Why insist on FF format?

Started Sep 22, 2012 | Discussions
goshigoo Contributing Member • Posts: 854
Re: Why mention FF in this forum at all?

If the result is good, do u care whether CA/distortion is corrected by in camera prOcedsor or optically be the lens itself?

One can make the lenses smaller and lighter if the lens designer had greater margin in correcting CA/distortion

I believe we can see a emount version of RX1

Andr2 Regular Member • Posts: 221
Re: I did .. answer

bobn2 wrote:

illy wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

illy wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

illy wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

I think I was there, I remember that! You might have seen me, I was the caber-tosser without a kilt.

did you have a dirty great big hairy sporran?

So, you did see me!
--
Bob

if i remember correctly, you had a wicked centre parting

Only at the back.

i think most never got beyond the sporran and your wonderfully proud caber

And they really liked the bit when I tossed it.

Tosser!!!

-- hide signature --

André

papillon_65
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Don't ..

zxaar wrote:

SergeyGreen wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

It's simple, some places wouldn't allow you in with a full frame camera and a 300mm lens, like the Olympics for instance (unless you had a media pass). So again, a FF camera doesn't have the advantage over any camera with a small form factor and long zoom lens, unless you don't want to take any photos of course.

I think I will pass ..

you have very good point but i am afraid in this forum not many would acknowledge it. They see advantages in small sensor and small pocketable cameras as long as it is not pentax Q (which is real small camera and really a pocketable one). At that point they will start pointing out that how small sensor can not compete with large sensors and does not have DOF control etc etc.

Here you will find the best flip-flops of DPR forums. Tony is in top 5 for sure.
Enjoy your time with him though.

Ahh yes, you're the guy who doesn't actually use m4/3's cameras and who thinks that everything is cr@p unless it's got a Pentax badge on it, and yet you seem strangely compelled to post pointless drive-byes every now and again. You and Sergey will get on great ;).

-- hide signature --

::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

-- hide signature --

Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,255
Re: Why mention FF in this forum at all?

rocklobster wrote:

M4/3 does not pretend to be FF and FF cannot be squeezed into a M4/3 camera body with small lenses despite Sony's effort with the RX1 which I strees is a fixed lens unit which would have some serious distortion compensation smarts in camera to accomodate such small optics.

The "small optics" comes from the fact that the RX1's lens doesn't have to be a retrofocus lens, not because it's skimping on the internal optics. DSLR lenses use retrofocus lenses because they have to be positioned far enough away from the sensor/film plane to leave room for the reflex mirror. As a result, the optics have to be made much larger. But with camera systems that don't use a reflex mirror (like Leica rangefinders), you don't have to use retrofocus lenses. You can use "true" lenses, which can be made much smaller. See diagram below.

This is why Leica M and other rangefinder lenses can be made so small. Part of the reason is that they don't need autofocus motors inside them, but a major reason is that they are "true" lenses rather than "retrofocus" lenses. They are small even though they are still 35mm full frame lenses!

Likewise, since the RX1 doesn't have a reflex mirror between the sensor and the lens, it can use a "true" lens rather than a "retrofocus" lens. However, we also have to remember that, unlike Leica M lenses, the RX1's lens has an autofocus motor inside it, as well as an optical image stabilization system inside it as well, both of which add girth and size to the lens. But we can definitely see the potential of an interchangeable lens mirrorless version in the future. Here is the RX1's Carl Zeiss lens detached from the RX1 body.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a6000 +17 more
technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: the RX1 shows the promise of small bodies

photobeans wrote:

this RX1 can show the way to small FF bodies. When they build one that can have interchangeable lenses, the body might only be slightly better than m43. I'm not sure how big the lenses will be, that's the only question in my mind. If they can shrink the size of FF lenses down, and prices come down to the $1,000 mark we will see a lot of people going FF.

IMHO such small FF bodies (either DSLR or mirrorless) are possible with current technology, but not for $1000 (yet). But just like with m43, they will only be really compact when using compact primes, not with a high quality zoom or a bright prime. And not using a bright lens partly negates the advantage of FF ...

One should also take into account that many users don't want/need smaller FF cameras, and will buy a quality compact if they need something small for 'carry-always'. On the Canon FF forum it seems some frequent posters take pride in carrying a big brick (and big lenses), to show how 'professional' they are...

technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: And no-one listened I take it, because ...

SergeyGreen wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

APS-c DSLR could be in trouble with FF cams that are not much larger and not much more expensive on one side

Not much larger is true, but significantly more expensive.

FF DSLRs are still a lot larger and heavier compared to entry level DSLRs; I know this is an apples and oranges comparison because the entry level DSLRs are not weather sealed, high frame rate etc. But there simply is no 'FF Rebel' or something similar from Nikon or Sony. The difference gets even bigger when you factor in the weight/size of an equivalent lens (e.g. standard zoom).

SirSeth
SirSeth Veteran Member • Posts: 9,962
Collect the whole set!

I choose not to afford the latest FF cameras. Cost, size, and weight would be too much to change for me.

But dang, I'd collect the whole set if I could. It's all good and FF isn't going anywhere. If anything it will become light and cheaper because of mirrorless technologies. These are good times for sure.

Crop sensor cameras are getting very good, but the gear you chose is not better than other gear just because you chose it.

Cheers,
Seth
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

-- hide signature --

wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 SirSeth's gear list:SirSeth's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-M1 Fujifilm X-T1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +5 more
zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,342
Re: Don't ..

papillon_65 wrote:

zxaar wrote:

SergeyGreen wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

It's simple, some places wouldn't allow you in with a full frame camera and a 300mm lens, like the Olympics for instance (unless you had a media pass). So again, a FF camera doesn't have the advantage over any camera with a small form factor and long zoom lens, unless you don't want to take any photos of course.

I think I will pass ..

you have very good point but i am afraid in this forum not many would acknowledge it. They see advantages in small sensor and small pocketable cameras as long as it is not pentax Q (which is real small camera and really a pocketable one). At that point they will start pointing out that how small sensor can not compete with large sensors and does not have DOF control etc etc.

Here you will find the best flip-flops of DPR forums. Tony is in top 5 for sure.
Enjoy your time with him though.

Ahh yes, you're the guy who doesn't actually use m4/3's cameras

They are crap so yes i do not use them. You like crap so you use them, no surprises here.

and who thinks that everything is cr@p unless it's got a Pentax badge on it,

O man, it really hurts you that pentax makes

  1. smallest MILCs and

  2. MILCs with most native lenses.

anyway, I think I like Sony and Nikon also. And oh yes count me as as mamiya fanboy too from my film days. Heck I would even use canon too before I would touch anything m43.

and yet you seem strangely compelled to post pointless drive-byes every now and again. You and Sergey will get on great ;).

I am sure it feels pointless drivel to you but my sadist soul does enjoy ridiculing you on an international forum. And also yes, I am not full time employed by DPR like you to post here all the time. I do it when i feel like.

Its funny everytime we bump into each other, you end up making fool of yourself. Some things never change.

-- hide signature --

::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

technic Veteran Member • Posts: 8,932
Re: Why insist on FF format?

sansbury wrote:

  • Print as a market is dying. Even for the glossy books like Vogue that may survive intact (which are a small fraction of the pro market even now), the limiting factor is more likely to be their printing press than the camera's sensor.

time for new POD printing technologies maybe? I'm a bit surprised that the digital printers like Blurb etc. haven't changed much over the last 5 years when it comes to printing technology. Lots of room for improvement there compared to real photos, but maybe there is insufficient market to justify the investments.

  • The Web places a greater premium on video, and display resolutions are increasing much more slowly than sensor capabilities.

I doubt that, although there are some issues holding display resolutions back, like the capabilities of older PC's/graphics chips and display interfaces. 4K displays are available now, producing them is not really more expensive than the HDTV screens of today once production is running. I think display resolutions will make a big jump in de next few years. Keep in mind that with a 4K display, when using 2x zoom you will be looking at the pixel level, many cameras don't look really good at that level nowadays. And 8K and other hires formats are already in the prototype stage ... OLED panels with their huge contrast ratio and color space will also me more demanding for the images that are displayed.

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Surprised you would question common knowledge

forpetessake wrote:

I give you a few names I remember, because those are my most used lenses: Canon FD 28mm/2.0, Canon FD 100mm/2.8, Panagor 90mm/2.8, Canon FD 35-105mm/3.5, Nikon 180mm/2.8, Konica 135mm/2.5. I did a lot of testing, so I can find a dozen more. I don't mention Pen FT 40mm/1.4 because it's half frame, but interestingly enough it easily beats 45mm/1.8 m4/3 lens. Out of m4/3 I remember testing the popular 14-45mm, it managed around 50 l/mm fully open on the long end (i.e. at a dismal F5.6), which pretty much corresponds to the other reports. I must say that practically every manual lens I tested could pass 60 l/mm at F5.6, even zooms. I haven't yet tested the medium format lenses, but I know a number of Mamiyas measured 100-120 l/mm. The m4/3 can't even match those resolution numbers, while it needs many time more.

Anders W wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

iv) Lenses: I have plenty of FF primes that resolve at least 60 l/mm fully open, where are m4/3 lenses with 120 l/mm wide open?

Which of your FF primes resolve at least 60 l/mm fully open and on the basis of what evidence do you know that they do so?

Measures like those you cite tell me and others absolutely nothing without a contrast criterion and a description of your test procedures. And sorry, but based on what I have seen in other threads, I have no confidence at all in your ability to do tests like those we are talking about here.

In reality, good MFT glass wipes the floor with older FF lenses like those you mention, especially wide open and thereabout. Moreover, they tend to stand up very well against modern FF glass as well, including very high-caliber FF glass. Here are some examples from LensRentals (Roger Cicala). The figures are line pairs per image height at MTF 50%, center/average, based on unsharpened output from raw files:

Panasonic 20/1.7 on E-M5 (16 MP)
1.7 870/735
2.8 1050/875
4.0 1075/880

Leica Summilux 50/1.4 on M9 (18 MP, no AA filter)
1.4 600/530
2.0 950/740
2.8 1025/860
4.0 1110/980

Nikon 50/1.4G on D3X (24 MP)
1.4 560/500
2.0 690/620
2.8 830/750
4.0 900/830

Canon 50/1.4 on 5DII (21 MP)
1.4 650/530
2.0 790/660
2.8 920/690
4.0 960/890

Sources:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads