16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
6

SrMi wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

SrMi wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Lost all credibility with me on the diffraction howler.

Andrew

Yes, that one is a doozy. As you might know, diffraction is proportional to pixel size, not the sensor size.

Olympus M1.3: 3.36 microns

Sony a7rIV: 3.76 microns

Nikon Z 6: 5.92 microns

Are you joking, or is that what you really think?

Unfortunately, I was not joking, and unfortunately, I cannot withdraw that post.

FingerPainter corrected me in an earlier post in this thread.

Sorry, I missed that. Kudos to you for a very dignified reply.

-- hide signature --

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

SUPER-ELMAR
SUPER-ELMAR Contributing Member • Posts: 773
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
5

Raist3d wrote:

What I recall from the mirrorless comparisons article is that Fuji AF was clearly better than even the Em1X for BIF.

Clearly better?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/fuji-xt4-birds-in-flight-test/

X-T4 + 100-400mm was 67% (perfect focus only) / 90% (slightly soft)

X-T4 + 200mm + 1.4TC was 79% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM1X + 300mm was 74% (perfect focus only) / 91% (slightly soft)

EM1.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM5.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 93% (slightly soft)

These all look very similar.  Except that the EM5.3 combo costs $2.000 USD less than XT4 with prime.

 SUPER-ELMAR's gear list:SUPER-ELMAR's gear list
Ricoh GR III Leica M10 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Hasselblad X1D II 50C Hasselblad XCD 21mm F4 +5 more
Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 45,156
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
1

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

What I recall from the mirrorless comparisons article is that Fuji AF was clearly better than even the Em1X for BIF.

Clearly better?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/fuji-xt4-birds-in-flight-test/

Yes, clearly better. They made an article ranking all of them. One thing with Fuji you have to realize- fuji keeps updating their firmware and improving. You also have to make sure you have set them to "boost" mode.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

X-T4 + 100-400mm was 67% (perfect focus only) / 90% (slightly soft)

X-T4 + 200mm + 1.4TC was 79% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM1X + 300mm was 74% (perfect focus only) / 91% (slightly soft)

EM1.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM5.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 93% (slightly soft)

These all look very similar. Except that the EM5.3 combo costs $2.000 USD less than XT4 with prime.

The EM5.3 doesn't do as well as Fuji. And again, that' snot even counting the usability and workflow of seeing dynamic focus points no the object your re following by grid and other options that Olympus doesn't have.

Two more things to consider: Fuji will AF into the dark a bit better than the Olympus. Ditto for higher iso image quality and detail.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Guy Parsons
Guy Parsons Forum Pro • Posts: 37,101
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

Raist3d wrote:

Well, all I can say is that the 4/3rd lenses really had less optical software corrections and what nots than m43rds lenses, in general.

You clearly  never used the 4/3 11-22mm lens.

They always used software corrections and the 11-22mm needed buckets of that.

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II +10 more
SrMi
SrMi Senior Member • Posts: 2,397
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have

Raist3d wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

What I recall from the mirrorless comparisons article is that Fuji AF was clearly better than even the Em1X for BIF.

Clearly better?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/fuji-xt4-birds-in-flight-test/

Yes, clearly better. They made an article ranking all of them. One thing with Fuji you have to realize- fuji keeps updating their firmware and improving. You also have to make sure you have set them to "boost" mode.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

X-T4 + 100-400mm was 67% (perfect focus only) / 90% (slightly soft)

X-T4 + 200mm + 1.4TC was 79% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM1X + 300mm was 74% (perfect focus only) / 91% (slightly soft)

EM1.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM5.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 93% (slightly soft)

These all look very similar. Except that the EM5.3 combo costs $2.000 USD less than XT4 with prime.

The EM5.3 doesn't do as well as Fuji. And again, that' snot even counting the usability and workflow of seeing dynamic focus points no the object your re following by grid and other options that Olympus doesn't have.

Two more things to consider: Fuji will AF into the dark a bit better than the Olympus. Ditto for higher iso image quality and detail.

For me, the biggest issue with X-T4 is that in AF-C and BBF, the focus point jumps once you release the AF-On button. Mostly visible with wide-angle, but also with long lenses.

This should not be an issue if you use the shutter button to focus; otherwise, one must use AF-S with BBF to have reliable focusing.

SUPER-ELMAR
SUPER-ELMAR Contributing Member • Posts: 773
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
5

Raist3d wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

What I recall from the mirrorless comparisons article is that Fuji AF was clearly better than even the Em1X for BIF.

Clearly better?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/fuji-xt4-birds-in-flight-test/

Yes, clearly better.

How so?  The results do not bear this out.

They made an article ranking all of them.

This one?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-wildlife-and-bird-photography/#olympus

The two Olympus cameras at the very top.  Fuji is #3 after the Sony's.

One thing with Fuji you have to realize- fuji keeps updating their firmware and improving. You also have to make sure you have set them to "boost" mode.

Everyone have firmware update, not exclusive to Fuji.  From that website the author continually update numbers and recommendations as new firmware is released.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

X-T4 + 100-400mm was 67% (perfect focus only) / 90% (slightly soft)

X-T4 + 200mm + 1.4TC was 79% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM1X + 300mm was 74% (perfect focus only) / 91% (slightly soft)

EM1.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM5.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 93% (slightly soft)

These all look very similar. Except that the EM5.3 combo costs $2.000 USD less than XT4 with prime.

The EM5.3 doesn't do as well as Fuji.

72% vs 79% for perfect focus.  When slightly soft results are counted the difference is 93% vs 94%.  But the EM5.3 is 60% of the cost of the Fuji.  Does not bode well for Fuji.

And again, that' snot even counting the usability and workflow of seeing dynamic focus points no the object your re following by grid and other options that Olympus doesn't have.

Did that affect the authors results?  Does not appear so.

Two more things to consider: Fuji will AF into the dark a bit better than the Olympus. Ditto for higher iso image quality and detail.

Not the XT4.  Have you used?  The EM1X able to focus and track in lower light.  But that may be due to f/1.2 prime on Olympus vs f/1.4 prime on Fuji.

 SUPER-ELMAR's gear list:SUPER-ELMAR's gear list
Ricoh GR III Leica M10 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Hasselblad X1D II 50C Hasselblad XCD 21mm F4 +5 more
faunagraphy
faunagraphy Contributing Member • Posts: 676
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
4

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

What I recall from the mirrorless comparisons article is that Fuji AF was clearly better than even the Em1X for BIF.

Clearly better?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/fuji-xt4-birds-in-flight-test/

Yes, clearly better.

How so? The results do not bear this out.

They made an article ranking all of them.

This one?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-wildlife-and-bird-photography/#olympus

The two Olympus cameras at the very top. Fuji is #3 after the Sony's.

Thank you for the link. I hadn't checked out the article in a while and Matheiu/Heather have done a splendid job rewriting it. It's so much easier to understand other systems now!

And again, that' snot even counting the usability and workflow of seeing dynamic focus points no the object your re following by grid and other options that Olympus doesn't have.

Did that affect the authors results? Does not appear so.

I must point out that your keeper rate improves significantly if AF limiter is enabled for BIFs. I understand this isn't possible all the time, but enough to the point that I keep it enabled by default.

AF limiter allowed instantaneous focus-lock.

And Matheiu hadn't used that, so the actual figures might be even higher, considering how in many photos, the red kites fly against confusing backgrounds.

Two more things to consider: Fuji will AF into the dark a bit better than the Olympus. Ditto for higher iso image quality and detail.

Not the XT4. Have you used? The EM1X able to focus and track in lower light. But that may be due to f/1.2 prime on Olympus vs f/1.4 prime on Fuji.

-- hide signature --

Formerly known as 'anupamkatkar'.

 faunagraphy's gear list:faunagraphy's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D500 Olympus PEN E-PL6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +23 more
Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 45,156
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

Guy Parsons wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Well, all I can say is that the 4/3rd lenses really had less optical software corrections and what nots than m43rds lenses, in general.

You clearly never used the 4/3 11-22mm lens.

They always used software corrections and the 11-22mm needed buckets of that.

Hmm strange  I thought that was a well regarded lens  all I can say is I have several 4/3 lenses and they didn’t need distortion correction like many m43 lenses

I don’t think 4:3 lenses and m43 lenses were held to the same stndard giveen

the optical performance and corrections on the m43 side of things

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Guy Parsons
Guy Parsons Forum Pro • Posts: 37,101
Re: Telecentric .... or not.
1

Raist3d wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Well, all I can say is that the 4/3rd lenses really had less optical software corrections and what nots than m43rds lenses, in general.

You clearly never used the 4/3 11-22mm lens.

They always used software corrections and the 11-22mm needed buckets of that.

Hmm strange I thought that was a well regarded lens all I can say is I have several 4/3 lenses and they didn’t need distortion correction like many m43 lenses

Yes, the 11-22mm is a nice lens but certainly does barrel shaped things to wide angle shots. The lens+camera specs did not quite correct it 100% in the camera jpegs but some post process fiddling tidied it up nicely. If nothing straight was near the edges then all was good.

The 11-22mm was the must used lens when I holidayed in Vietnam years back with the E-300, moving on to Thailand I found that more of a 14-45mm lens place.

I don’t think 4:3 lenses and m43 lenses were held to the same stndard giveen

the optical performance and corrections on the m43 side of things

I think some overkill was used in the 4/3 lens designs, the better lenses that is. When they got to M4/3 they realised that the overkill was not really needed so they slacked off and relied on canned corrections more. Software corrections are way cheaper and easier to implement than corrections in any lens design.

In SaPa markets, northern Vietnam. E-300 and 11mm.

At Bac Ha Sunday market, northern Vietnam. E-300 and 11mm.

Earlier days before tourism over-ran most places, a nice holiday.

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II +10 more
Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 45,156
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

Guy Parsons wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Well, all I can say is that the 4/3rd lenses really had less optical software corrections and what nots than m43rds lenses, in general.

You clearly never used the 4/3 11-22mm lens.

They always used software corrections and the 11-22mm needed buckets of that.

Hmm strange I thought that was a well regarded lens all I can say is I have several 4/3 lenses and they didn’t need distortion correction like many m43 lenses

Yes, the 11-22mm is a nice lens but certainly does barrel shaped things to wide angle shots. The lens+camera specs did not quite correct it 100% in the camera jpegs but some post process fiddling tidied it up nicely. If nothing straight was near the edges then all was good.

The 11-22mm was the must used lens when I holidayed in Vietnam years back with the E-300, moving on to Thailand I found that more of a 14-45mm lens place.

I don’t think 4:3 lenses and m43 lenses were held to the same stndard giveen

the optical performance and corrections on the m43 side of things

I think some overkill was used in the 4/3 lens designs, the better lenses that is. When they got to M4/3 they realised that the overkill was not really needed so they slacked off and relied on canned corrections more. Software corrections are way cheaper and easier to implement than corrections in any lens design.

Software corrections are cheaper for sure, but they have their own image quality price.  Stretching the image, taking out purple fringing- all has a price in the image quality in a way 4/3rd lenses were simply better.

Granted, the 4/3rd lenses were Bigger and I think it was a mistake to pursue the super bright F2.0's zooms- as good as they are optically. The best example I can think of what I have that shows the cost of software corrections is the Lumix 4/3rds F1.4 vs Lumix m43rds F1.4- the former is without a question the better lens optically and end result.

Software corrections have a price. You can't recover what you lost at the moment of the sensor sampling of the image of the lens. For many and many images this won't matter. For other things, there's just this loss of image quality in a way... those who never saw the better, would not miss it.

Aberaeron Veteran Member • Posts: 8,803
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
2

By definition, If a feature or anything is unique, it is one of a kind.

 Aberaeron's gear list:Aberaeron's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7 III Olympus OM-D E-M10 II +25 more
Muster Mark Contributing Member • Posts: 588
Re: Telecentric .... or not.
1

Guy Parsons wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

I am sure that my bunch of old 4/3 lenses stored somewhere are a mix of possibly "telecentric" and impossible to be "telecentric" lenses, due to that rear element measurement.

So it was mainly to do with marketing - the reliable source of most baloney in any industry.

When the sun comes up here in Oz I will look through a few of the old 4/3 lenses to see how they obey the test stated in Wiki as "Image-space telecentric lenses have an exit pupil infinitely far in front of the lens; that is, if one looks in the back of the lens, the image of the aperture is very far away." I'll try to remember to report back on that.

Back again after looking at my old 4/3 lenses.

Lens.................Rear element approx........telecentric (as per view test above)

50/2 macro................23mm.....No, but a very mild effect of aperture seems further away.

35/3.5 macro..............15mm................................No

14-54/2.8-3.5...............19mm.........................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

11-22/2.8-3.5................19mm..............................No

14-45/3.5-5.6.................18mm.............................No

40-150/3.5-4.5................21mm.......................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

40-150/4-5.6......................13mm...........................No

The last lens came with a very early E-PL1 kit and with the MMF-2 to adapt it to the E-PL1. The rear element needs to be about 22mm or bigger to allow any chance of true image side telecentricity.

So nothing there that leads me to believe that "telecentricity" was a global design feature in the 4/3 lens range. The very mild effect noted on some of the lenses made the aperture look as though it was slightly further inside the lens than where I expected it to be, but certainly not distant as the Wiki page test indicated.

Summary: As usual, the telecentric issue was 99.99% baloney from the marketing people, and people believed it without testing if it was true.

To get the aperture visible, I set the A mode to f/5.6, set a button to DOF preview, then held down the button while removing the lens keeping the camera turned on. That way the aperture stays at f/5.6 on the removed lens and makes it easier to do the view test. No damage happens as pressing the lens release always disconnects power from the lens.

I think before judging it to be 99.99% baloney one should compare to lenses on other systems (I am not saying you personally should have, sounds like a lot of work), but I don't think we have the information to judge yet.  Their stated goal was to have more perpendicular light across the frame. Obviously a telocentric design means a mathematically 90 degree angle of incidence. It doesn't need to be mathematically perfect to get the optical benefits though.

You showed it can't actually be perfectly telocentric on a lot of the lenses, or perfectly 90 degrees. Ok. Sure, that doesn't means the angle of incidence is not a lot closer to 90 degrees than traditional dslr lenses which was the point. Anyway, I am sure if you looked at a 2x crop of the central part of a FF sensor, it would look pretty telocentric too, so ultimately I am not sure what to think I guess.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
-Ian

 Muster Mark's gear list:Muster Mark's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro
ahaslett
ahaslett Veteran Member • Posts: 9,090
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

Muster Mark wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

I am sure that my bunch of old 4/3 lenses stored somewhere are a mix of possibly "telecentric" and impossible to be "telecentric" lenses, due to that rear element measurement.

So it was mainly to do with marketing - the reliable source of most baloney in any industry.

When the sun comes up here in Oz I will look through a few of the old 4/3 lenses to see how they obey the test stated in Wiki as "Image-space telecentric lenses have an exit pupil infinitely far in front of the lens; that is, if one looks in the back of the lens, the image of the aperture is very far away." I'll try to remember to report back on that.

Back again after looking at my old 4/3 lenses.

Lens.................Rear element approx........telecentric (as per view test above)

50/2 macro................23mm.....No, but a very mild effect of aperture seems further away.

35/3.5 macro..............15mm................................No

14-54/2.8-3.5...............19mm.........................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

11-22/2.8-3.5................19mm..............................No

14-45/3.5-5.6.................18mm.............................No

40-150/3.5-4.5................21mm.......................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

40-150/4-5.6......................13mm...........................No

The last lens came with a very early E-PL1 kit and with the MMF-2 to adapt it to the E-PL1. The rear element needs to be about 22mm or bigger to allow any chance of true image side telecentricity.

So nothing there that leads me to believe that "telecentricity" was a global design feature in the 4/3 lens range. The very mild effect noted on some of the lenses made the aperture look as though it was slightly further inside the lens than where I expected it to be, but certainly not distant as the Wiki page test indicated.

Summary: As usual, the telecentric issue was 99.99% baloney from the marketing people, and people believed it without testing if it was true.

To get the aperture visible, I set the A mode to f/5.6, set a button to DOF preview, then held down the button while removing the lens keeping the camera turned on. That way the aperture stays at f/5.6 on the removed lens and makes it easier to do the view test. No damage happens as pressing the lens release always disconnects power from the lens.

I think before judging it to be 99.99% baloney one should compare to lenses on other systems (I am not saying you personally should have, sounds like a lot of work), but I don't think we have the information to judge yet. Their stated goal was to have more perpendicular light across the frame. Obviously a telocentric design means a mathematically 90 degree angle of incidence. It doesn't need to be mathematically perfect to get the optical benefits though.

You showed it can't actually be perfectly telocentric on a lot of the lenses, or perfectly 90 degrees. Ok. Sure, that doesn't means the angle of incidence is not a lot closer to 90 degrees than traditional dslr lenses which was the point. Anyway, I am sure if you looked at a 2x crop of the central part of a FF sensor, it would look pretty telocentric too, so ultimately I am not sure what to think I guess.

But the article is nonsense because it is plain wrong about MFT lenses. They are neither telecentric nor need to be.

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 ahaslett's gear list:ahaslett's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +29 more
Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 45,156
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

Muster Mark wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

I am sure that my bunch of old 4/3 lenses stored somewhere are a mix of possibly "telecentric" and impossible to be "telecentric" lenses, due to that rear element measurement.

So it was mainly to do with marketing - the reliable source of most baloney in any industry.

