.png

Annex A, Suggested method of determining log10 Hm:

"The value of log10 Hm can be determined by plotting log10 H, at a point where the density is 0,10 above base plus fog density, against ΔD, the difference in density between this point and a point where the base 10 logarithm of the exposure is 1,30 units greater. This is then repeated for a development series.

Draw a smooth curve through the points. Determine the log10 H corresponding to ΔD = 0,80 which is designated log10 Hm."

af5c03db91c14f63a0eda4beb5115f20.jpg.png

With colour negatives, Hn is not even used (ISO 5800:1987, "Photography - Colour negative films for still photography - Determination of ISO speed") https://www.iso.org/standard/11948.html

"Determination of Hm

Speed is calculated from the exposures required to produce red, green, and blue densities that are 0,15 above the corresponding minimum density values for each of the three curves. The exposure, Hm, is computed by the use of the formula:

Hm = sqrt ( HGreen * HSlowest_layer)

The exposure, Hm, represents the sensitometric parameter from which speed is computed.

If the green layer is also the slowest, Hm will equal HGreen."

5ae8dbd92c174645a892d41cad14f54e.jpg.png
Click to expand...
Thanks for such a concentrated reminder! I still need to develop a couple of 120 rolls that are long overdue, very long. But otherwise, all my film processing, be it negative or reversible, color or B&W, stills or movie, is the matter of the past. Now I want MFT to survive and the sensor development for the format.
 
LightCameraAction said:
James Stirling said:
It is just a tool said:
drmarkf said:
Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt
Click to expand...
Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t
Click to expand...
Really :-) the self destructing plastic fantastic E-M5III is nowhere near the build quality of the Z6 or the likes of the E-M1II/III ,G9 etc . Though it is a nice match for the equally cheap and cheerful build of the 45mm F/1.8 which does not even have basic weather resistance. The 45mm also does the same job as a FF 90mm F/3.6!

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-nikon-z7-mirrorless-camera/

If you compare it to even a closely equivalent m43 lens the differences are not so much. The 85mm F/1.8 does the same job as a weather resistant AF m43 42.5mm F/0.9 . Of course no such lens exists , the closest are the F/1.2 "pro" lenses.

The only m43 comparisons that work out the "m43 way " are when you compare apples to bananas . When/if you can find m43 lenses to be fast enough to be even close to equivalent FF lenses, they are in the same size and weight category and always more expensive.
The 45mm "pro" is indeed shorter by 1.5cm { because it is only equivalent to a FF F/2.4 lens. } it also costs £150 more. We can only imagine how large, heavy and expensive a pro f/0.9 lens would be

9b139402e7234214b0e10a3bdd7b1d92.jpg

In fact there are no m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equivalent to any Nikon Z FF lens. I suspect if there were they would be at least as large , heavy and definitely would be more expensive

14-30mm F/4 m43 equivalent 7-15mm F/2

24-70mm F/4 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/2

24-70mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/1.4

24-50mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-25mm F/2-3.2

24-200mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-100mm F/2-3.2

20mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 10mm F/0.9

24mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 12mm F/0.9

35mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 17.5mm F/0.9

50mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 25mm F/0.9

58mm F/0.95 m43 equivalent 29mm F/0.47

85mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 42.5mm F/0.9

70-200mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 35-100mm F/1.4
Click to expand...
But, why assume everyone wants/needs lenses that are "equivalent" to full frame?

There are really no full frame options that are the size of a panasonic 20mm, Olympus 45mm f1.8, etc. The small size has benifits (easier to fit in a diaper bag, does not get in the way when chasing a toddler around the park, etc.)

Truthfully, micro 4/3 can produce great images in most cases. If one is ok with the higher noise levels at lower exposures and values size micro 4/3 can be a great option.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If you want equivalent of ff just buy ff.
 
buratino said:
Iliah Borg said:
LandscapeWhisperer said:
I'm not even sure what the definition of ISO is these days, as opposed to film, when we could measure the density of a negative when the camera was imaging an 18% gray card.
Click to expand...
What criteria do you use to determine ISO speed of a negative?
Click to expand...
oh, an interesting question from the past... It should relate somehow to a chosen/specific density of a toe area of the curve and probably its slope if I am not mistaken, leaving alone it might be not an ISO but "true" speed or so. I wait for refreshing comments.
Click to expand...
So why do you think that digital ISO would not do something similar?
 
drmarkf said:
Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt
Click to expand...
That's part of what drew me to E mount... For instance the Sony 35/1.8 & 20/1.8 are about the size of some of the M4/3 glass (smaller than the closest equivalent in some cases really), as are some of the Samyang offerings... Nikon's 35 & 20mm both seem larger without a great optical advantage tbh, at least based on the reviews I've seen that compared them with the Sonys... Canon's RF 35mm is pretty small but I lost interest in how it performs at unit focus. :p

An Oly 17/1.2 is larger than that Sony 35mm, which is about the size of the Oly 75mm. The Samyang 45mm is about the size of the Pana 25/1.7. M4/3's greatest size advantage with primes seems to be mainly with teles IMO, you can quibble about this or that wide but < 17mm they get pretty pricey and the choices narrow down there. I do intend to keep shooting both systems, but M4/3 will be mostly for teles (both primes and zooms) plus the 7.5/2 & 20/1.7.

I was gonna sell it but I think I'm keeping my Oly 12/2 as well for video, but that thing was overpriced af, more so than any FF lens. I bought it refurb for like $384 tho.
 
bobn2 said:
buratino said:
Iliah Borg said:
LandscapeWhisperer said:
I'm not even sure what the definition of ISO is these days, as opposed to film, when we could measure the density of a negative when the camera was imaging an 18% gray card.
Click to expand...
What criteria do you use to determine ISO speed of a negative?
Click to expand...
oh, an interesting question from the past... It should relate somehow to a chosen/specific density of a toe area of the curve and probably its slope if I am not mistaken, leaving alone it might be not an ISO but "true" speed or so. I wait for refreshing comments.
Click to expand...
So why do you think that digital ISO would not do something similar?
Click to expand...
IMHO it is harder to use an 18% gray card to determine ISO speed of film negative than it is to determine digital ISO.
 
James Stirling said:
It is just a tool said:
drmarkf said:
Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt
Click to expand...
Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t
Click to expand...
Really :-) the self destructing plastic fantastic E-M5III is nowhere near the build quality of the Z6 or the likes of the E-M1II/III ,G9 etc . Though it is a nice match for the equally cheap and cheerful build of the 45mm F/1.8 which does not even have basic weather resistance. The 45mm also does the same job as a FF 90mm F/3.6!

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-nikon-z7-mirrorless-camera/

If you compare it to even a closely equivalent m43 lens the differences are not so much. The 85mm F/1.8 does the same job as a weather resistant AF m43 42.5mm F/0.9 . Of course no such lens exists , the closest are the F/1.2 "pro" lenses.

The only m43 comparisons that work out the "m43 way " are when you compare apples to bananas . When/if you can find m43 lenses to be fast enough to be even close to equivalent FF lenses, they are in the same size and weight category and always more expensive.
The 45mm "pro" is indeed shorter by 1.5cm { because it is only equivalent to a FF F/2.4 lens. } it also costs £150 more. We can only imagine how large, heavy and expensive a pro f/0.9 lens would be

9b139402e7234214b0e10a3bdd7b1d92.jpg

In fact there are no m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equivalent to any Nikon Z FF lens. I suspect if there were they would be at least as large , heavy and definitely would be more expensive

14-30mm F/4 m43 equivalent 7-15mm F/2

24-70mm F/4 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/2

24-70mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/1.4

24-50mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-25mm F/2-3.2

24-200mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-100mm F/2-3.2

20mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 10mm F/0.9

24mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 12mm F/0.9

35mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 17.5mm F/0.9

50mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 25mm F/0.9

58mm F/0.95 m43 equivalent 29mm F/0.47

85mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 42.5mm F/0.9

70-200mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 35-100mm F/1.4

--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
Click to expand...
Voigtlander's 10.5/0.95? (and probably the others f0.95? idk) The Sony 20/1.8 is lighter, smaller, and cheaper (nevermind far sharper wide open, and better corrected); I think the Nikon one is a little larger and more expensive but still in the ballpark. The Laowa 14/2 will probably not be much larger than their 7.5/2 either, tho all their smallest UWAs have heavy vignetting and other compromises.

Those two examples are obviously against native lenses that didn't even have to cram electronics in for AF. There's other ways of looking at that for people that struggle to see what's going on, instead of focal length equivalence just compare actual focal lengths. The Samyang 75/1.8 is just about the same size the Oly 75/1.8, and lighter probably only because it's plastic. I imagine some of those third party AF options will show up on Z mount eventually.
 
LightCameraAction said:
James Stirling said:
It is just a tool said:
drmarkf said:
Wonderful though the across-frame resolution of the new Nikon (and Canon) lenses are, for those of us on the m4/3 fora concerned with size and weight, they do bring to mind waste-paper bins screwed to the front of one’s body!
Chunky is the word, plus the Nikon 85 is 40-odd percent more expensive than the Sony, in the U K at least:

https://j.mp/32pamkt
Click to expand...
Do like this more; https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.639,795.904,835.93,ha,t
Click to expand...
Really :-) the self destructing plastic fantastic E-M5III is nowhere near the build quality of the Z6 or the likes of the E-M1II/III ,G9 etc . Though it is a nice match for the equally cheap and cheerful build of the 45mm F/1.8 which does not even have basic weather resistance. The 45mm also does the same job as a FF 90mm F/3.6!

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-nikon-z7-mirrorless-camera/

If you compare it to even a closely equivalent m43 lens the differences are not so much. The 85mm F/1.8 does the same job as a weather resistant AF m43 42.5mm F/0.9 . Of course no such lens exists , the closest are the F/1.2 "pro" lenses.

The only m43 comparisons that work out the "m43 way " are when you compare apples to bananas . When/if you can find m43 lenses to be fast enough to be even close to equivalent FF lenses, they are in the same size and weight category and always more expensive.
The 45mm "pro" is indeed shorter by 1.5cm { because it is only equivalent to a FF F/2.4 lens. } it also costs £150 more. We can only imagine how large, heavy and expensive a pro f/0.9 lens would be

9b139402e7234214b0e10a3bdd7b1d92.jpg

In fact there are no m43 lenses fast enough to be truly equivalent to any Nikon Z FF lens. I suspect if there were they would be at least as large , heavy and definitely would be more expensive

14-30mm F/4 m43 equivalent 7-15mm F/2

24-70mm F/4 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/2

24-70mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 12-35mm F/1.4

24-50mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-25mm F/2-3.2

24-200mm F/4-6.3 m43 equivalent 12-100mm F/2-3.2

20mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 10mm F/0.9

24mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 12mm F/0.9

35mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 17.5mm F/0.9

50mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 25mm F/0.9

58mm F/0.95 m43 equivalent 29mm F/0.47

85mm F/1.8 m43 equivalent 42.5mm F/0.9

70-200mm F/2.8 m43 equivalent 35-100mm F/1.4
Click to expand...
But, why assume everyone wants/needs lenses that are "equivalent" to full frame?

There are really no full frame options that are the size of a panasonic 20mm, Olympus 45mm f1.8, etc. The small size has benifits (easier to fit in a diaper bag, does not get in the way when chasing a toddler around the park, etc.)

Truthfully, micro 4/3 can produce great images in most cases. If one is ok with the higher noise levels at lower exposures and values size micro 4/3 can be a great option.
Click to expand...
There's some FF options that are pretty darn close to those tho, eg Sony/Samyamg 35/2.8 (0.5" longer than the Pana pancake), Samyang 45/1.8 (the size of the Pana 25/1.7) & 75/1.8... The size advantage of M4/3 primes isn't very significant < a 75mm EFL IMO, specially when looking at the price of the M4/3 wides < 17mm... Over 75mm it's a whole other ballpark, the smallest/lightest modern FF 135mm w/AF is twice the weight of the Oly 75mm, and the 42.5/1.7 & 45/1.8 are smaller than all FF 85mm options.

Now bodies is where M4/3 does claw back a size advantage regardless of lens, smallest FF bodies being the size of an E-M1... It's a shame Oly decided the world revolved around the E-M1 and Pro glass for so many years in a row, I think they hemorrhaged would be customers to Fuji and even Pana in that interim. Their 100-400 should've come out even before the 300/4 IMO.
 
James Stirling said:
You will not be educated you mean. Given how many times equivalence has been explained here and in countless articles across the internet in ways a 3yr old could understand. There are very few reasons why people persist with comparing apples to bananas. One you are two stupid to understand it,
Click to expand...
It would be a good idea to use the correct spelling when calling someone else stupid :-)
James Stirling said:
two you are in some form of self-denial or three you are attempting to deliberately deceive the gullible. None of them are flattering .
Click to expand...
 
Photo Pete said:
James Stirling said:
You will not be educated you mean. Given how many times equivalence has been explained here and in countless articles across the internet in ways a 3yr old could understand. There are very few reasons why people persist with comparing apples to bananas. One you are two stupid to understand it,
Click to expand...
It would be a good idea to use the correct spelling when calling someone else stupid :-)
Click to expand...
He wasn't calling anyone stupid, he was speculation on the reasons why people might persist with a course of action.
 
Iliah Borg said:
bobn2 said:
buratino said:
Iliah Borg said:
LandscapeWhisperer said:
I'm not even sure what the definition of ISO is these days, as opposed to film, when we could measure the density of a negative when the camera was imaging an 18% gray card.
Click to expand...
What criteria do you use to determine ISO speed of a negative?
Click to expand...
oh, an interesting question from the past... It should relate somehow to a chosen/specific density of a toe area of the curve and probably its slope if I am not mistaken, leaving alone it might be not an ISO but "true" speed or so. I wait for refreshing comments.
Click to expand...
So why do you think that digital ISO would not do something similar?
Click to expand...
IMHO it is harder to use an 18% gray card to determine ISO speed of film negative than it is to determine digital ISO.
Click to expand...
You HO is completely correct, of course.
 
Auf Reisen said:
2) More subject isolation for my travel zoom. I very much enjoy the subject isolation I get with my 20mm 1.7 on MFT and wouldn't necessarily need more (would be nice though) but I would like to have that capability on my travel zoom to get more pleasing snapshots of friends and family. Incidentally, I plan to replace my current Tamron anyway as I am not 100% pleased with its AF performance.
Click to expand...
For this one item I would give this time. Apple has introduced software based systems that have the ability to artificially cravat shallower depth of field for more isolation. I would expect this to someday come to Olympus cameras. Possibly though a firmware update. I would silence those aperture snobs for sure.
 
Grimstod said:
Grimstod said:
2) More subject isolation for my travel zoom. I very much enjoy the subject isolation I get with my 20mm 1.7 on MFT and wouldn't necessarily need more (would be nice though) but I would like to have that capability on my travel zoom to get more pleasing snapshots of friends and family. Incidentally, I plan to replace my current Tamron anyway as I am not 100% pleased with its AF performance.
Click to expand...
For this one item I would give this time. Apple has introduced software based systems that have the ability to artificially cravat shallower depth of field for more isolation. I would expect this to someday come to Olympus cameras. Possibly though a firmware update. I would silence those aperture snobs for sure.
Click to expand...
'Aperture snobs', eh? And no, it wouldn't - because like all these new technologies that are supposedly going to rescue mFT, it applies to all formats. If you can create realistic shallow DOF whatever the aperture size, then there is no reason to use mFT over a phone, and there goes mFT along with the 'aperture snobs'. In fact, whilst it will satisfy many users, for the more serious user, it won't. 'Aperture snobs' tend to choose certain lenses for the bokeh. Olympus even tipped their hat to this when they said that a design aim of the f/1.2 lenses was 'feathered bokeh'. So, the real 'aperture snobs' are likely to eschew the fake bokeh and insist on the real ones. In fact, the whole future of the specialist photography market depends on people who pass on the delights of computational photography and insist on doing it optically.
 
Grimstod said:
Grimstod said:
2) More subject isolation for my travel zoom. I very much enjoy the subject isolation I get with my 20mm 1.7 on MFT and wouldn't necessarily need more (would be nice though) but I would like to have that capability on my travel zoom to get more pleasing snapshots of friends and family. Incidentally, I plan to replace my current Tamron anyway as I am not 100% pleased with its AF performance.
Click to expand...
For this one item I would give this time. Apple has introduced software based systems that have the ability to artificially cravat shallower depth of field for more isolation. I would expect this to someday come to Olympus cameras. Possibly though a firmware update. I would silence those aperture snobs for sure.
Click to expand...
Those snobs will find other things to keep nagging about. It's in their nature to trash talk about MFT.

They keep nagging since 2009 about different things and every time Olympus/Panasonic made an advancement they desperately searching for something else to complain about.

Just use the ignore function. It makes this forum a much nicer place.
 
bobn2 said:
Grimstod said:
bobn2 said:
2) More subject isolation for my travel zoom. I very much enjoy the subject isolation I get with my 20mm 1.7 on MFT and wouldn't necessarily need more (would be nice though) but I would like to have that capability on my travel zoom to get more pleasing snapshots of friends and family. Incidentally, I plan to replace my current Tamron anyway as I am not 100% pleased with its AF performance.
Click to expand...
For this one item I would give this time. Apple has introduced software based systems that have the ability to artificially cravat shallower depth of field for more isolation. I would expect this to someday come to Olympus cameras. Possibly though a firmware update. I would silence those aperture snobs for sure.
Click to expand...
'Aperture snobs', eh? And no, it wouldn't - because like all these new technologies that are supposedly going to rescue mFT, it applies to all formats. If you can create realistic shallow DOF whatever the aperture size, then there is no reason to use mFT over a phone, and there goes mFT along with the 'aperture snobs'. In fact, whilst it will satisfy many users, for the more serious user, it won't. 'Aperture snobs' tend to choose certain lenses for the bokeh. Olympus even tipped their hat to this when they said that a design aim of the f/1.2 lenses was 'feathered bokeh'. So, the real 'aperture snobs' are likely to eschew the fake bokeh and insist on the real ones. In fact, the whole future of the specialist photography market depends on people who pass on the delights of computational photography and insist on doing it optically.
Click to expand...
And we have an aperture snob. lol

Seriously though camera sales are dying fast. Why? Cellphones. Apparently no common person can tell what is real bokeh vs fake. The drive of the market is the common person. That is where the $$$ is.
 
Grimstod said:
bobn2 said:
Grimstod said:
Grimstod said:
2) More subject isolation for my travel zoom. I very much enjoy the subject isolation I get with my 20mm 1.7 on MFT and wouldn't necessarily need more (would be nice though) but I would like to have that capability on my travel zoom to get more pleasing snapshots of friends and family. Incidentally, I plan to replace my current Tamron anyway as I am not 100% pleased with its AF performance.
Click to expand...
For this one item I would give this time. Apple has introduced software based systems that have the ability to artificially cravat shallower depth of field for more isolation. I would expect this to someday come to Olympus cameras. Possibly though a firmware update. I would silence those aperture snobs for sure.
Click to expand...
'Aperture snobs', eh? And no, it wouldn't - because like all these new technologies that are supposedly going to rescue mFT, it applies to all formats. If you can create realistic shallow DOF whatever the aperture size, then there is no reason to use mFT over a phone, and there goes mFT along with the 'aperture snobs'. In fact, whilst it will satisfy many users, for the more serious user, it won't. 'Aperture snobs' tend to choose certain lenses for the bokeh. Olympus even tipped their hat to this when they said that a design aim of the f/1.2 lenses was 'feathered bokeh'. So, the real 'aperture snobs' are likely to eschew the fake bokeh and insist on the real ones. In fact, the whole future of the specialist photography market depends on people who pass on the delights of computational photography and insist on doing it optically.
Click to expand...
And we have an aperture snob. lol
Click to expand...
If you like. When 'snob' seems to mean someone who understands what aperture is about, there is no insult to being called a 'snob'.
Grimstod said:
Seriously though camera sales are dying fast. Why? Cellphones. Apparently no common person can tell what is real bokeh vs fake. The drive of the market is the common person. That is where the $$$ is.
Click to expand...
Sure, so photography is headed towards a niche market, not made of 'common people', and that applies as much to mFT as it does to other formats. So the question then is how well does that format satisfy the needs of the uncommon people, I would hazard a guess that a good few of them are aperture snobs. That's a part of the market that mFT will never out-compete the opposition, so it has to be headed for a niche within that niche. Panasonic recognises that with its emphasis on video. NewCo also seems to recognise that, but its direction appears to eventually be headed out of ILCs completely.
 
bobn2 said:
Grimstod said:
bobn2 said:
2) More subject isolation for my travel zoom. I very much enjoy the subject isolation I get with my 20mm 1.7 on MFT and wouldn't necessarily need more (would be nice though) but I would like to have that capability on my travel zoom to get more pleasing snapshots of friends and family. Incidentally, I plan to replace my current Tamron anyway as I am not 100% pleased with its AF performance.
Click to expand...
For this one item I would give this time. Apple has introduced software based systems that have the ability to artificially cravat shallower depth of field for more isolation. I would expect this to someday come to Olympus cameras. Possibly though a firmware update. I would silence those aperture snobs for sure.
Click to expand...
'Aperture snobs', eh? And no, it wouldn't - because like all these new technologies that are supposedly going to rescue mFT, it applies to all formats. If you can create realistic shallow DOF whatever the aperture size, then there is no reason to use mFT over a phone, and there goes mFT along with the 'aperture snobs'. In fact, whilst it will satisfy many users, for the more serious user, it won't. 'Aperture snobs' tend to choose certain lenses for the bokeh. Olympus even tipped their hat to this when they said that a design aim of the f/1.2 lenses was 'feathered bokeh'. So, the real 'aperture snobs' are likely to eschew the fake bokeh and insist on the real ones. In fact, the whole future of the specialist photography market depends on people who pass on the delights of computational photography and insist on doing it optically.
Click to expand...
And the 17 1.2 is surely far better than any 35 1.8 on FF, why?, you know why!
 
And-roid said:
bobn2 said:
Grimstod said:
alphaZ said:
2) More subject isolation for my travel zoom. I very much enjoy the subject isolation I get with my 20mm 1.7 on MFT and wouldn't necessarily need more (would be nice though) but I would like to have that capability on my travel zoom to get more pleasing snapshots of friends and family. Incidentally, I plan to replace my current Tamron anyway as I am not 100% pleased with its AF performance.
Click to expand...
For this one item I would give this time. Apple has introduced software based systems that have the ability to artificially cravat shallower depth of field for more isolation. I would expect this to someday come to Olympus cameras. Possibly though a firmware update. I would silence those aperture snobs for sure.
Click to expand...
'Aperture snobs', eh? And no, it wouldn't - because like all these new technologies that are supposedly going to rescue mFT, it applies to all formats. If you can create realistic shallow DOF whatever the aperture size, then there is no reason to use mFT over a phone, and there goes mFT along with the 'aperture snobs'. In fact, whilst it will satisfy many users, for the more serious user, it won't. 'Aperture snobs' tend to choose certain lenses for the bokeh. Olympus even tipped their hat to this when they said that a design aim of the f/1.2 lenses was 'feathered bokeh'. So, the real 'aperture snobs' are likely to eschew the fake bokeh and insist on the real ones. In fact, the whole future of the specialist photography market depends on people who pass on the delights of computational photography and insist on doing it optically.
Click to expand...
And the 17 1.2 is surely far better than any 35 1.8 on FF, why?, you know why!
Click to expand...
Well, you got that one wrong. It's not close to as good as a whole load of quite inexpensive 35mm f/1.8 lenses on FF. So, your second question fails on the basis that it depends on a false premise.

--

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
 
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