16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Guy Parsons
Guy Parsons Forum Pro • Posts: 37,101
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

bobn2 wrote:

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.

Thanks, Bob. As my little "survey" of my lenses showed, there is a very mild effect of that exit pupil shift on some 4/3 lenses.

I'll stick with my 99.99% as after all we are talking about marketing, who generally have no regard for any truthiness.

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

ahaslett wrote:

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.

Yes they were - even if I consider them a mistake  this threw 4/3 to compete with canikon FF in their terms - not a good proposition  this is why I think size/weight with latest Perf. Is important for m43 to keep going

on the good side I don’t see m43 gone like I did 4/3 at some point back then

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

-- 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.

I honestly don’t think it was all baloney since the standard specified a tolerance that other manufacturers don’t have to comply

it’s true “designed for digital” of other manufacturers we’re going in this direction but that’s different from some exceptions to the entire system from the get go- after all 4/3 was the first designed all digital system from the ground up so they didn’t have to comply with certain legacies

of course as I mentioned m43 doesn’t have that requirement

-- 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:

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.

looks like we are oooking at different links because in the comparison ranking article Fuji is ahead of the em1x and em1 mkiii

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.

how do you know? How does that change the point in which firmware?  For xt3 it helped a lot

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.

the xe4 is cheaper and focuses like an xe3   How expensive is the em1 mkiii and the xy4? And that em1x?

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.

it depends what you are shooting with  Fuji has lighter alternatives with better AF and weight depending what you are doing

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?

shot with xe3- which shares what I am talking about  moving subjects : people on the street doing different things Sony a6000 (the first one) does this

again- once Olympus included a step in this direction it was lauded as a n advance - and it is!  Still not at the same level

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.

Sounds like you kiss the fact the xe3 has the usability I am talking about and it’s nowhere to be found in the em1x or em1.3

Yes no have some experience with Olympus cameras and Fuji’s

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.

You are misrepresenting what I just said and I just clarified - you can track with em1x on lower light  Fuji just gives you a bit added ability into more dark

so I am not saying the em1x is bad as much as Fuji is just a notch better

I am not going to continue the back and forth  - do this with latest firmware and see for yourself nor don’t

*shrugs*

-- 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

SUPER-ELMAR
SUPER-ELMAR Contributing Member • Posts: 773
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
4

I find it puzzling that you promote cameras/ability that you have no experience using.  You speak broadly of brands but when you get down to it, you do not use the actual cameras you pretend to know.  If xe3 is all you have to go on, you discredit yourself.  If you are paid Fuji promoter then they should at least train you on current cameras and competitors.  This false-equivalency you try to push does you no favor.

 SUPER-ELMAR's gear list:SUPER-ELMAR's gear list
Ricoh GR III Leica M10 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Hasselblad X1D II 50C Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH +5 more
Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 45,156
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have
2

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

I find it puzzling that you promote cameras/ability that you have no experience using.

I told you already - I have experience with xe3 and several olympuses the xe3 gives me a good baseline because it’s pretty good and the xt4, xe4 generation are better

also I have you links to independent reviews that state the rankings for bif nothing is made up here

You speak broadly of brands but when you get down to it, you do not use the actual cameras you pretend to know.

false I have quite extensive experience with Fuji and Olympus (since 4/3 days)

If xe3 is all you have to go on, you discredit yourself.

nope I also have an x100v

If you are paid Fuji promoter then they should at least train you on current cameras and competitors.

oh now you are suggesting I am a paid Fuji promoter?

hahahaha

Paranoid much??? I have always said for a while I am shooting m43 - did you miss my em10 Mark iv and ep7 on going impressions? Those are pretty darn recent.

The ep7 is ongoing.

oh wait hold on I recommended someone to not jump to a canon m59 they were considering and get an em10.4 or em5.3 instead

wow what’s that? I won an em.3 also imagine that

maybe I am a paid OMDS promoter

Its precisely this BS that keeps some comments here so laughable

This false-equivalency you try to push does you no favor.

I am afraid this post says more about you that whatever you were suggesting to say about me.  Anyway  done

good luck

-- 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

OP shinndigg Veteran Member • Posts: 4,477
Re: Telecentric .... or not.

Guy Parsons wrote:

bobn2 wrote

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.

That's very true, Olympus was comparing, in their marketing materials, 35mm lenses to their "made for digital" lenses. And it made sense at the time. Most, if not all, other brands adapted film era lenses, which had been designed for the slight curvature of film. Even the DX lenses I used with my Nikon DSLR exhibited more vignetting and softness in the corners than my Zuiko Digital lenses on my E300.

That being said, the issue wasn't significant by any measure, to the eye.

I don't recall the telecentric subject coming up until later, personally.

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.

Thanks, Bob. As my little "survey" of my lenses showed, there is a very mild effect of that exit pupil shift on some 4/3 lenses.

I'll stick with my 99.99% as after all we are talking about marketing, who generally have no regard for any truthiness.

-- hide signature --

shinndigg
www.pbase.com/shinndigg

 shinndigg's gear list:shinndigg's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 Olympus E-510 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 +7 more
OP shinndigg Veteran Member • Posts: 4,477
Re: 16 Unique Features That Your Camera Probably Doesn't Have

I missed your ink along the way...can you share it with me please?

-- hide signature --

shinndigg
www.pbase.com/shinndigg

 shinndigg's gear list:shinndigg's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 Olympus E-510 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads