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

Started Feb 6, 2014 | Discussions
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,563
Re: Not agian with you

Lab D wrote:

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 those are the two lenses you would choose, then why would you NOT compare them ? Comparing hypotheticals doesn't help you make a decision.

The Sony lens has built in IS. Does that make the Olympus big in comparison because it doesn't have IS ?

forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Ladies? - use of anthropomorphic language ...

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.

... in a technical discussion is a sign of immaturity.

Since you don't understand the technical language and insists on the analogies, here is one for you. If you have two pans under the rain and one has 4 times larger surface (representing sensors), which one collects more rain? If then you pour all that water to the same size glass (representing the same print size), water in which one will rise higher?

-- hide signature --

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter -- Winston Churchill

blue_skies
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,533
Re: Hello ... ???
2

Lab D wrote:

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.

Why can you replace the OP's 12-40 PRO lens with the lower grade 12-35 and-almost-same size lens, whereas why can I not replace the OP's non-humped GX7 with the humped EM1 camera?

Do you not see what you are doing?

If you want to go non-humped, please start comparing against the Nex-6 or Nex-7 cameras. They are MUCH smaller than the GX7 camera. And then there is the E1670Z/4 lens for the Nex- cameras which has much longer reach, but it not that large either. Alas, it is not in the camera-sizes database...

What exactly is your point?

-- 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
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,563
Re: apples and oranges

blue_skies wrote:

Dennis wrote:

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.

Agreed. It's just how you look at it, I guess ...
- FF lenses are easier to design because they don't have to be as good
- FF lenses aren't as good because it's harder to design them

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 think you are wishing, not knowing.

I'm just throwing out random numbers, my point being that makers of decent lenses for any format (assuming interchangeable lenses) aren't taking it easy based on today's sensors. And more to the point of what I think is being implied here, I don't think they're taking it easy because all they have to do is outresolve micro 4/3 !

If the statement was that it's easy to design FF lenses that capture more detail across the frame than m43 lenses, I'd agree. But I don't think anyone is doing that, and therefore, I don't think that in practice, making FF lenses is easier.

If you are after total IQ, wouldn't FF be your only game?

Of course !

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

Restricted in what way ? Certainly not because they're 20MP, but because they're 1". And they beat the pants off my old 6MP APS-C sensor.

Why keep comparing, wishing and hoping?

I think you misunderstood me completely. I was only trying to say that I don't see FF lenses being easier to design than smaller lenses. Easier to beat small systems in total resolution, sure.

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,563
Re: apples and oranges

forpetessake wrote:

Dennis wrote:

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.

Why would m43 need to match FF ? If that's your yardstick, then sure, I agree 100%, it's easier to design FF lenses than m43.

I don't think that small systems matching large systems has ever been part of the equation. 35mm never matched medium format which never matched large format. The larger lenses always resolved fewer lp/mm, but managed to record more detail across the frame. Yet nobody ever claimed that those large lenses were easier to design. Just because you're resolving fewer lp/mm doesn't mean it's easier to do across a bigger image circle.

Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
Re: Hello ... ???
1

blue_skies wrote:

Why can you replace the OP's 12-40 PRO lens with the lower grade 12-35 and-almost-same size lens, whereas why can I not replace the OP's non-humped GX7 with the humped EM1 camera?

There is no Sony Ax w/o a hump at the moment. So you can make the switch one way but not the other.  If the goal is to compare the smallest you can purchase in MFT vs. FF, then the A7 is the only option.

If you want to go non-humped, please start comparing against the Nex-6 or Nex-7 cameras.

The 24-70 lens is quite different in FOV on those cameras.

And then there is the E1670Z/4 lens for the Nex- cameras which has much longer reach, but it not that large either. Alas, it is not in the camera-sizes database...

That's also a reasonable comparison, just a different one.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,563
Backpedaling/explaining/clarifying/semantics ...
1

OK, let me back up a bit here ... here's the context:

Emacs23 wrote:

optoms wrote:

I have not compare the image yet. But im guessing olympus one should be a better optic then sony zeiss as review arent that fantastic. i am surprised as well with the size of the FE lens But then olympus is f2.8 and longer at the end and it come with a manuel focusing system.

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

This is what I was replying to.

If the argument someone wants to make is that it's easier to design a lens for a larger sensor that outresolves the smaller system then I agree. That's almost a no-brainer.

If the argument is that it's easier to make a good lens for FF than a good lens for m43, then I disagree. If you buy into a FF system, you're not doing it because you can get m43 resolution with cheap, easy-to-design lenses; you're buying it to get something better. And a good 24-70 is hard to make.

I guess the real question is - what's the point of the comparison in the posts I replied to ? What does Emacs23 mean by "24-70 is better" ? If it's that it can outresolve the m43 kit, then I'd reply that I sure as heck hope so !!! But maybe that is all he intended to say because optoms seems to find some relevance in whatever aspect of the m43 lens might be "better".

So my objection is really irrelevant. I still maintain that it's harder to make lenses for large sensors, because I expect good lenses, regardless of the sensor size. I don't think Sony's goal in developing the 24-70 was to simply match micro 4/3, and therefore I don't think they found the task of developing that lens somehow easier than the task Olympus had in developing their lens.

But, in the context of the above debate, regardless of which lens is better within its format, I have to believe that the FF kit can't help but outresolve the m43 kit.

Lab D Veteran Member • Posts: 6,938
I'll help you...
3

blue_skies wrote:

Lab D wrote:

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.

Why can you replace the OP's 12-40 PRO lens with the lower grade 12-35 and-almost-same size lens,

FYI, The Panasonic 12-35mm geting higher ratings on a few of the lens review sites than the 12-40mm lens and the Panasonic is also weatherproof too.  When you say "lower grade" you must be talking about how the Olympus has optics for close-up focusing and a special manual focus ring not found on the Sony or Panasonic.

If you want to compare the 24-70mm lens to a 24-80 lens with a special macro-like optics and a manual focus ring, then you are welcome to do so, and I hope it makes you happy. You really need to be happy with your camera choice.

Whatever you do, don't compare the 70-200mm lenses.

whereas why can I not replace the OP's non-humped GX7 with the humped EM1 camera?

Check my example and see I replaced the non-humped camera too.  I used the E-M5 which was used to take 4 of the top 9 photos in "best of 2013" contest, but the E-M1 is fine too.

 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: Backpedaling/explaining/clarifying/semantics ...

Dennis wrote:

I guess the real question is - what's the point of the comparison in the posts I replied to ? What does Emacs23 mean by "24-70 is better" ?

It collects ~twice the total light.  Some of this extra is lost by the sensor, but the it still factors into lens complexity & precision.

If it's that it can outresolve the m43 kit, then I'd reply that I sure as heck hope so !!!

We won't know this until there is a 24MP MFT sensor to test the 12-40mm resolution.  Odds are they will be pretty close for similar pixel counts.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Lab D Veteran Member • Posts: 6,938
Re: It is very simple

Erik Magnuson wrote:

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.

So you are saying that the RX100 has too much noise at ISO400?  Are you saying that it would be unusable in good light at that ISO?  I would think that almost everyone would be extremely happy with the low noise and that would be the last of the considerations at that exposure.   If you took at picture in broad daylight with the RX10, A7 and E-M1 all at ISO400, almost all photographers would find the noise levels acceptable and not worth mentioning.

For example, look at the first 9 images here.  4 of them were taken with the E-M5.  Does the noise bother you in any of the images to the point where you believe a medium frame camera should have been used?

http://www.dpreview.com/contests/challenge-of-challenges-2013

I guess if noise does bother you that much, then a camera like the Nikon D800 is a better choice.  No one else can make decisions for you.

 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: I'll help you...

Lab D wrote:

If you want to compare the 24-70mm lens to a 24-80 lens with a special macro-like optics and a manual focus ring,

All of those lenses have focus-by-wire manual focus rings.  Max magnification is .3x (12-40) vs. .2x (24-70).  There is still 1-stop of DOF control missing from the 12-40 or 12-35.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Lab D Veteran Member • Posts: 6,938
Re: Ladies? - use of anthropomorphic language ...

forpetessake wrote:

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.

... in a technical discussion is a sign of immaturity.

Since you don't understand the technical language and insists on the analogies, here is one for you. If you have two pans under the rain and one has 4 times larger surface (representing sensors), which one will have the deepest water level?   It will be the same level for both.

I've seen that analogy too.  Weather forcasters use it all the time and will tell you the size of the pan doesn't matter for measuring the amount of rain one is getting.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,148
Re: Here is a real comparison
2

Erik Magnuson wrote:

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.

Oh, I know, I just like to be a pain  The A7 isn't great performance for its sensor size, still very good.

I grow weary of all the statements like, "this Pentax Q 06 lens 5-15mm f/2.8 is better than your full frame 70-200mm f/2.8 because it is the same field of view and the same f number and is much smaller".  Most people have no trouble seeing this difference in the case of a Q vs a full frame, but when it comes to m4/3...

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

OSS in the lens is another size factor.

Yes, and of the 3, only the Olympus doesn't have OIS?

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: apples and oranges

forpetessake wrote:

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.

Olympus actually made one for 4/3 SLR cameras, 14-35mm f/2 lens, and it is still available and about $2300 US.

Now, it might or might not be a better lens than the CZ 24-70mm f/4, but it also costs twice as much for comparable entrance pupil size and field of view range.

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
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,563
Re: apples and oranges

stevo23 wrote:

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.

And yet, they manage it in inexpensive lenses, suggesting that it is easier to do so in smaller lenses. Miniscule lenses on $200 digicams outresolve (in terms of lp/mm) expensive interchangeable lenses.

But I think the mixup is in what the person I replied to meant when he said he expects one lens to be "better". Initially, I interpreted it literally; that it's a better lens. But in the context of the discussion, I think he meant that the resulting images will be better. Semantics, maybe, but I think it's two different things. You can get results from a cheap kit zoom on FF that beat an expensive, fast lens on a smaller sensor, but I don't think people would translate that into the cheap lens being a "better" lens.

Lab D Veteran Member • Posts: 6,938
Re: I'll help you...

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Lab D wrote:

If you want to compare the 24-70mm lens to a 24-80 lens with a special macro-like optics and a manual focus ring,

All of those lenses have focus-by-wire manual focus rings.  Max magnification is .3x (12-40) vs. .2x (24-70).  There is still 1-stop of DOF control missing from the 12-40 or 12-35.

Right the Olympus has a longer focal length and greater range as well as being capable of greater magnification.  It also has as DP Review explains, "a focus ring that engages manual focus mode and reveals a distance scale".

If you want to compare to that lens go ahead, but thanks for acknowledging that there is a smaller lens available to those who desire small size with matching focal range and built-in IS that is also weather sealed and very highly rated.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,148
Re: Here is a real comparison

viking79 wrote:

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.

No one bothered to check my math.  I calculated the areas wrong, using the diameter squared instead of the radius squared, so trying that again:

12-40mm is 14 mm^2 to 160 mm^2 and 24-70mm f/4 is 28 to 241 mm^2.  The ratios would be the same which is what my point was, thought 962 mm^2 seemed a bit large

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
socode Regular Member • Posts: 356
Re: Here is a real comparison
1

Lab D wrote:

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

Wow, very similar. This is an interesting comparison also

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.383,487.394,ha,t

Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 14,301
To give a little more perspective

GX7 versus a7R

Nothing wrong with your comparison. The Oly is quite large, most of all since it has no OIS...

But you cannot equate this to mFT 24-70 equiv vs FF equiv....We hvae the Panasonic 12-35 f2,8 and as we can see it is considerably smaller. Moreover, the 35-100 f2.8 is smaller still than the 24-70 Sony FE.

I think the Oly on a GX7 is not so logical. GX7 IBIS is soso, Pany's 12-35 OIS is very good. For a cam that is not very small, but still small using the smallest lens with better stabilsition seems more logical. Most of all since reviews indicate the Oly is not better optically either...

For me, the A7R is mostly interesting with a very good wideangle lens for landscapes. All other things I think the mFT sensor will do fine.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +8 more
Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
Re: It is very simple

Lab D wrote:

So you are saying that the RX100 has too much noise at ISO400?

Compared to what?  It has more noise than the A7 but less than a Stylus 1.

Are you saying that it would be unusable in good light at that ISO?

Depends on how big you print/crop and how sensitive you are to noise in an image.

I would think that almost everyone would be extremely happy with the low noise and that would be the last of the considerations at that exposure.

1/100 is pretty slow for anything but mostly static humans - what if you need 1/400 or better?  Same amount of "good" light but now you are at least ISO 1600.

If you took at picture in broad daylight with the RX10, A7 and E-M1 all at ISO400, almost all photographers would find the noise levels acceptable and not worth mentioning.\

That's summarized by saying "better is the enemy of good enough."   There is a reason different people choose different options even if an RX10 or E-M5 is "good enough" for some arbitrary conditions.

For example, look at the first 9 images here. 4 of them were taken with the E-M5. Does the noise bother you in any of the images

The lady in #7 is over sharpened and noisy even at web size, but that's an older Oly at ISO 100.

to the point where you believe a medium frame camera should have been used?

Medium format cameras are rather poor for noise - they just provide more pixels at base ISO.

I guess if noise does bother you that much, then a camera like the Nikon D800 is a better choice.

Well I use Canon FF but the Nikon would be fine. Or I use a NEX APS-C.  Shooting decent images at ISO 3200 is fun. BTW, this is pretty much the same EV as your "good lighting" -- how do you think the RX10 would have done here?

Or here -- although 1/40 @ f/1.4 and ISO 3200 is hardly "good" lighting (it was too dark to focus - they had to turn a flashlight on the subject so we could focus.)

But, yes camera choice is a personal weighting of tradeoffs.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads