Performance of a much more expensive lens

SonyX wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

If only you actually knew half as much as you think you do. There's a reason I sold my d700 after a week. Full frame is overrated.

It was overrated for you, for your needs. For many other people, any camera, that is not in mobile phone, is overrated. So what?

I had 40-150/2.8 for 2 weeks and returned it. It was slightly soft on a one side at 40mm.

So, you probably had a decentred lens. May have suffered a bump in transit and an element slightly shifted.

In many situations I wouldn't notice it. But I had no reason to keep it together with ff 70-200/2.8 and d850.

Probably no reason to buy it in the first place, given your preferences.

No regrets. But, I would never say that m43 or 40-150 are overrated, because I'm not having the lens anymore.

And you have to remember dual is, the amazing ibis, dual gain iso, and iso invariance

Why I have to remember them? What is the connection between your new lens and ISO invariance?

john isaacs wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing. The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)

You cannot compare an f/2.8 m43 lens to an f/2.8 FF lens; especially not those two lenses.

And its' bokeh can be really harsh at times.

I love the lens but, with busy backgrounds, I agree. For most shots, I don't find it to be a problem.

I mean, it's a good lens. I have it and use it. And I definitely prefer its' size and weight. The reason I got rid of both of my 300 f/2.8 lenses (Olympus, Nikon). I just didn't like lugging them about.

Yup, agree.

But it does not have the subject separation of the other lenses, and that is why it doesn't cost as much.

Can't argue with that.  Although, technique can overcome this issue. Ensuring subject to background distance is bigger can alleviate this.

SteveY80 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing. The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)

You cannot compare an f/2.8 m43 lens to an f/2.8 FF lens; especially not those two lenses.

And its' bokeh can be really harsh at times.

The 40-150mm's bokeh can definitely be rather ugly in some situations.

Which is why one normally plays to a lens' strength rather than its limitations.

I also found mine disappointingly soft wide open when used with the 1.4x TC, only really acceptably sharp stopped down to f/5.6-6.3 @ 210mm.

It's a decent enough lens, but I do find the gushing comparisons with much more expensive full frame options to be more than a little silly.

I would consider the lens to be much more than 'decent enough'. My copy is superb. I would consider a lens such as the cheap, plastic 40-150 to be 'decent enough' with many considering even that lens to be worthy of higher accolade.

The outer limits of a lens' capabilities are seldom explored by many of us - definitely me.

The lens in my Oppo Find X2 Pro is 'decent enough' for what I use that lens for.

Bassaidai wrote:

Did I get that right?

You are trying to convince me what I should be pleased about and what not?

I have the slight feeling you overestimate the weight of your personal opinion in a public forum. I don't need your guidance or role modell or reference of acceptable noise level. But thanks for trying.

Not at all I was just hoping to see the magic of DXO. For poor low light I will struggle to get good results at 3200 ISO let alone 12800. If the usage case is just to get a faster  shutter speed in good light then higher ISO results will do better than when I actually need them namely murky low light.

I have tried DXO and Topaz AI etc and found for the kinds of scenarios mentioned there is no saving the images

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Straw man or otherwise, challenging lighting, or otherwise.

The FF equivalence brigade surely send a lot of naive people over to the FF sensor market because they, and not I, are led to believe that this is the only way that they can improve their photography. Whether this is said or not it is certainly something accepted as implied.

There is no FF brigade . I have never seen nor started a thread to suggest the superiority of FF nor I suspect has anyone else . One could also argue that the same naïve people are just as likely to disappointed if they expect to get the same results from say a m43 40-150mm F/2.8 compared to a FF 120-300mm F/2.8 . Or swallow the message that somehow DXO can magically close the gap with no downside etc

Every time someone such as myself try to point out that the results can be good enough, even if not equivalent, someone has to chip in with the endless repetition that equivalence is a fact and cannot be denied. Did I deny it?

No one says that m43 is not more than capable of wonderful results. The equivalence fact dodging is not done by you or most of the posters in the forum but by a hardcore of for some unknown reason of mainly Olympus users.

I try and say that same place, same lighting, same cast and despite the fact that there is no sensor equivalence the images can be quite acceptable with M4/3 kit.

Did anyone say otherwise ?

I accept the science, surely you can accept that for most uses M4/3 kit can make images that are just as acceptable (not as “science”) as FF kit?

Acceptable is of course a matter of personal opinion , there are plenty of wonderful images taken with m43 and terrible images taken with larger sensor cameras. The point is technical, after all DPreview is a gear site and this is a gear forum so technical discussion is hardly a surprise

Maybe good enough is not “good enough” but there is no science to the image we appreciate - it comes from seeing and believing its individual merit. No matter which sensor is creating it - even a Mobile Phone Camera sensor can be quite good enough for purpose.

There is nothing wrong with "good enough" in fact from a business perspective buying and using the gear that is "good enough" for the job in hand is logical. Overpaying for "better" than you need is folly

That was my argument please address that. I am arguing a single photographic opportunity. Not necessarily the fringes of what can be done, but something just a little more tricky than the everyday.

I admit that with a pixel peering magnifying glass that there might be differences that can be found. But awe, shock, and horror simply is not there. Despite the facts of equivalence.

Ah the old "pixel peeping" strawman if you don't look close you will never see the difference . That one is true from a mile away I am as handsome as Brad Pitt { I am far more handsome closer up }

We don’t need equivalence facts to appreciate great images any more than the horde of Mobile Phone Camera users are quite unconcerned by their MPC limitations.

Why do you think this forum and the old Olympus DSLR are the only forums on DPreview where it is seen as contentious ? There are plenty of forums for users of smaller sensors than m43 , yet equivalence is just a simple fact . Not a subject that leads to a war of words

What is more concerning is the slow but constant squeeze by equivalence measurement fact explaining activity that sours this forum as much as they claim some apparent idiots can never understand such facts

Tell me Tom what would you call someone who despite having been informed by numerous proven sources of what is after all a simple fact. Yet still denies it and argues about from a basis of ignorance year after year ?

.The “fact” is, if we in fact believe in facts (quite a word twist ) is that equivalence fact allows a certain level of superiority tone of put down when some try and explain why they think that their images are good enough to despite the factual equivalence well supported by physics. “Straw man” and “lack of challenging lighting” seem useful ….

Tom it was not challenging lighting at that level of lighting exposure is not going to be an issue. The skill is capturing the right moment composition etc

My position is “facts are facts” but if the results make the grade of popular acceptance then the facts become simply “interesting to know”.

There are no shortage of people here who do not or will not accept what is a simple fact

I have FF kit just as much as those that have to explain equivalence to us also have M4/3 kit and we all keep using M4/3 despite knowing “the facts”.

Every system has its pros and cons . Denying them is the problem

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeff wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

It is not just effective diagonal AOV it is DOF control/ subject isolation and most critically total light gathered. In other words a FF 80-300mm F/5.6 on a FF camera will do the same job as a 40-150mm F/2.8 om m43. 70{-80}-300mm lenses are widely available and often very inexpensive. The reason being that such a slow lens is pedestrian low end in FF

Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens 1928 B&H Photo Video (bhphotovideo.com)

While amongst a few of the hard of thinking posters here , denial of equivalence and it's unavoidable consequences is a constant. Alas reality does not support their nonsense , equivalence applies equally to all sensor sizes from the smallest to the largest. Sadly you are not the first or no doubt last to make the same old BS fact dodging claims, it is an embarrassing tradition in the forum

Now to be clear the 40-150mm pros is a great lens for m43 but it is not the same as FF F/2.8 lens. Just as a lens on a smaller sensor format covering the same effective focal range is not the same as the 40-150mm .

is to simply ignore the sensor and concentrate on the lens.

It is rather tricky to take a photo without the lens being attached to a camera . So I would suggest that how the combination performs is all that matters \anything else is irrelevant ,

So ... here's a question.

There's a mountain scene with some foreground rocks and leaves. It's about a 30 degree angle of view. I want critical focus on the mountains so I focus to infinity. I also want to resolve 2mm detail on the foreground rocks and leaves. It's a golden hour situation, EV 12. I'd like to produce a 4000 x 3000 pixel image. There's a gentle wind blowing that limits shutter speed to 1/60 or faster.

What aperture should I use?

Will diffraction be an issue?

If your lens is not attached to a camera it really does not matter

On the contrary, this is precisely what matters.

It is diameter of the lens opening that determines what details you'll resolve in the foreground, that determines an upper limit on angular diffraction. Combined with the angle of view, it determines how much light you'll gather and the level of shot noise in the image.

You cannot take an image with just a lens , it needs to be mounted on a camera . So ignoring the sensor is not possible .

What determines DOF is distance to the subject, angle of view, and physical lens opening. It's a geometric effect determined by these factors.

What determines light gathering is lens opening, luminance, angle of view, and 1/shutter.

If you need to buy a wide lens opening for good light gathering. A smaller format let's you do that with a shorter lens up to the point it can be made no shorter.

So why not buy the smallest format that meets your needs? No value judgement required, just some understanding what you are getting when you spend your hard-earned money.

SonyX wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

You do understand that aperture is a ratio and as such your claim is nonsense

You are clearly confusing the light that comes into a lens with the light that is projected on the sensor. Yes, these quantities are (almost) the same, but the light from a FF lens is projected on to a 4x bigger area.

So although both a FF f5.6 lens and a m43 f2.8 lens have nearly the same-sized front element, the "density" of light projected by the m43 lens is 4x more. Hence it is indeed an f2.8 lens. The next variable is what the sensor does with this light which per unit area contains 4x more "information" for the m43 lens.

It looks like you again invented the wheel. 4 times more light comes to 4 times smaller sensor. You get equal amount of of light with m43 f/2.8 as f/5.6 on FF

And therefore the FF sensor has 1/4th the light per unit area as a m43 sensor. So you have a 150mm f2.8 lens with the angle of view of a 300mm FF lens. However for the FF sensor to receive the same amount of information per unit area from this 300mm lens, it will also have to be an f2.8 lens, not f5.6.

An f2.8 FF lens will collect 4x the light as a m43 lens, but the DISTRIBUTION of this collected light over the sensor will be exactly like that of the f2.8 m43 lens because it has to project over a 4x sensor area.

The part that you and James keep getting confused over is thinking that the information that a FF sensor gets from a f5.6 lens is the same as what a m43 sensor receives from a f2.8 lens. What the lens collects is not what the sensor receives because sensor sizes are different.

That said, one reason why FF sensors have better high ISO performance is because there are no 80MP FF sensors. The difference is NOT 2 stops, as explained above.

The units are - the pixels, and they are 4 times bigger on FF. And this is the main reason of better high ISO performance. Another reason is BSI and dual gain.

You can't compare 80mp with 20mp here, it is completely different subject and possibilities.

And yes, noise difference is roughly 2x, when you compare properly exposed images.

You certainly do make a lot of noise! I can see if you are a poor photographer and underexpose badly that noise would be your big concern. For wildlife, however, not so much.

First, the noise will eat some of the fine details, like fur and feather, than NR will kill some more.

No, not when lit. lots of detail makes noise very hard to see. It just blends in with the detail.

Yes, it blends with the details, and then everthing will be killed with NR. Look at the photos of the eagles above, there is no fine details on them.

Now, why would you use NR if you don't need it in the first place?

One typically (I do) shoot in pretty good light to bright sun and I don't underexpose. Perhaps on a silhouette. You realize this discussion is about wildlife lenses, don't you?

It was discussion about 40-150/2.8 vs120-300/2.8, IDK how much wildlife this lens is.

Of course it is, and many folks here post fine images with it, often with a tele-extender.

I rarely have images in which noise is much of a concern as my subjects are generally well lit.

In some areas, at some time, the sun is 24h, but right now in NL I need iso800 in the mid of the day for non static subjects.

But if you don't mess up, you still will likely not see the noise.

Landscape can be different, but even then, shots with lots of shadow are generally junk, anyway.

All shots agaist the sun are junk for m43 user?

Read again where I said Landscape. Even then these are a minority of images, certainly fully backlit ones.

Try to shoot on a narrow streets in Europe, when the sun is strong and a big part of the view is in shadow.

No, in this thread about a nature/wildlife lens, I'm talking about nature/wildlife shooting. Good shots do not have a lot of shadow unless silhouettes. In silhouettes it is usually better not to raise the shadows but merely expose to maximize the aesthetics of the highlights that are being silhouetted.Bad shots might; but I would just throw them away anyhow.

With the old 16 Mp sensor of the EM-1 I noise was somewhat of an issue when there were monotonous large areas of medium to dark monotone in an image (rarely). With the 20 MP sensor this is very rarely an issue.

High iso noise is not much different on 16vs 20mp MFT

You might say that if you did not own cameras with each sensor

I had G7, G85 , GH5 and I still have G9.

and are merely speculating. Back to the sonny forum with you!

You might as well be arguing about pie in the sky. Back to the sonny forum with you!

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

Hey my man, im gonna be honest. If this many people are explaining your wrong, you are probably wrong. I build lenses for a living, I can assure you I know my way around a lens

My dear "Teenage pro photographer", I'm not wrong, no matter what "many people" are explaining. I can assure you, BS about 40-150/2.8 and 120-300/2.8 is pure nonsense. There are Nikon engineers, who build lenses for living, I'm sure they know better what they are doing and what is performance of their lenses.

Just like FT Olympus 150/2 or 90-250/2.8, put 120-300/2.8 via adapter on your m43 body, and you will see, they are completely different lenses. 120-300/2.8 can be used with z9, so it is effectively 45mp 120mm f/2.8 to 20mp 440mm "f/4" lens. Your new toy is not even close to it's performance.

Utter nonsense. The m43 sensor will simply ignore the excess image projection so the 120-300 will work like a 240-600mm f2.8 lens.

So, how do you compare 80-300mm lens to 240-600mm? This is the "utter nonsense"

The smaller angle of view will create an apparent DOF of a f5.6 FF lens.

The lens remains a f2.8 lens because for portion of the projected image collected by the sensor, the photons per area remain those equivalent to those from a f2.8 lens.

Yes, and you are 100% right. Now remember that each pixel is 4 times smaller on m43.

****

If the rainfall is 30cm on a rainy day, the water you collect will be 30 cm deep, whether you use a cup or a swimming pool.

Pls order 30cm of whisky in the bar and look at the barmen's reaction.

****

If you use 1 cup of pancake mix to make one pancake, and use another 1 cup to make a 4x bigger pancake, the first pancake will be 4x thicker than the second. This is the difference between a f2.8 m43 lens and a f5.6 FF lens, even if they have the same sized front element (1 cup).

And if the first pancake is fed to a child and the 2nd to an adult with a 4x bigger mouth, both will eat the same quantity of pancake mix per bite. The mouth is the sensor size.

****

I'm explaining it to you in terms you will probably understand because you clearly do not understand photographic terminology, although I'm sure you can press buttons.

Although it's more likely that you do, but your arrogance and sunk cost fallacy doesn't let you admit it.

Until you understand the limitations of your gear, you will never be as good a photographer as someone who does.

Let me give you another example, instead of your pancakes.

You have 40-150/2.8 m43 lens, that will project whole light to the sensor. Now take FF lens 80-300/5.6 that projects the light to 4 times bigger FF sensor, put focal reducer that will concentrate the whole light from the f/5.6 to the smaller sensor. There is no 0.5x speedbooster, but imaging there is one. The lens is now with EFL 40-150mm, and what aperture it will be?

Important is not amount of light per sq mm, but amount of light that was catched by each micro lens on the sensor. That is why f/2.8 lens on 1/4 size sensor will never have performance of f/2.8 lens on FF. Never!

Utter horsepucky. (or udder as you might say). That depends on the quality of the glass, the ability to choose an effective DOF, and your ability to hold the camera and lens still with respect to FL and SS. The vast majority of wildlife images or even landscape images I see posted in places like here (wildlife or landscape forum), or 500 pics have just plain poor execution. Image stabilization is one of the key factors; in landscape DOF control.

You will not be shooting your FF F2.8 at F2.8 for wildlife unless it is an animal far away in the image and that image will be junk anyway. In an actual good wildlife image at F2.8 FF you will be lucky to have an entire eyelash in focus.

faunagraphy wrote:

The lens remains a f2.8 lens because for portion of the projected image collected by the sensor, the photons per area remain those equivalent to those from a f2.8 lens.

Does you think the pixels on a sensor form an image based on light collected or light intensity?

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Every time someone such as myself try to point out that the results can be good enough, even if not equivalent, someone has to chip in with the endless repetition that equivalence is a fact and cannot be denied. Did I deny it?

What I see time and time again on these forums is that the m43 only crowd seems to read these statements in a completely different light than others. If I say, a m43 200mm f/2.8 lens is equivalent to a FF 400mm f/5.6 lens then all I am saying is that those two equipment combinations can form the same image. The problem is that m43 only users tend to interpret that as FF "talking down" to them.

RobbieBear wrote:

SteveY80 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing. The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)

You cannot compare an f/2.8 m43 lens to an f/2.8 FF lens; especially not those two lenses.

And its' bokeh can be really harsh at times.

The 40-150mm's bokeh can definitely be rather ugly in some situations.

Which is why one normally plays to a lens' strength rather than its limitations.

The problem is that I was largely using it for shooting wildlife. It isn't always possible to control what's behind a wild subject like a bird or a butterfly. The same can be true for people shooting sports/events that are outside of their direct control.

I think a limitation/issue like that isn't the end of the world, but it's certainly worth noting when discussing the lens.

I also found mine disappointingly soft wide open when used with the 1.4x TC, only really acceptably sharp stopped down to f/5.6-6.3 @ 210mm.

It's a decent enough lens, but I do find the gushing comparisons with much more expensive full frame options to be more than a little silly.

I would consider the lens to be much more than 'decent enough'. My copy is superb. I would consider a lens such as the cheap, plastic 40-150 to be 'decent enough' with many considering even that lens to be worthy of higher accolade.

Again, part of the problem was that I was shooting wildlife and often needed the extra reach. Once the 1.4x TC was added, I didn't find the image quality so much better than its cheap, plastic counterparts. Used as a 40-150mm the Pro lens certainly beat them easily, but I'm taking the size/weight/price into account when I fail to sufficiently sing its praises.

I'd agree that it's a good lens in the right situation. I was pleased with the results when I could a) get close enough to frame the subject at 150mm and b) avoid ugly bokeh from reeds/twigs/bushes/etc. in the background.

Panasonic's 50-200mm would probably have been a better choice for me if it had been available at the time. That's smaller and lighter and much sharper at 200mm f/4 than the 40-150mm + 1.4x TC.

SteveY80 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

You cannot compare an f/2.8 m43 lens to an f/2.8 FF lens; especially not those two lenses.

And its' bokeh can be really harsh at times.

The 40-150mm's bokeh can definitely be rather ugly in some situations. I also found mine disappointingly soft wide open when used with the 1.4x TC, only really acceptably sharp stopped down to f/5.6-6.3 @ 210mm.

I found something similar but found the 40-150 PRO + MC-14 to be a fairly good performer at small subject distances while it really seemed to fall apart at longer subject distances. At the time, I actually rented a second pair of 40-150 PRO + MC-14 from LR to compare against my own copies and found nearly identical behavior.

It's a decent enough lens, but I do find the gushing comparisons with much more expensive full frame options to be more than a little silly.

I think a lot of it comes down to use case. If your focus is shooting small subjects at high magnification, which seems to a very large portion of the community here, then there's almost no advantage to the larger FF gear as you're DoF limited. If you shoot larger subjects at longer distances where you're not primarily DoF limited the advantages of the larger systems become readily apparent.

Gary from Seattle wrote:

You will not be shooting your FF F2.8 at F2.8 for wildlife unless it is an animal far away in the image and that image will be junk anyway. In an actual good wildlife image at F2.8 FF you will be lucky to have an entire eyelash in focus.

I'm not saying it's essential for top quality wildlife photography, but I've seen some excellent (and award winning) wildlife images shot with FF f/2.8.

In some images the shallow depth of field is the whole point, e,g, to highlight a particular part of the animal. That's not generally to my personal taste, but I've seen shots like that win their category in major wildlife competitions.

In other cases, showing the animal relatively small in its environment is intentional, not just because the photographer couldn't get closer. If the photographer uses that to tell a story, their shot will generally do much better with judges than a frame filling, well lit, bird on a stick.

The winner in a recent camera club wildlife competition was a bellowing stag shot at 400mm f/2.8 with a pretty old full frame DSLR. The stag took up maybe 20% of the frame, but in that particular shot the choice to show it in its environment worked well. The depth of field at f/2.8 was sufficient for the subject and blurred the woods in the background to nice effect.

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

Bored_Gerbil wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

• Incorrect, it's a 40-150 2.8. However, it's efov to fx is 80-300 5.6.

No. It’s equivalent field-of-view is 80-300mm on FF and its equivalent depth-of-field is the same as f5.6 on FF, but it is an f2.8 Lens.

Please don’t bog EVERYTHING down in “equivalence”.

Cheers The Gerbil

So, what are the benefits do you see for m43 f/2.8 lens over f/5.6 on FF?

4x more light gathering. Although how much of that collected light is actually used also depends on the sensor.

You do understand that aperture is a ratio and as such your claim is nonsense

You are clearly confusing the light that comes into a lens with the light that is projected on the sensor. Yes, these quantities are (almost) the same, but the light from a FF lens is projected on to a 4x bigger area.

So although both a FF f5.6 lens and a m43 f2.8 lens have nearly the same-sized front element, the "density" of light projected by the m43 lens is 4x more. Hence it is indeed an f2.8 lens. The next variable is what the sensor does with this light which per unit area contains 4x more "information" for the m43 lens.

It looks like you again invented the wheel. 4 times more light comes to 4 times smaller sensor. You get equal amount of of light with m43 f/2.8 as f/5.6 on FF

And therefore the FF sensor has 1/4th the light per unit area as a m43 sensor. So you have a 150mm f2.8 lens with the angle of view of a 300mm FF lens. However for the FF sensor to receive the same amount of information per unit area from this 300mm lens, it will also have to be an f2.8 lens, not f5.6.

An f2.8 FF lens will collect 4x the light as a m43 lens, but the DISTRIBUTION of this collected light over the sensor will be exactly like that of the f2.8 m43 lens because it has to project over a 4x sensor area.

The part that you and James keep getting confused over is thinking that the information that a FF sensor gets from a f5.6 lens is the same as what a m43 sensor receives from a f2.8 lens. What the lens collects is not what the sensor receives because sensor sizes are different.

That said, one reason why FF sensors have better high ISO performance is because there are no 80MP FF sensors. The difference is NOT 2 stops, as explained above.

The units are - the pixels, and they are 4 times bigger on FF. And this is the main reason of better high ISO performance. Another reason is BSI and dual gain.

You can't compare 80mp with 20mp here, it is completely different subject and possibilities.

And yes, noise difference is roughly 2x, when you compare properly exposed images.

You certainly do make a lot of noise! I can see if you are a poor photographer and underexpose badly that noise would be your big concern. For wildlife, however, not so much.

First, the noise will eat some of the fine details, like fur and feather, than NR will kill some more.

No, not when lit. lots of detail makes noise very hard to see. It just blends in with the detail.

Yes, it blends with the details, and then everthing will be killed with NR. Look at the photos of the eagles above, there is no fine details on them.

Now, why would you use NR if you don't need it in the first place?

Don't ask me, look at the images of the eagles and ask the owner.

One typically (I do) shoot in pretty good light to bright sun and I don't underexpose. Perhaps on a silhouette. You realize this discussion is about wildlife lenses, don't you?

It was discussion about 40-150/2.8 vs120-300/2.8, IDK how much wildlife this lens is.

Of course it is, and many folks here post fine images with it, often with a tele-extender.

I rarely have images in which noise is much of a concern as my subjects are generally well lit.

In some areas, at some time, the sun is 24h, but right now in NL I need iso800 in the mid of the day for non static subjects.

But if you don't mess up, you still will likely not see the noise.

Landscape can be different, but even then, shots with lots of shadow are generally junk, anyway.

All shots agaist the sun are junk for m43 user?

Read again where I said Landscape. Even then these are a minority of images, certainly fully backlit ones.

Try to shoot on a narrow streets in Europe, when the sun is strong and a big part of the view is in shadow.

No, in this thread about a nature/wildlife lens, I'm talking about nature/wildlife shooting.

You are at the wrong thread.

Do you see any "nature/wildlife" here?:

" This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing. The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)”

Good shots do not have a lot of shadow unless silhouettes. In silhouettes it is usually better not to raise the shadows but merely expose to maximize the aesthetics of the highlights that are being silhouetted.Bad shots might; but I would just throw them away anyhow.

With the old 16 Mp sensor of the EM-1 I noise was somewhat of an issue when there were monotonous large areas of medium to dark monotone in an image (rarely). With the 20 MP sensor this is very rarely an issue.

High iso noise is not much different on 16vs 20mp MFT

You might say that if you did not own cameras with each sensor

I had G7, G85 , GH5 and I still have G9.

and are merely speculating. Back to the sonny forum with you!

You might as well be arguing about pie in the sky. Back to the sonny forum with you!

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

I've repeatedly said that difference in performance will vary based on specific sensors (megapixels) and processing power of the camera. This is why I shared charts comparing m43 sensors with high MP FF sensors.

Why are you sharing high MP FF charts, when m43 is only 20mp? What is the sense?

Because low MP FF sensors lack the cropability of high MP sensors, and so cannot compete with m43 in terms of reach.

As I see, you completely forgot where we came here from and fighting your own war. 40-150mm vs 120-300mm, what extra reach do I need here?

You might have forgotten this but this whole argument (with hundreds of posts) started when you supported Sony Northrup's bullshyt claim that the 200-500 on D850 resolves more detail than the 300mm Pro on m43. Your words: "750mm is more than 600mm". And you've been making bad-faith arguments since that first post.

You could get reach comparable (not equal but close) to m43 using a Sony A7Riv for same FL

40-150mm vs 120-300mm, where do you see the same FL?

I said REACH, not FL.

and cropping, but you cannot do that with an A9.

On A9 I'll need 70-300/4-5.6 lens

If you want to shoot with a mediocre, variable-aperture f5.6 lens, sure.

Because there are times (esp. in nature photography) when you need either reach (by long FL or smaller, pixel-dense sensor like Four Thirds) or a high MP FF sensor with the ability to crop in post.

M43 has only pixel-dense sensor, no "other times" here.

This is false on three counts: one, m43 does have a 12 MP sensor for low light (although that is used more for video). And secondly, bright, relatively lightweight lenses make the pixel size difference less relevant.

And thirdly, m43 sensors are better designed compared to many FF sensors because there is less of a constraint to meet a lower price point (since smaller sensors cost less anyway). Which is why you have only 0.5 stop to 1.3 stop disadvantage, rather than 2 stops. This can easily be managed using brighter lenses. Plus also better IBIS.

The Sony 200-600, Nikon 200-500, Tamron 150-600 etc. weigh around 5 lb. Comparable m43 lenses weigh around 2 lb or less.

There are no m43 100-300/2.5-3.1 zoom lenses

🤦‍♂️ Here you go again, confusing DOF with aperture. 😂😂

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

I've repeatedly said that difference in performance will vary based on specific sensors (megapixels) and processing power of the camera. This is why I shared charts comparing m43 sensors with high MP FF sensors.

Why are you sharing high MP FF charts, when m43 is only 20mp? What is the sense?

Because low MP FF sensors lack the cropability of high MP sensors, and so cannot compete with m43 in terms of reach.

As I see, you completely forgot where we came here from and fighting your own war. 40-150mm vs 120-300mm, what extra reach do I need here?

You might have forgotten this but this whole argument (with hundreds of posts) started when you supported Sony Northrup's bullshyt claim that the 200-500 on D850 resolves more detail than the 300mm Pro on m43. Your words: "750mm is more than 600mm". And you've been making bad-faith arguments since that first post.

45mp on FF is not even near to the density of 20mp on MFT, and lens is already ~750mm equivalent in APS-C ~20mp crop over 600mm eqv on m43. What extra reach do I need here?

You could get reach comparable (not equal but close) to m43 using a Sony A7Riv for same FL

40-150mm vs 120-300mm, where do you see the same FL?

I said REACH, not FL.

and cropping, but you cannot do that with an A9.

On A9 I'll need 70-300/4-5.6 lens

If you want to shoot with a mediocre, variable-aperture f5.6 lens, sure.

Is Pl 50-200/2.8-4 "mediocre, variable-aperture" lens?

Because there are times (esp. in nature photography) when you need either reach (by long FL or smaller, pixel-dense sensor like Four Thirds) or a high MP FF sensor with the ability to crop in post.

M43 has only pixel-dense sensor, no "other times" here.

This is false on three counts: one, m43 does have a 12 MP sensor for low light (although that is used more for video). And secondly, bright, relatively lightweight lenses make the pixel size difference less relevant.

This is what I was talking about from the beginning. Relatively lightweight bright 40-150/2.8 lens makes the bigger pixels on FF camera with 80-300/5.6 lens relevant to the smaller pixels of m43 sensor.

And thirdly, m43 sensors are better designed

Yes, it is not BSI and only 12 bit RAW files.

compared to many FF sensors because there is less of a constraint to meet a lower price point (since smaller sensors cost less anyway). Which is why you have only 0.5 stop to 1.3 stop disadvantage, rather than 2 stops.

Pls open DPR comparometer and show me this 0.5 stop difference.

This can easily be managed using brighter lenses. Plus also better IBIS.

The Sony 200-600, Nikon 200-500, Tamron 150-600 etc. weigh around 5 lb. Comparable m43 lenses weigh around 2 lb or less.

There are no m43 100-300/2.5-3.1 zoom lenses

🤦‍♂️ Here you go again, confusing DOF with aperture. 😂😂

Where again you see the word DOF?

Again question to you, what are the benefits of the brightest aperture on MFT f/1.2 over f/1.8 on FF cheap lens.

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

SonyX wrote:

I've repeatedly said that difference in performance will vary based on specific sensors (megapixels) and processing power of the camera. This is why I shared charts comparing m43 sensors with high MP FF sensors.

Why are you sharing high MP FF charts, when m43 is only 20mp? What is the sense?

Because low MP FF sensors lack the cropability of high MP sensors, and so cannot compete with m43 in terms of reach.

As I see, you completely forgot where we came here from and fighting your own war. 40-150mm vs 120-300mm, what extra reach do I need here?

You might have forgotten this but this whole argument (with hundreds of posts) started when you supported Sony Northrup's bullshyt claim that the 200-500 on D850 resolves more detail than the 300mm Pro on m43. Your words: "750mm is more than 600mm". And you've been making bad-faith arguments since that first post.

45mp on FF is not even near to the density of 20mp on MFT, and lens is already ~750mm equivalent in APS-C ~20mp crop over 600mm eqv on m43. What extra reach do I need here?

More goalpost shifting. You claimed that Northrup is correct to say that the 200-500 resolves more detail than the 300mm Pro. Your rationale, based on ZERO experience, is the 750mm is more reach than 600mm. I have used both setups extensively and I sold my 200-500 which was a very good copy (but not as good as m43 Pro).

All the MTF charts support me as well. You have zero experience with these lenses. You do not shoot wildlife. And yet you argue ad nauseum because full frame can do no wrong. That is idiotic.

You could get reach comparable (not equal but close) to m43 using a Sony A7Riv for same FL

40-150mm vs 120-300mm, where do you see the same FL?

I said REACH, not FL.

and cropping, but you cannot do that with an A9.

On A9 I'll need 70-300/4-5.6 lens

If you want to shoot with a mediocre, variable-aperture f5.6 lens, sure.

Is Pl 50-200/2.8-4 "mediocre, variable-aperture" lens?

Do you want me to pull up MTF charts and image samples for both lenses, or can you do that yourself? Not even talking about build quality and aperture. 😂

Because there are times (esp. in nature photography) when you need either reach (by long FL or smaller, pixel-dense sensor like Four Thirds) or a high MP FF sensor with the ability to crop in post.

M43 has only pixel-dense sensor, no "other times" here.

This is false on three counts: one, m43 does have a 12 MP sensor for low light (although that is used more for video). And secondly, bright, relatively lightweight lenses make the pixel size difference less relevant.

This is what I was talking about from the beginning. Relatively lightweight bright 40-150/2.8 lens makes the bigger pixels on FF camera with 80-300/5.6 lens relevant to the smaller pixels of m43 sensor.

And thirdly, m43 sensors are better designed

Yes, it is not BSI and only 12 bit RAW files.

More obfuscation of another false claim from you - that m43 only has 20MP sensor. Have some integrity for once and admit you were wrong.

Most FF cameras do not have BSI sensors either.

compared to many FF sensors because there is less of a constraint to meet a lower price point (since smaller sensors cost less anyway). Which is why you have only 0.5 stop to 1.3 stop disadvantage, rather than 2 stops.

Pls open DPR comparometer and show me this 0.5 stop difference.

If you were reading carefully, I already shared ISO sensitivity charts for the GH5 vs A7Riii yesterday. Look them up! ☺️

This can easily be managed using brighter lenses. Plus also better IBIS.

The Sony 200-600, Nikon 200-500, Tamron 150-600 etc. weigh around 5 lb. Comparable m43 lenses weigh around 2 lb or less.

There are no m43 100-300/2.5-3.1 zoom lenses

🤦‍♂️ Here you go again, confusing DOF with aperture. 😂😂

Where again you see the word DOF?

Why else would you say this: "There are no m43 100-300/2.5-3.1 zoom lenses". You seem very confused. 🤔

Again question to you, what are the benefits of the brightest aperture on MFT f/1.2 over f/1.8 on FF cheap lens.

-- hide signature --

Alex
http://www.instagram.com/alex_cy

SteveY80 wrote:

RobbieBear wrote:

SteveY80 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Jeep_Joseph wrote:

This lens is so cheap!!! Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet, 1500 bucks is a lot of money for me. But this lens is well worth it. It is so dang sharp, it reminds me of my Zeiss lenses. It even seems to perform better optically than my 75 1.8. This lens is so good. It takes my friend's canon 300 2.8l in my experience shooting with both. This lens feels big but small at the same time. Perfect size. The build is amazing. The ergonomics areunbeatable. I build lenses, and I have probably worked with well over 150 lenses. I only buy and keep good lenses, and chase the best glass in the world. This lens is so good. I cannot say enough about it. It's a 9500 dollar lens for 1500 bucks (comparing it to the 120-300 2.8 fl)

You cannot compare an f/2.8 m43 lens to an f/2.8 FF lens; especially not those two lenses.

And its' bokeh can be really harsh at times.

The 40-150mm's bokeh can definitely be rather ugly in some situations.

Which is why one normally plays to a lens' strength rather than its limitations.

The problem is that I was largely using it for shooting wildlife. It isn't always possible to control what's behind a wild subject like a bird or a butterfly. The same can be true for people shooting sports/events that are outside of their direct control.

Agreed. That's a fair point.

I think a limitation/issue like that isn't the end of the world, but it's certainly worth noting when discussing the lens.

I also found mine disappointingly soft wide open when used with the 1.4x TC, only really acceptably sharp stopped down to f/5.6-6.3 @ 210mm.

It's a decent enough lens, but I do find the gushing comparisons with much more expensive full frame options to be more than a little silly.

I would consider the lens to be much more than 'decent enough'. My copy is superb. I would consider a lens such as the cheap, plastic 40-150 to be 'decent enough' with many considering even that lens to be worthy of higher accolade.

Again, part of the problem was that I was shooting wildlife and often needed the extra reach. Once the 1.4x TC was added, I didn't find the image quality so much better than its cheap, plastic counterparts. Used as a 40-150mm the Pro lens certainly beat them easily, but I'm taking the size/weight/price into account when I fail to sufficiently sing its praises.

I'd agree that it's a good lens in the right situation. I was pleased with the results when I could a) get close enough to frame the subject at 150mm and b) avoid ugly bokeh from reeds/twigs/bushes/etc. in the background.

Again, I take your point. I am not a wildlife shooter and often use the lens for outdoor portraits where I can control things much more. I have, on occasions, been caught out with busy bokeh when i have quickly shot off candid portraits without considered composition.

Panasonic's 50-200mm would probably have been a better choice for me if it had been available at the time. That's smaller and lighter and much sharper at 200mm f/4 than the 40-150mm + 1.4x TC.

Time to zip our pants back up guys. 

Always an entertaining read though!

James Stirling wrote:

snip

No one says that m43 is not more than capable of wonderful results. The equivalence fact dodging is not done by you or most of the posters in the forum but by a hardcore of for some unknown reason of mainly Olympus users.

snip

Tell me Tom what would you call someone who despite having been informed by numerous proven sources of what is after all a simple fact. Yet still denies it and argues about from a basis of ignorance year after year ?

These two bits are right at the nub of the issue. Equivalence cuts two ways, and ultimately is not about the sensor or format. It's about how to master the medium to get a desired image with the gear at hand. For you to imply that point of view, because it is different than your own, reflects ignorance is, well, projection.