News From Panasonic

[JakeJY]

Yes, I guess he is right, but how does a f1.8 lens on mft = f3.6 in regards to light. If the focal length is the same then an mft 1.8 lens is faster then a f3.6 lens is it not.

If the (absolute) focal length is the same, on Micro Four Thirds (µ4/3) the angle is narrower, meaning that less light is gathered.

50mm f/3.6 on µ4/3 collects only about 25% of the light than 50mm f/3.6 on a FF sensor because the angle of view is smaller. In order to get the same angle of view, the µ4/3 lens needs to be 25mm. In order to collect the same amount of light, the absolute size of the aperture must remain the same.

Aperture is: focal length/aperture diameter.

• 50mm f/3.6 has an aperture of about 56mm.
• 25mm f/3.6 has an aperture of about 28mm.
• 25mm on µ4/3 has the same angle of view as 50mm on FF
• 25mm lens with 56mm aperture is a f/1.8 lens.

What this means is that 25mm f/1.8 on µ4/3 is equivalent to 50mm f/3.6 on full frame.

The amount of light from change in AOV depends on the scene illumination. For example there may be point sources or only part of the scene illuminated in which case the amount of light would remain the same or close to the same from a change in AOV.

This is a bit different when you change the focal length of the lens to the same AOV, in which case those variables can largely be ignored.

 

[pannumon]

The amount of light from change in AOV depends on the scene illumination.

Of course. I thought I was writing about light gathering potential, but clearly I edited the "potential" out.

As you point out, in case of explaining equivalence 25mm (µ4/3) vs 50mm (FF) this does not have any relevance, though.

 

[Adam-T]

After buying/trying and returning the G9.

Ahh so it went back

Amazing cameras does it all but for me it just did not have whatever the GX8 has that makes me love it

such as the ability to take just one photo and the ability to not take loads more when placed in a bag switched on, or breathed on or looked at sternly .

I picked up a spare GX8 stored in a metal vault in my underground bunker

Prob be Getting another myself and I`m going to get one of the places who do IR conversions (therefore know how to take a sensor stack apart) to replace the AA filter with plain glass ..... or get a Pen-F which is the same thing with IBIS, no AA filter and no shutter shock in a cooler but more expensive package (or is before any AA mods)

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[victorav]

The amount of light from change in AOV depends on the scene illumination.

Of course. I thought I was writing about light gathering potential, but clearly I edited the "potential" out.

As you point out, in case of explaining equivalence 25mm (µ4/3) vs 50mm (FF) this does not have any relevance, though.

So a 50 mm f1.8 designed for full frame gathers more light than 50mm f1. 8 designed for the mft system? So then the correct exposure on a 35mm sensor would not be the same as for an mft sensor.

 

[bobn2]

Yes, I guess he is right, but how does a f1.8 lens on mft = f3.6 in regards to light. If the focal length is the same then an mft 1.8 lens is faster then a f3.6 lens is it not.

Sure, but your FOV would be different at the same focal length.

Right, so maybe he thought I was talking about using different focal lengths.

I thought you were talking about using the cameras for the same purpose, so the focal length on the two cameras would be what it needed to be to give the framing you wanted - that is if 25mm was right for mFT then 50mm would be right for FF. So, the 25mm f/18 and 50mm set to f/3.6 have the same aperture (which is why they give you the same depth of field). You're collecting light from the same scene (and the same portion of the scene, in case there's any confusion about that) through the same size hole, so you're collecting the same amount of light. You can't be doing anything else. The same amount of light ends up on the two sensors.

 

[bobn2]

The amount of light from change in AOV depends on the scene illumination.

Of course. I thought I was writing about light gathering potential, but clearly I edited the "potential" out.

As you point out, in case of explaining equivalence 25mm (µ4/3) vs 50mm (FF) this does not have any relevance, though.

So a 50 mm f1.8 designed for full frame gathers more light than 50mm f1. 8 designed for the mft system?

Only the light that makes it to the sensor counts. Since the sensor in the mFT is one quarter of the area, you put the same lens in front of it and in front of an FF sensor, and the mFT sensor collects one quarter of the light. However, the framing will be completely different. so if you were trying to create a particular photo, you wouldn't be using a 50mm lens in front of both camera, you'd be using a 25mm in front of the mFT.

So then the correct exposure on a 35mm sensor would not be the same as for an mft sensor.

Exposure isn't an amount of light, it's the density of the light (how much light there is per unit area).

 

[victorav]

The amount of light from change in AOV depends on the scene illumination.

Of course. I thought I was writing about light gathering potential, but clearly I edited the "potential" out.

As you point out, in case of explaining equivalence 25mm (µ4/3) vs 50mm (FF) this does not have any relevance, though.

So a 50 mm f1.8 designed for full frame gathers more light than 50mm f1. 8 designed for the mft system?

Only the light that makes it to the sensor counts. Since the sensor in the mFT is one quarter of the area, you put the same lens in front of it and in front of an FF sensor, and the mFT sensor collects one quarter of the light. However, the framing will be completely different. so if you were trying to create a particular photo, you wouldn't be using a 50mm lens in front of both camera, you'd be using a 25mm in front of the mFT.

So then the correct exposure on a 35mm sensor would not be the same as for an mft sensor.

Exposure isn't an amount of light, it's the density of the light (how much light there is per unit area).

Okay. I don't want to clog up this thread so just one more question as I'm still a little confused. If I shoot with the same settings on an mft and 35mm sensor camera (same lens) the exposure will be the same? The FOV would be different but will the exposure be as well?

 

[pannumon]

The amount of light from change in AOV depends on the scene illumination.

Of course. I thought I was writing about light gathering potential, but clearly I edited the "potential" out.

As you point out, in case of explaining equivalence 25mm (µ4/3) vs 50mm (FF) this does not have any relevance, though.

So a 50 mm f1.8 designed for full frame gathers more light than 50mm f1. 8 designed for the mft system?

This is actually a good question, and the answer is yes. But as @bobn2 pointed out, it does not really matter.

That being said, there are focal reducers that make the sensor optically bigger (when looking through the lens). This means that my full frame Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 lens becomes a 35mm f/1.0 lens when using my Metabones SpeedBooster 0.7x adapter. This is equivalent of 70mm f/2.0 lens on FF.

If there were a 0.5X focal reducer, the same lens would become 25mm f/0.7, which is equivalent to 50mm f/1.4. In this case the 50mm f/1.4 lens would be equivalent to 50mm f/1.4 lens (sic). What this means is that the whole image circle the lens was designed to cover would be utilized, and no additional light wasted.

I think understanding what focal reducers do makes it easier to understand how different sensor size relate.

 

[bobn2]

The amount of light from change in AOV depends on the scene illumination.

Of course. I thought I was writing about light gathering potential, but clearly I edited the "potential" out.

As you point out, in case of explaining equivalence 25mm (µ4/3) vs 50mm (FF) this does not have any relevance, though.

So a 50 mm f1.8 designed for full frame gathers more light than 50mm f1. 8 designed for the mft system?

Only the light that makes it to the sensor counts. Since the sensor in the mFT is one quarter of the area, you put the same lens in front of it and in front of an FF sensor, and the mFT sensor collects one quarter of the light. However, the framing will be completely different. so if you were trying to create a particular photo, you wouldn't be using a 50mm lens in front of both camera, you'd be using a 25mm in front of the mFT.

So then the correct exposure on a 35mm sensor would not be the same as for an mft sensor.

Exposure isn't an amount of light, it's the density of the light (how much light there is per unit area).

Okay. I don't want to clog up this thread so just one more question as I'm still a little confused. If I shoot with the same settings on an mft and 35mm sensor camera (same lens) the exposure will be the same?

Exposure will be the same, but that's because it is designed to be.

However, I should clarify what 'exposure' means, because a lot of photographers have been misled as to its meaning. It means the amount of light energy per unit area at the focal plane (sensor) - not, as some people think, how light or dark the final picture is (that's properly called the 'lightness'). Defining exposure as it is has two useful properties which simplify light calculations. The first is that by using f-number rather than aperture automatic compensation is made for the fact that you collect more light as the field of view increases. If we didn't use exposure as the basis of our light calculations, you'd have to factor in the actual angle of view for every photo. Second, it meant that you could do your light calculations according to which film you were using. Since the same film would be used in different size cameras, this simplified things too., The first still applies to digital cameras, which is why we still use f-number and thus exposure. The second, not so much, because you don't swap a sensor between cameras.

So, whilst exposure will be the same, the amount of light collected will be different. Lightness is related to exposure by ISO, the higher you set the ISO, the lighter a photo gets for the same exposure.

 

[pannumon]

Okay. I don't want to clog up this thread so just one more question as I'm still a little confused. If I shoot with the same settings on an mft and 35mm sensor camera (same lens) the exposure will be the same? The FOV would be different but will the exposure be as well?

I might answer as well. Yes, the exposure is the same. The exposure depends on the F-number* of the lens and the scene, nothing else. Sensitivity (ISO) is often mentioned to be one of the exposure parameters, but strictly speaking it is not.

*Someone could argue it's about T-number of the lens, but this is not relevant. T-number is F-number multiplied by transmittance of the lens.

 

[victorav]

Okay thanks, I guess the bottom line is who cares and just use the lenses that meet to our needs.

 

[James Stirling]

After buying/trying and returning the G9.

Ahh so it went back

I hummed and hawed Adam but eventually came to the conclusion that the things the G9 did better { quite a few of them }. Were not that important to me . At least I got to scratch the latest and greatest curiosity.

Amazing cameras does it all but for me it just did not have whatever the GX8 has that makes me love it

such as the ability to take just one photo and the ability to not take loads more when placed in a bag switched on, or breathed on or looked at sternly .

That G9 button did take a bit of getting used to maybe letting a Wyatt Earp fan decide the trigger speed was a boob

I picked up a spare GX8 stored in a metal vault in my underground bunker

Prob be Getting another myself and I`m going to get one of the places who do IR conversions (therefore know how to take a sensor stack apart) to replace the AA filter with plain glass ..... or get a Pen-F which is the same thing with IBIS, no AA filter and no shutter shock in a cooler but more expensive package (or is before any AA mods)

Shutter shock has never been a problem for me { though I know others had issues with certain lenses }. The AA filter on the GX8 does add a dash of softness but cuts down on moire a bit

 

[Adam-T]

I hummed and hawed Adam but eventually came to the conclusion that the things the G9 did better { quite a few of them }. Were not that important to me . At least I got to scratch the latest and greatest curiosity.

me too but I was saddened that it didn`t go with the GH5 EVF and button as otherwise it fit the bill , but there you go ,,,,,

Shutter shock has never been a problem for me { though I know others had issues with certain lenses }. The AA filter on the GX8 does add a dash of softness but cuts down on moire a bit

I`ve never had moire issues with the EM1-II or saw any of any issue in the G9 in the day I had it but the GX8's AA is pretty strong, was amazed at how heavy they made it comparing RAW develops to the EM1-II . deffo rip the one off the next one so long as it doesn`t shove the price up toi PENF levels - minty GX8s can be had for £300 .great buy

 

[WhiteBeard]

This is unusual and welcome update for us -it is mostly L mount which looks promising but M43 discussed towards end.

Hopefully this is a new way of communicating from Pana!

Okay, first things first...

What camera is shown at 1 min 50 sec??? Kinda looks like a rangefinder-style L mount body?

Next, if you are going to make an English video...especially for the western world they could have gotten someone who can more naturally speak the language and more importantly, someone who has more stage presence. Yes, he's a high Japanese exec...I understand but still...

Agreed that the recital is painful. You would think a company of that size would have at least a couple of "high execs" who could speak English half decently.

And just so you know, I'm Japanese and although I see such routinely, it still makes me wonder what the marketing guys were thinking...

Generally - and especially in the case of Panasonic - the terms "marketing" and "thinking" are a perfect example of an oxymoron...

As for the video contents, I actually think the S5 is a pretty good release. I hope it does well.

And finally, again, what is that camera?

Looks like a GX9 with an optional bigger eye-cup. If only it were a true GX8 MkII...

 

[James Stirling]

I hummed and hawed Adam but eventually came to the conclusion that the things the G9 did better { quite a few of them }. Were not that important to me . At least I got to scratch the latest and greatest curiosity.

me too but I was saddened that it didn`t go with the GH5 EVF and button as otherwise it fit the bill , but there you go ,,,,,

That perfect camera remains ever allusive

Shutter shock has never been a problem for me { though I know others had issues with certain lenses }. The AA filter on the GX8 does add a dash of softness but cuts down on moire a bit

I`ve never had moire issues with the EM1-II or saw any of any issue in the G9 in the day I had it but the GX8's AA is pretty strong, was amazed at how heavy they made it comparing RAW develops to the EM1-II . deffo rip the one off the next one so long as it doesn`t shove the price up toi PENF levels - minty GX8s can be had for £300 .great buy

As I say I have my spare GX8 ready I am not sure why they made the AA so strong. Sometimes Panasonic's decisions are a mystery

 

[bobn2]

As I say I have my spare GX8 ready I am not sure why they made the AA so strong. Sometimes Panasonic's decisions are a mystery

Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.

 

[James Stirling]

As I say I have my spare GX8 ready I am not sure why they made the AA so strong. Sometimes Panasonic's decisions are a mystery

Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.

I did think about that but arguably their GH4/5 are far more video centric models and they don't seem to have such a strong AA.

In an other thread that ran out I would have to disagree with you about the Nikon 19mm PC , i think it is overall the best wide PC lens on the market .I did buy and try the Canon 17mm F/4 TSE and the mk 1 24mm when I was using Sony FF. The Nikon had better edges .

I have tried all three adapted to Sony though I have been able to use it natively on my D810. Either way I think it is a bit of a hair splitter. As central performance on them is excellent The more niche use of such lenses cuts down the numbers of serious comparisons . It could have been vagaries of adapters or lens copies . I picked up the Canon models used . Given the price of the Nikon , I shall use a dash of confirmation bias to self-justify the emptying of my wallet



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-perspective-control-lenses/

--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[ahaslett]

As I say I have my spare GX8 ready I am not sure why they made the AA so strong. Sometimes Panasonic's decisions are a mystery

Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.

I did think about that but arguably their GH4/5 are far more video centric models and they don't seem to have such a strong AA.

In an other thread that ran out I would have to disagree with you about the Nikon 19mm PC , i think it is overall the best wide PC lens on the market .I did buy and try the Canon 17mm F/4 TSE and the mk 1 24mm when I was using Sony FF. The Nikon had better edges .

I have tried all three adapted to Sony though I have been able to use it natively on my D810. Either way I think it is a bit of a hair splitter. As central performance on them is excellent The more niche use of such lenses cuts down the numbers of serious comparisons . It could have been vagaries of adapters or lens copies . I picked up the Canon models used . Given the price of the Nikon , I shall use a dash of confirmation bias to self-justify the emptying of my wallet



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-perspective-control-lenses/

I felt bad until I saw the PC 24mm chart.

Andrew

--
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

 

[James Stirling]

As I say I have my spare GX8 ready I am not sure why they made the AA so strong. Sometimes Panasonic's decisions are a mystery

Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.

I did think about that but arguably their GH4/5 are far more video centric models and they don't seem to have such a strong AA.

In an other thread that ran out I would have to disagree with you about the Nikon 19mm PC , i think it is overall the best wide PC lens on the market .I did buy and try the Canon 17mm F/4 TSE and the mk 1 24mm when I was using Sony FF. The Nikon had better edges .

I have tried all three adapted to Sony though I have been able to use it natively on my D810. Either way I think it is a bit of a hair splitter. As central performance on them is excellent The more niche use of such lenses cuts down the numbers of serious comparisons . It could have been vagaries of adapters or lens copies . I picked up the Canon models used . Given the price of the Nikon , I shall use a dash of confirmation bias to self-justify the emptying of my wallet



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-perspective-control-lenses/

I felt bad until I saw the PC 24mm chart.

Andrew

The 24mm looks stronger at the centre and the Nikon stronger at the edges . Definitely prior to the 19mm , Canon TSE lenses across the board were better . Though if you are looking at longer focal lengths that Canon 135mm F/4 TSE is a star. I assume longer focal lengths are easier to design but that is a superb performer no matter how you look at it



--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[bobn2]

As I say I have my spare GX8 ready I am not sure why they made the AA so strong. Sometimes Panasonic's decisions are a mystery

Probably for video. If the camera uses sub-sampling for video than the AA filter needs to be stronger to remove artefacts from that. You can actually get aftermarket AA filters just for video.

I did think about that but arguably their GH4/5 are far more video centric models and they don't seem to have such a strong AA.

In an other thread that ran out I would have to disagree with you about the Nikon 19mm PC , i think it is overall the best wide PC lens on the market .I did buy and try the Canon 17mm F/4 TSE and the mk 1 24mm when I was using Sony FF. The Nikon had better edges .

I have tried all three adapted to Sony though I have been able to use it natively on my D810. Either way I think it is a bit of a hair splitter. As central performance on them is excellent The more niche use of such lenses cuts down the numbers of serious comparisons . It could have been vagaries of adapters or lens copies . I picked up the Canon models used . Given the price of the Nikon , I shall use a dash of confirmation bias to self-justify the emptying of my wallet



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-perspective-control-lenses/

You're right there. Nikon seems to have pulled it back.

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