When the sun comes up here in Oz I will look through a few of the old 4/3 lenses to see how they obey the test stated in Wiki as "Image-space telecentric lenses have an exit pupil infinitely far in front of the lens; that is, if one looks in the back of the lens, the image of the aperture is very far away." I'll try to remember to report back on that.

Back again after looking at my old 4/3 lenses.

Lens.................Rear element approx........telecentric (as per view test above)

50/2 macro................23mm.....No, but a very mild effect of aperture seems further away.

35/3.5 macro..............15mm................................No

14-54/2.8-3.5...............19mm.........................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

11-22/2.8-3.5................19mm..............................No

14-45/3.5-5.6.................18mm.............................No

40-150/3.5-4.5................21mm.......................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

40-150/4-5.6......................13mm...........................No

The last lens came with a very early E-PL1 kit and with the MMF-2 to adapt it to the E-PL1. The rear element needs to be about 22mm or bigger to allow any chance of true image side telecentricity.

So nothing there that leads me to believe that "telecentricity" was a global design feature in the 4/3 lens range. The very mild effect noted on some of the lenses made the aperture look as though it was slightly further inside the lens than where I expected it to be, but certainly not distant as the Wiki page test indicated.

Summary: As usual, the telecentric issue was 99.99% baloney from the marketing people, and people believed it without testing if it was true.

To get the aperture visible, I set the A mode to f/5.6, set a button to DOF preview, then held down the button while removing the lens keeping the camera turned on. That way the aperture stays at f/5.6 on the removed lens and makes it easier to do the view test. No damage happens as pressing the lens release always disconnects power from the lens.

I think before judging it to be 99.99% baloney one should compare to lenses on other systems (I am not saying you personally should have, sounds like a lot of work), but I don't think we have the information to judge yet. Their stated goal was to have more perpendicular light across the frame. Obviously a telocentric design means a mathematically 90 degree angle of incidence. It doesn't need to be mathematically perfect to get the optical benefits though.

You bring a *very* valid point to the conversation, because I remember now the 4/3rds standard didn't say it had to be perfect 90 degree but within a degree of a tolerance.  But as you say, it can still be much more tele centric that many other designs.

You showed it can't actually be perfectly telocentric on a lot of the lenses, or perfectly 90 degrees. Ok. Sure, that doesn't means the angle of incidence is not a lot closer to 90 degrees than traditional dslr lenses which was the point. Anyway, I am sure if you looked at a 2x crop of the central part of a FF sensor, it would look pretty telocentric too, so ultimately I am not sure what to think I guess.

I think the standard specifies you have to hit a certain amount of telecentricity edge to edge.  (The 43/rds standard that is not the m43rds standard).

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 45,156
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

ahaslett wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

I am sure that my bunch of old 4/3 lenses stored somewhere are a mix of possibly "telecentric" and impossible to be "telecentric" lenses, due to that rear element measurement.

So it was mainly to do with marketing - the reliable source of most baloney in any industry.

When the sun comes up here in Oz I will look through a few of the old 4/3 lenses to see how they obey the test stated in Wiki as "Image-space telecentric lenses have an exit pupil infinitely far in front of the lens; that is, if one looks in the back of the lens, the image of the aperture is very far away." I'll try to remember to report back on that.

Back again after looking at my old 4/3 lenses.

Lens.................Rear element approx........telecentric (as per view test above)

50/2 macro................23mm.....No, but a very mild effect of aperture seems further away.

35/3.5 macro..............15mm................................No

14-54/2.8-3.5...............19mm.........................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

11-22/2.8-3.5................19mm..............................No

14-45/3.5-5.6.................18mm.............................No

40-150/3.5-4.5................21mm.......................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

40-150/4-5.6......................13mm...........................No

The last lens came with a very early E-PL1 kit and with the MMF-2 to adapt it to the E-PL1. The rear element needs to be about 22mm or bigger to allow any chance of true image side telecentricity.

So nothing there that leads me to believe that "telecentricity" was a global design feature in the 4/3 lens range. The very mild effect noted on some of the lenses made the aperture look as though it was slightly further inside the lens than where I expected it to be, but certainly not distant as the Wiki page test indicated.

Summary: As usual, the telecentric issue was 99.99% baloney from the marketing people, and people believed it without testing if it was true.

To get the aperture visible, I set the A mode to f/5.6, set a button to DOF preview, then held down the button while removing the lens keeping the camera turned on. That way the aperture stays at f/5.6 on the removed lens and makes it easier to do the view test. No damage happens as pressing the lens release always disconnects power from the lens.

I think before judging it to be 99.99% baloney one should compare to lenses on other systems (I am not saying you personally should have, sounds like a lot of work), but I don't think we have the information to judge yet. Their stated goal was to have more perpendicular light across the frame. Obviously a telocentric design means a mathematically 90 degree angle of incidence. It doesn't need to be mathematically perfect to get the optical benefits though.

You showed it can't actually be perfectly telocentric on a lot of the lenses, or perfectly 90 degrees. Ok. Sure, that doesn't means the angle of incidence is not a lot closer to 90 degrees than traditional dslr lenses which was the point. Anyway, I am sure if you looked at a 2x crop of the central part of a FF sensor, it would look pretty telocentric too, so ultimately I am not sure what to think I guess.

But the article is nonsense because it is plain wrong about MFT lenses. They are neither telecentric nor need to be.

Yes but in this sub-thread we are talking about whether 4/3rds was or not.

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 45,156
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
1

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

What I recall from the mirrorless comparisons article is that Fuji AF was clearly better than even the Em1X for BIF.

Clearly better?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/fuji-xt4-birds-in-flight-test/

Yes, clearly better.

How so? The results do not bear this out.

I linked the rankings of cameras according to their testing.

They made an article ranking all of them.

This one?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-wildlife-and-bird-photography/#olympus

The two Olympus cameras at the very top. Fuji is #3 after the Sony's.

One thing with Fuji you have to realize- fuji keeps updating their firmware and improving. You also have to make sure you have set them to "boost" mode.

Everyone have firmware update, not exclusive to Fuji. From that website the author continually update numbers and recommendations as new firmware is released.

Nobody is updating their cameras in a significant way as much as Fuji does.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

X-T4 + 100-400mm was 67% (perfect focus only) / 90% (slightly soft)

X-T4 + 200mm + 1.4TC was 79% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM1X + 300mm was 74% (perfect focus only) / 91% (slightly soft)

EM1.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM5.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 93% (slightly soft)

These all look very similar. Except that the EM5.3 combo costs $2.000 USD less than XT4 with prime.

The EM5.3 doesn't do as well as Fuji.

72% vs 79% for perfect focus. When slightly soft results are counted the difference is 93% vs 94%. But the EM5.3 is 60% of the cost of the Fuji. Does not bode well for Fuji.

I am looking at the ranking article where the OLympuses did not perform as well as the Fujis.

And again, that' snot even counting the usability and workflow of seeing dynamic focus points no the object your re following by grid and other options that Olympus doesn't have.

Did that affect the authors results? Does not appear so.

They are not talking about that so we don't know specifically on that end. I however, I can tell you that this makes for a big difference in usability. Otherwise when Olympus just added the ability to follow with squares whole region, people were lauding it (along with one or two Olympus visionaries). A feature that Fuji and Sony had for years, and there's still as I say a lack of UI feedback options in Olympus so it's not quite there yet.

Two more things to consider: Fuji will AF into the dark a bit better than the Olympus. Ditto for higher iso image quality and detail.

Not the XT4. Have you used?

I have use the X-E3, I have used the EM1X. The XT4 does better than the XE3 and using the XE3 as baseline, I get an idea, plus see below.

The EM1X able to focus and track in lower light. But that may be due to f/1.2 prime on Olympus vs f/1.4 prime on Fuji.

I didn't say the EM1X can't track in lower light but that Fuji can track in lower light than the Olympus. It's also in their manufacturer specification's claims for both manufacturers.

A side note - Also if you need an F1.2 prime on the Olympus to match, think about what that means about lens size and price, and the fact you also have F1.2's on the Fuji.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 45,156
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
1

faunagraphy wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

What I recall from the mirrorless comparisons article is that Fuji AF was clearly better than even the Em1X for BIF.

Clearly better?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/fuji-xt4-birds-in-flight-test/

Yes, clearly better.

How so? The results do not bear this out.

They made an article ranking all of them.

This one?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-wildlife-and-bird-photography/#olympus

The two Olympus cameras at the very top. Fuji is #3 after the Sony's.

Thank you for the link. I hadn't checked out the article in a while and Matheiu/Heather have done a splendid job rewriting it. It's so much easier to understand other systems now!

And again, that' snot even counting the usability and workflow of seeing dynamic focus points no the object your re following by grid and other options that Olympus doesn't have.

Did that affect the authors results? Does not appear so.

I must point out that your keeper rate improves significantly if AF limiter is enabled for BIFs. I understand this isn't possible all the time, but enough to the point that I keep it enabled by default.

AF limiter allowed instantaneous focus-lock.

And Matheiu hadn't used that, so the actual figures might be even higher, considering how in many photos, the red kites fly against confusing backgrounds.

Fuji also has AF delimiter settings.

Two more things to consider: Fuji will AF into the dark a bit better than the Olympus. Ditto for higher iso image quality and detail.

Not the XT4. Have you used? The EM1X able to focus and track in lower light. But that may be due to f/1.2 prime on Olympus vs f/1.4 prime on Fuji.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

ahaslett
ahaslett Veteran Member • Posts: 9,090
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

Raist3d wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

I am sure that my bunch of old 4/3 lenses stored somewhere are a mix of possibly "telecentric" and impossible to be "telecentric" lenses, due to that rear element measurement.

So it was mainly to do with marketing - the reliable source of most baloney in any industry.

When the sun comes up here in Oz I will look through a few of the old 4/3 lenses to see how they obey the test stated in Wiki as "Image-space telecentric lenses have an exit pupil infinitely far in front of the lens; that is, if one looks in the back of the lens, the image of the aperture is very far away." I'll try to remember to report back on that.

Back again after looking at my old 4/3 lenses.

Lens.................Rear element approx........telecentric (as per view test above)

50/2 macro................23mm.....No, but a very mild effect of aperture seems further away.

35/3.5 macro..............15mm................................No

14-54/2.8-3.5...............19mm.........................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

11-22/2.8-3.5................19mm..............................No

14-45/3.5-5.6.................18mm.............................No

40-150/3.5-4.5................21mm.......................No, but very very mild effect like the 50mm

40-150/4-5.6......................13mm...........................No

The last lens came with a very early E-PL1 kit and with the MMF-2 to adapt it to the E-PL1. The rear element needs to be about 22mm or bigger to allow any chance of true image side telecentricity.

So nothing there that leads me to believe that "telecentricity" was a global design feature in the 4/3 lens range. The very mild effect noted on some of the lenses made the aperture look as though it was slightly further inside the lens than where I expected it to be, but certainly not distant as the Wiki page test indicated.

Summary: As usual, the telecentric issue was 99.99% baloney from the marketing people, and people believed it without testing if it was true.

To get the aperture visible, I set the A mode to f/5.6, set a button to DOF preview, then held down the button while removing the lens keeping the camera turned on. That way the aperture stays at f/5.6 on the removed lens and makes it easier to do the view test. No damage happens as pressing the lens release always disconnects power from the lens.

I think before judging it to be 99.99% baloney one should compare to lenses on other systems (I am not saying you personally should have, sounds like a lot of work), but I don't think we have the information to judge yet. Their stated goal was to have more perpendicular light across the frame. Obviously a telocentric design means a mathematically 90 degree angle of incidence. It doesn't need to be mathematically perfect to get the optical benefits though.

You showed it can't actually be perfectly telocentric on a lot of the lenses, or perfectly 90 degrees. Ok. Sure, that doesn't means the angle of incidence is not a lot closer to 90 degrees than traditional dslr lenses which was the point. Anyway, I am sure if you looked at a 2x crop of the central part of a FF sensor, it would look pretty telocentric too, so ultimately I am not sure what to think I guess.

But the article is nonsense because it is plain wrong about MFT lenses. They are neither telecentric nor need to be.

Yes but in this sub-thread we are talking about whether 4/3rds was or not.

Andrew

The SHG lenses are pretty special.  Sadly the used price of the 14-35/2 never touched my target price.  Close but not quite there.

LCE on The Strand had an 80-250 for several years and I used to remind myself just how big it was on every visit.

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 ahaslett's gear list:ahaslett's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +29 more
SUPER-ELMAR
SUPER-ELMAR Contributing Member • Posts: 773
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
4

Raist3d wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

What I recall from the mirrorless comparisons article is that Fuji AF was clearly better than even the Em1X for BIF.

Clearly better?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/fuji-xt4-birds-in-flight-test/

Yes, clearly better.

How so? The results do not bear this out.

I linked the rankings of cameras according to their testing.

Yes, Fuji in 3rd behind Olympus and Sony.

They made an article ranking all of them.

This one?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-wildlife-and-bird-photography/#olympus

The two Olympus cameras at the very top. Fuji is #3 after the Sony's.

One thing with Fuji you have to realize- fuji keeps updating their firmware and improving. You also have to make sure you have set them to "boost" mode.

Everyone have firmware update, not exclusive to Fuji. From that website the author continually update numbers and recommendations as new firmware is released.

Nobody is updating their cameras in a significant way as much as Fuji does.

Did not appear to help much. What was score for previous firmware?

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/

X-T4 + 100-400mm was 67% (perfect focus only) / 90% (slightly soft)

X-T4 + 200mm + 1.4TC was 79% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM1X + 300mm was 74% (perfect focus only) / 91% (slightly soft)

EM1.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 94% (slightly soft)

EM5.3 + 300mm was 72% (perfect focus only) / 93% (slightly soft)

These all look very similar. Except that the EM5.3 combo costs $2.000 USD less than XT4 with prime.

The EM5.3 doesn't do as well as Fuji.

72% vs 79% for perfect focus. When slightly soft results are counted the difference is 93% vs 94%. But the EM5.3 is 60% of the cost of the Fuji. Does not bode well for Fuji.

I am looking at the ranking article where the OLympuses did not perform as well as the Fujis.

72% vs 79% for perfect focus. When slightly soft results are counted the difference is 93% vs 94%. But the EM5.3 is 60% of the cost of the Fuji. Fuji with expensive prime is marginally better at much, much higher price. Not sure anyone would notice 7% improvement in focus rate but they will sure notice the extra $2.000 and 1.000g to takes to arrive there.

And again, that' snot even counting the usability and workflow of seeing dynamic focus points no the object your re following by grid and other options that Olympus doesn't have.

Did that affect the authors results? Does not appear so.

They are not talking about that so we don't know specifically on that end. I however, I can tell you that this makes for a big difference in usability.

Usability of XT4? What moving subjects did you shoot with it?

Otherwise when Olympus just added the ability to follow with squares whole region, people were lauding it (along with one or two Olympus visionaries). A feature that Fuji and Sony had for years, and there's still as I say a lack of UI feedback options in Olympus so it's not quite there yet.

Two more things to consider: Fuji will AF into the dark a bit better than the Olympus. Ditto for higher iso image quality and detail.

Not the XT4. Have you used?

I have use the X-E3, I have used the EM1X. The XT4 does better than the XE3 and using the XE3 as baseline, I get an idea, plus see below.

Usability of XT4? What moving subjects did you shoot with it? What birds/wildlife you shoot with EM1X? Sports? It does not sound like you are experienced in this.

The EM1X able to focus and track in lower light. But that may be due to f/1.2 prime on Olympus vs f/1.4 prime on Fuji.

I didn't say the EM1X can't track in lower light but that Fuji can track in lower light than the Olympus. It's also in their manufacturer specification's claims for both manufacturers.

When you use EM1X and f/1.2 lens next to XT4 and f/1.4 lens you realize the truth. The EM1X able to focus and track in lower light.  I am starting to think you have no experience with what you say.

 SUPER-ELMAR's gear list:SUPER-ELMAR's gear list
Ricoh GR III Leica M10 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Hasselblad X1D II 50C Hasselblad XCD 21mm F4 +5 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: Telecentric .... or not.
2

Muster Mark wrote:

I think before judging it to be 99.99% baloney one should compare to lenses on other systems (I am not saying you personally should have, sounds like a lot of work), but I don't think we have the information to judge yet. Their stated goal was to have more perpendicular light across the frame. Obviously a telocentric design means a mathematically 90 degree angle of incidence. It doesn't need to be mathematically perfect to get the optical benefits though.

You showed it can't actually be perfectly telocentric on a lot of the lenses, or perfectly 90 degrees. Ok. Sure, that doesn't means the angle of incidence is not a lot closer to 90 degrees than traditional dslr lenses which was the point. Anyway, I am sure if you looked at a 2x crop of the central part of a FF sensor, it would look pretty telocentric too, so ultimately I am not sure what to think I guess.

nO Four Thirds lens was ever remotely telecentric, by the normal definition of the term. The Olympus marketing people redefined it to mean what they wanted, which was that the exit pupil was a bit further from the focal plane than usual. Plus, you have to remember that all of that early Olympus marketing guff was comparing with 35mm film, not other digital systems. Every other manufacturer when they made 'designed for digital' lenses also moved the exit pupil away from the focal plane, and there is nothing particularly special with Four Thirds lenses in this respect. With the recent trend to use retrofocal designs for fast normal lenses, this tendency is more pronounced.

All in all, 99.99% baloney is probably an over estimate, but somewhere in the 90's is fair.

-- hide signature --

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

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads