Size comparison of FE 4/2470 on A7 vs Olympus 12-40 f2.8 on GX7

Started Feb 6, 2014 | Discussions
blue_skies
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,536
Re: Here is a real comparison
5

Lab D wrote:

edwardaneal wrote:

it would be a better comparison if you didn't have the lens hood reversed on one lens and no hood on the other - I would suspect the lens would look smaller without the hood.

I may get flamed for this, but this is a better/fair comparison of 2 lenses with the same range and no lens hoods to make one look bigger.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#487.393,289.336,ha,t

Really? - updated: http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.336,487.393,482.412,ha,t

You are finding less than an inch in total difference meaningful?

For a system with a puny 1/4x size sensor?

I think that it speaks for Sony - even the GX7 is a beast compared to a Nex-6/7 (both with corner EVF, no hump).

The A7/r is really quite impressive, and so are its lenses!

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a7 II Sony a7R II +36 more
blue_skies
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,536
Re: apples and oranges

Dennis wrote:

viking79 wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Emacs23 wrote:

I bet 24-70 is better. Larger sensor — easier to design.

Since when ?

To look at this another way, pretend I wanted to get a "16 MP" image out of the camera. For the E-M1 that would require 133 lp/mm, but a lens with only 68 lp/mm would be fine on A7 or A7R. This is very low and easy to design, where 133 lp/mm is getting exceedingly difficult and expensive.

OK, so you're saying that it's easier because it doesn't have to be as good. I've always looked at it slightly differently: that it's harder to make a sharp, distortion-free lens for a larger sensor, but it's ok that they're not as sharp because the larger sensor is less demanding.

But the image that comes out of the FF format is sharper: you have higher lp/mm and more lines.

As far as comparing the two formats, I would never expect for a moment that the m43 combo would approach the FF combo for resolution. I expect resolutions of sensors of all sizes to increase over time. m43 is at 16MP now, but will be at 36MP in 5 years. FF is at 36MP now; maybe 72MP in 5 years. Makers of both lenses are trying to eke out sharpness.

Where were they 5 years ago? Below 8Mp? No, they were at 12Mp.

I think you are wishing, not knowing.

If you are after total IQ, wouldn't FF be your only game? 36Mp now versus 16Mp, or 72Mp future versus 36Mp? It keeps a similar ration, why is there a benefit in the future?

Can they make lenses for 36Mp m43 sensors? All their current lenses will be quite bad I guess?

And handling will be a beast - IBIS won't necessarily help 36Mp m43 users and loss of sharpness is the result.

Or, a 36Mp m43 sensor may not show any improvement over 16Mp m43 sensors....

Sony has 20Mp 1" sensors, that are restricted in ISO. Do you want m43 to walk that route? Become a day-time only solution?

FF gives you the best of both worlds - high ISO and high resolution. And it you want m43 DOF, you can stop down. Diffraction limits are much higher than for m43 - another benefit. And if you need more light, you can go wide open - to where m43 cannot even go. Another benefit.

Why keep comparing, wishing and hoping?

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a7 II Sony a7R II +36 more
Krich13 Contributing Member • Posts: 768
Re: Why compare the larger M43 lens and not the one with the same range?
1

Lab D wrote:

Maybe it is what you had on hand. FYI, The Panasonic would be a better lens to compare since it is also only 24-70mm and does not have the optics for a close up lens as the Sony doesn't either. You will find the Panasonic is smaller than the Olympus, but maybe that was not your point (since you left the hood one the Olympus).

As for understanding exposure think of lens apertures like this. A fat lady and a thin lady are laying on the beach. Who will get sun burnt faster? Answer: both will burn/tan the same despite the fat lady having 4x the skin area.

No, you actually don't understand exposure. Not in context of semiconductor sensors anyway -- your example of two ladies would be relevant for film exposure, not for the semiconductor sensors.

For the latter, not exposure _per_unit_area_, but the total number of photons captured (and consequently the number of electron--hole pairs generated) is a relevant parameter.

Having said that, Olympus is indeed a remarkable lens. In Equivalence terms it's only a stop behind the Zeiss (and even less than that considering that OM-D sensor (not sure about the Panasonic ones) is on par with Nikon's sensors while Sony A7 falls some 1/3 stop behind), it is a brilliant optical design capable of resolving many more lines per mm (Eric is absolutely right), which has longer range, better close focus capability and (on Olympus bodies) likely has better image stabilization -- I often get sharp images at crazy low speeds such as 1/3 to 1/6 s, while initial reports on 24-70 are very far from there.

I have both A7 and OM-D EM-5, so I can be impartial here. I bought the 12-40 (and love it) but I have absolutely no intention of buying the Zeiss 24-70. Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 will do just fine. Full stop faster, sharp enough (and again, Eric is right about lower resolving lenses on a big sensor) for my uses (and probably comparable to Zeiss at f/4, but that should to be confirmed) and only 100 grams heavier (with an adapter, without -- 70 grams)...

Ken Sky Regular Member • Posts: 330
Re: apples and oranges

Why not compare the FE 24-70 on the A7 to the CZ24-70 on the A99? Both lenses from the same designer and both bodies with 24 megapixel sensors.

 Ken Sky's gear list:Ken Sky's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony a6000 Sony a7R II +5 more
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,148
Re: apples and oranges
5

joe6pack wrote:

viking79 wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Emacs23 wrote:

I bet 24-70 is better. Larger sensor — easier to design.

Since when ?

A7 has 4000 pixel high image and 24mm page height, or 2000 line pair high image and 24mm = 83 LP/mm.

E-M1 has 3456 and 13mm page height, or 133 lp/mm requirement.

Which do you think is harder to design a lens for? A sensor that requires 133 lp/mm or 83 lp/mm? Even A7R has only 103 lp/mm requirement.

To look at this another way, pretend I wanted to get a "16 MP" image out of the camera. For the E-M1 that would require 133 lp/mm, but a lens with only 68 lp/mm would be fine on A7 or A7R. This is very low and easy to design, where 133 lp/mm is getting exceedingly difficult and expensive.

Eric

Seems to me 68 and 133 difference is just 1 stop. Which is offset by the f-stop difference between F2.8 and F4. And then the Olympus has longer reach. Seems to me Olympus wins here

This is resolution, not f/stops or EV difference. Those are in one dimension, so you have to square them to think in terms of area. Pretend you used a 68 lp/mm lens for the full frame and a 133 lp/mm lens for 4/3", and both cameras had infinite number of pixels (more pixels than the lens resolved), you would resolve 16 MP image with either camera.

But if you had 133 lp/mm lenses on both cameras with infinite number of pixels, you would resolve 16 MP on the 4/3" camera, but 4 times that on the full frame, so 64 MP image.

So the doubling the linear resolution (lp/mm) is equivalent to a 4x improvement in terms of MP, so a 24 MP full frame will easily outresolve a 16 MP 4/3 camera, in part because it is more pixels, but mainly because it is a larger sensor which is less demanding on the glass. It would easily out resolve a 24 MP 4/3 sensor too.

What I am referring to here with these lp/mm numbers is what is demanded by the sensor to resolve all the pixels, not what each lens is capable of.  More realistically the m4/3 lens won't be good enough to out-resolve the sensor, but it isn't hard for a full frame lens to do so.  Look at DXO Mark's perceptual MP and compare between different sensor sizes.  Which one does best, even given similar sensor resolution?

Ease of design also needs to take into account the coverage area. All things including aperture being equal, it is easier to design a lens for a smaller sensor too.

I think ease of design has more to do with field of view and entrance pupil size (focal length / f-number). The easiest lens designs I have seen which are very good are large format lenses. They are very simple lenses and don't need very high resolution (since the sensor size, film, is measured in inches).

I think in general smaller sensors are harder to design lenses for, as you have to start getting excellent performance at very large apertures to make them any good.

Start looking at C-Mount lenses, and see how many you find that can resolve more than 100 lp/mm in the corners (most are 60 to 80 or so), and see how much they cost? They start costing a lot.

The perfect example of this is the Pentax Q. If you shoot RAW with the camera the images are generally unsharp in appearance because none of the lenses can resolve anywhere near the 12 MP of the 1/2.3" or 1/1.7" sensor, so you have to apply a lot of sharpening to the RAW data. The 1/1.7" sensor is probably going to be a lot better due to the larger size. With the original Q I was getting only about 6 MP of resolution out of a 12 MP sensor.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,411
Re: Size comparison of FE 4/2470 on A7 vs Olympus 12-40 f2.8 on GX7
  • Yes, the GX7 body is smaller and lighter. 
  • Yes, the Olympus f/2.8 lens is close to the size of the Zeiss f/4 lens with the same FoV range.

Thanks for the comparison.

-- hide signature --
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,148
Re: Here is a real comparison
2

Lab D wrote:

edwardaneal wrote:

it would be a better comparison if you didn't have the lens hood reversed on one lens and no hood on the other - I would suspect the lens would look smaller without the hood.

I may get flamed for this, but this is a better/fair comparison of 2 lenses with the same range and no lens hoods to make one look bigger.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#487.393,289.336,ha,t

I am still wondering why we are comparing a 12-35 or 12-40mm f/2.8 with a 24-70mm f/4, they are very different focal lengths and entrance pupil sizes.

(all figures approximate since I am using rounded off aperture values and marked focal lengths of the lenses)

12-35/40 mm f/2.8 is 12-35/40 mm with 4.3 to 12.5-14.3 mm entrance pupil and 24-70mm f/4 is 6 to 17.5 mm entrance pupil.

In terms of aperture stop area the 12-35/40 is 57 mm^2 to 490-641 mm^2, and the 24-70mm f/4 is from 114 mm^2 to 962 mm^2.

Of course the lens with twice as large of aperture stop is going to be larger.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,148
Re: Why compare the larger M43 lens and not the one with the same range?
2

Lab D wrote:

Maybe it is what you had on hand. FYI, The Panasonic would be a better lens to compare since it is also only 24-70mm.

The panasonic is not 24-70mm, it is 12-35mm. Just like aperture, focal length is a property of the lens and doesn't change. The lens will always be 12-35mm.

If you insist on turning into equivalent field of view, then a 24-70mm used on full frame would give the same field of view, and at f/5.6 it would let the same amount of light through (4x less intense over 4x the area = same amount of light).

In your example, the two people get sun-burned the same amount, but which one had more skin sunburned?

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: apples and oranges

viking79 wrote:

I think ease of design has more to do with field of view and entrance pupil size (focal length / f-number). The easiest lens designs I have seen which are very good are large format lenses. They are very simple lenses and don't need very high resolution (since the sensor size, film, is measured in inches).

I think in general smaller sensors are harder to design lenses for, as you have to start getting excellent performance at very large apertures to make them any good.

Very true. If equivalent lenses had the same or lower production cost/spec then smaller sensors were the winners. But the reality is that by increasing the sensor size the production cost/spec for equivalent lenses goes down. I wounder how much would an equivalent 12-35mm f/2 m43 lens cost and weigh, especially if the requirements were at least 80-100 lpmm in the center and 70-90 in the edges to match the Sony lens.

Lab D Veteran Member • Posts: 6,938
Not agian with you
4

blue_skies wrote:

Lab D wrote:

edwardaneal wrote:

it would be a better comparison if you didn't have the lens hood reversed on one lens and no hood on the other - I would suspect the lens would look smaller without the hood.

I may get flamed for this, but this is a better/fair comparison of 2 lenses with the same range and no lens hoods to make one look bigger.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#487.393,289.336,ha,t

Really? - updated: http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.336,487.393,482.412,ha,t

Why did you add in a lens with a larger/longer focal range and that has optics made for close-up focusing.  It also has a special manual focus ring that the other lenses don't have.  Do you see why it is not comparable, especially when there is another lens that matches the specs of what you want to compare?

If you would like to discuss this, please start a thread in the Open forum.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 19,497
Re: apples and oranges

forpetessake wrote:

Olympus is one stop dimmer, it's equivalent to 24-80mm f/5.6 on FF. And the weight and price, all other things being equal, is growing as f^2 to f^3. So, by that metrics, Olympus is way too heavy and too overpriced.

Bingo! No real advantage any more. And the GX7 is the best of breed - I like the images out of that camera more than Olympus. I'm sorry to always be saying this and don't mean to be a pill, but I don't see a future in M43 unless the size comes way down.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Lab D Veteran Member • Posts: 6,938
It is very simple
2

Dennis wrote:

Lab D wrote:

As for understanding exposure think of lens apertures like this. A fat lady and a thin lady are laying on the beach. Who will get sun burnt faster? Answer: both will burn/tan the same despite the fat lady having 4x the skin area.

Why ?

Why think of exposure like that ?

It is very simple.  Take a specific lighting situation.  If a P&S camera needs F/2.8, a shutter speed of 1/60th, and ISO 400, then your E-M1, A7R, RX10, etc. all can use very similar settings to achieve the same exposure.  If you decide that you RX10 has " a bgigger sesnor" and try to lower the ISO or rasie the shutter speed, then one of the other 2 setting will need to change accordingly.  If you don't the result will be under-exposed.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: apples and oranges

Dennis wrote:

viking79 wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Emacs23 wrote:

I bet 24-70 is better. Larger sensor — easier to design.

Since when ?

To look at this another way, pretend I wanted to get a "16 MP" image out of the camera. For the E-M1 that would require 133 lp/mm, but a lens with only 68 lp/mm would be fine on A7 or A7R. This is very low and easy to design, where 133 lp/mm is getting exceedingly difficult and expensive.

OK, so you're saying that it's easier because it doesn't have to be as good. I've always looked at it slightly differently: that it's harder to make a sharp, distortion-free lens for a larger sensor, but it's ok that they're not as sharp because the larger sensor is less demanding.

It seems you don't understand that 'good', 'sharp', etc. is relative to the format. The 40lpmm FF lens is sharp, the 40lpmm m43 lens is lousy. To match FF, the m43 lens would need to be 80 lpmm, I doubt there is one.

The 50mm f/1.4 FF lens is quite common and quite inexpensive. An equivalent 25mm f/0.7 m43 lens simply doesn't exist, forget the resolution.

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 19,497
Re: apples and oranges

bluevellet wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Olympus is one stop dimmer, it's equivalent to 24-80mm f/5.6 on FF. And the weight and price, all other things being equal, is growing as f^2 to f^3. So, by that metrics, Olympus is way too heavy and too overpriced.

Better optics for the sensor though. Fewer flaws and fewer people complaining about what they're paying for.

That's not really true. A bigger frame is always a better platform for lens design - resolution can come down a bit and there is much more room for trading that off for other parameters that further improve image quality. Small flaws and aberrations are harder to detect and less critical.

Not quite the same story with those FE zooms so far. I'm still curious to see what happens when you attach that F4 zoom lens on a regular APS-C body, the results will be probably even worse if it follows the same pattern as the FE primes.

Why would you do that though? The lenses that are designed for FF have not been optimized for APS or M43 and in so many cases will look worse.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 19,497
Re: apples and oranges

Dennis wrote:

Emacs23 wrote:

I bet 24-70 is better. Larger sensor — easier to design.

Since when

Since the beginning of photography. The smaller the frame, the higher the resolution has to be and the tighter all the other parameters need to be. It's actually logical when you think about it.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 19,497
Re: Size comparison of FE 4/2470 on A7 vs Olympus 12-40 f2.8 on GX7

optoms wrote:

Just a comparison for those interested to know how "huge" or "small" the new zoom lens for A7.

Not much diff.

Actually, when you get into 100-300 zooms, the A7 with lens is getting unwieldy while the Olympus/Panasonic are still manageable. I still prefer the Full Frame.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
Re: Here is a real comparison

viking79 wrote:

I am still wondering why we are comparing a 12-35 or 12-40mm f/2.8 with a 24-70mm f/4, they are very different focal lengths and entrance pupil sizes.

The pragmatic argument is that these two lenses have a very similar FOV range and are high quality fixed aperture zooms.  The two systems (lens+sensor) would also be very similar in results at max aperture in lower light situations: the A7 would have a little over 1/2 stop lower mid-tone noise  for f/4 1/100 @ISO 3200 vs. G7 f/2.8 1/100 @ ISO 1600 (DxO print SNR difference ~1.5 stops - 1 stop for aperture.)   If you matched the DOF and used f/5.6 1/100 @ISO 6400 on the A7, the 1/2 stop would favor the MFT system.

Of course the lens with twice as large of aperture stop is going to be larger.

OSS in the lens is another size factor.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,563
Re: It is very simple
1

Lab D wrote:

It is very simple. Take a specific lighting situation. If a P&S camera needs F/2.8, a shutter speed of 1/60th, and ISO 400, then your E-M1, A7R, RX10, etc. all can use very similar settings to achieve the same exposure. If you decide that you RX10 has " a bgigger sesnor" and try to lower the ISO or rasie the shutter speed, then one of the other 2 setting will need to change accordingly. If you don't the result will be under-exposed.

I guess then I don't really know who you were replying to or in what context you were making your comment on exposure.

Lab D Veteran Member • Posts: 6,938
I look at it this way.
1

Dennis wrote:

viking79 wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Emacs23 wrote:

I bet 24-70 is better. Larger sensor — easier to design.

Since when ?

To look at this another way, pretend I wanted to get a "16 MP" image out of the camera. For the E-M1 that would require 133 lp/mm, but a lens with only 68 lp/mm would be fine on A7 or A7R. This is very low and easy to design, where 133 lp/mm is getting exceedingly difficult and expensive.

OK, so you're saying that it's easier because it doesn't have to be as good. I've always looked at it slightly differently: that it's harder to make a sharp, distortion-free lens for a larger sensor, but it's ok that they're not as sharp because the larger sensor is less demanding.

As far as comparing the two formats, I would never expect for a moment that the m43 combo would approach the FF combo for resolution. I expect resolutions of sensors of all sizes to increase over time. m43 is at 16MP now, but will be at 36MP in 5 years. FF is at 36MP now; maybe 72MP in 5 years. Makers of both lenses are trying to eke out sharpness.

I don't know anyone that needs 36MP.  Even amoung my professional friends, they all say they don't need to print that large too.

What I want is to be able to shoot picture like the best of the DP Review challenges.  And we found out after voting that 4 of the top 9 pictures were taken with an E-M5.  THAT is more important to me that arguing about trying to get super high resolution that for me is un-needed ( and it was not needed for those 4 images either).

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
Re: It is very simple
1

Lab D wrote:

It is very simple. Take a specific lighting situation. If a P&S camera needs F/2.8, a shutter speed of 1/60th, and ISO 400, then your E-M1, A7R, RX10, etc. all can use very similar settings to achieve the same exposure.

But they would have much lower noise in the image.  Otherwise why did you choose ISO 400 vs. ISO 800 for the P&S.

If you decide that you RX10 has " a bgigger sesnor" and try to lower the ISO or rasie the shutter speed, then one of the other 2 setting will need to change accordingly.

Exactly - although the convention is to keep the shutter speed the same and change the aperture.  So if you shot the RX10 @ f/4 1/60th ISO 800, the images would look very similar in both DOF and noise.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads