Starting from Scratch - Recommend a Lense Set?

[dlayton]

If I were starting from scratch, I would get a Pen F (if you can find one). I use mine all the time for traveling and backpacking. It’s probably my most used body. The focus isn’t that fast, but for most of the stuff I’m shooting while backpacking, it is fine. The Pen would be a nice body to have and a great traveling/backpacking addition to your collection. Then wait to see whatever the “wow” camera is and make up your mind then.

Then I would add the pro 17mm 1.2, 25mm 1.2 and 45mm 1.2. The 45 is a great portrait lens if you know how to use it. Same goes with the 25 and 17. I have a MK III and a 300 f4 for birding, but I don’t take that with me backpacking much.

Later on down the line, the 40-150mm 2.8 is also a nice to have it has pretty good bokeh and is is definitely useful for all my paid stuff. I’ve been trying to get away from using my zooms too much though because even at 2.8 they don’t get me the DOF that I want, so I find myself shooting with the primes all the time now. The other pro 2.8 lenses are good to have, but in my opinion, not a must.

 

[doug_fir89]

Thank you all. I can't address each comment without bogging down this thread to unbearably tedious levels, but please know I've carefully read everything said and have taken notes where appropriate. I've also discovered a Facebook group dedicated to OM-D astrophotography, so I guess I'll have to make an account and check that out.

If this thread has taught me anything, it's that a lot of different set ups will work, and that it may be best for me to allocate some funds to try a variety of approaches. I plan to patiently acquire interesting lenses and bodies at exceptional second hand prices (relative to market rate), so I'm able to cycle or iterate through stuff quickly and without devastating financial losses.

On that note, I've set up a pickup for an E-M5 I & II, Lieca 25mm f1.4, Olympus 17mm f1.8 and 60mm f2.8, along with 4 batteries, two chargers, flash and a grip for $750. Not my ideal rig, but it seems a good deal. Conservatively going off of eBay 'sold' price data, there's good odds I'll 'break even' and get the E-M5 II and maybe a lens for free. If I can continue with that philosophy I think I'll be doing pretty good.

I did find the comment below very agreeable, though, this idea has made me hesitate to buy a newer 'premium' model right now, since Olympus has mentioned an upcoming model early 2022 with some 'wow', and Sony recently developed a new M43 sensor............. Exciting prospects on the whole, but it makes me a bit more tentative in deciding where to park my funds at the moment (wrt camera body - lens value may go up if this new thing is really a shocker).

OMD is having a fire sale, which may be concerning. Companies liquidate products for two reasons:

1) They have replacement products coming out soon therefore OMD want to move existing inventory before they are stuck with it. Reason being, nobody wants the previous generation. Remember, the name Olympus is discontinued, they want OMD as the manufacture name on every product. I would expect a firmware update on all supported cameras that simply remove the word "Olympus" from its code in 2022. If they don't do that, then I would expect the EM5.m3 and EM1.m3 to be generally discontinued quickly unless all new manufactured products are simply stripping the name from the camera body.

2) OMD are existing the camera business but don't want to say that. Because if they announced an exit, everyone would expect product to be 50-60% discounted and not the present discount rate.

Their new product teaser was for the most part a large failure. No real images of what is to come. It was a "please wait, we are coming" tease. I viewed it as you are late by 45 minutes to your 1st date, so you call ahead asking that person stay because still stuck in traffic.

Patience is wearing thin.

 

[ikolbyi]

If you want to take your photography to the next level then your should have at least one of these lenses in your bag:

https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/mft/?lang=en

Thank you, I'm a real fan of fast lenses for astro. It's time I looked at the Voigtlander range.

I own this lens:

and it was worth every penny. I can achieve a look that I could never obtain with my Olympus Pro lenses because they are 'too sharp' and 'too clean/perfect', almost clinical. The Voitlander lenses produce a clean image with some softness. That is what gives the image "character".







I even adapted a Voitlander L-mount lens onto my Fuji GFX

View attachment cb767ef4f2b94b3bbb1266fc81be7c7a.jpg

 

[Atho]

Certain that the OP is aware, but it hasn't been mentioned, Olympus is having some holiday savings right now, with $400 off the E-M1 MIII body and $200 off the 12-40 f/2.8 pro lens.

I used the opportunity to upgrade my hiking/travel kit from the G85 with 12-60 kit lens which has been a fantastic and lightweight kit. The new Oly kit just a bit heavier, but with more features and a faster lens. Looking forward to getting out over the holidays.

I will say the Oly menu system is a bit complex and not always intuitive, but I'll take on the challenge.

The ‘fire sale’ is shy of all of the newer lenses so not much of an everything goes sorta sale. Sounds like you’re a fully paid up member of the TNFC.

 

[Raist3d]

If you shoot weddings the Olympus wide to tele F2.8 constant Pro or Lumix equivalent plus one prime (Oly 45mm F1.8 or Lumix 42.5mm F1.7).

--
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.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell

 

[Jeff]

Thank you all. I can't address each comment without bogging down this thread to unbearably tedious levels, but please know I've carefully read everything said and have taken notes where appropriate. I've also discovered a Facebook group dedicated to OM-D astrophotography, so I guess I'll have to make an account and check that out.

If this thread has taught me anything, it's that a lot of different set ups will work, and that it may be best for me to allocate some funds to try a variety of approaches. I plan to patiently acquire interesting lenses and bodies at exceptional second hand prices (relative to market rate), so I'm able to cycle or iterate through stuff quickly and without devastating financial losses.

On that note, I've set up a pickup for an E-M5 I & II, Lieca 25mm f1.4, Olympus 17mm f1.8 and 60mm f2.8, along with 4 batteries, two chargers, flash and a grip for $750. Not my ideal rig, but it seems a good deal. Conservatively going off of eBay 'sold' price data, there's good odds I'll 'break even' and get the E-M5 II and maybe a lens for free. If I can continue with that philosophy I think I'll be doing pretty good.

I did find the comment below very agreeable, though, this idea has made me hesitate to buy a newer 'premium' model right now, since Olympus has mentioned an upcoming model early 2022 with some 'wow', and Sony recently developed a new M43 sensor............. Exciting prospects on the whole, but it makes me a bit more tentative in deciding where to park my funds at the moment (wrt camera body - lens value may go up if this new thing is really a shocker).

OMD is having a fire sale, which may be concerning. Companies liquidate products for two reasons:

1) They have replacement products coming out soon therefore OMD want to move existing inventory before they are stuck with it. Reason being, nobody wants the previous generation. Remember, the name Olympus is discontinued, they want OMD as the manufacture name on every product. I would expect a firmware update on all supported cameras that simply remove the word "Olympus" from its code in 2022. If they don't do that, then I would expect the EM5.m3 and EM1.m3 to be generally discontinued quickly unless all new manufactured products are simply stripping the name from the camera body.

2) OMD are existing the camera business but don't want to say that. Because if they announced an exit, everyone would expect product to be 50-60% discounted and not the present discount rate.

Their new product teaser was for the most part a large failure. No real images of what is to come. It was a "please wait, we are coming" tease. I viewed it as you are late by 45 minutes to your 1st date, so you call ahead asking that person stay because still stuck in traffic.

Patience is wearing thin.

If you follow the camera forums long enough you'll hear why every camera manufacturer is going broke sooner rather than later, their stupid designs, poor materials, outdated sensors, and bad marketing.

Here's the secret ... very, very few of those armchair business "advisors" have knowledge of the business, access to facts, or for that matter genuine knowledge of the technology (a few do, and worth listening to, but they're scarce). The terms "confirmation bias" and "Dunning-Kruger effect" apply, too.

Buying your gear on the used market is solid way to handle your aversion to risk. Baked into those prices are expectations about the where the market is going, for better or worse. You'll pay a "vig" if you decide to sell at some point, of course, but in the meanwhile you can be taking pics.

If you like mFT, buy mFT. If you want FF, buy FF. They have their unique advantages.

What I find most compelling about mFT is the mature lens ecosystem, image quality that is quite good in most of the lighting situations I encounter, and the variety of interchangeable bodies and lens to accommodate what I do. Right now my camera line up is the E-P7, E-M1.3, E-EMX, so from nearly pocket size on up, to mix and match to fit the need.

That doesn't mean a larger format at a later date, but for now, in this market, it works for me. I don't know what the future will bring, and neither does anyone else on this forum.

 

[Jeff]

If you want to take your photography to the next level then your should have at least one of these lenses in your bag:

https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/mft/?lang=en

Thank you, I'm a real fan of fast lenses for astro. It's time I looked at the Voigtlander range.

I own this lens:

and it was worth every penny. I can achieve a look that I could never obtain with my Olympus Pro lenses because they are 'too sharp' and 'too clean/perfect', almost clinical. The Voitlander lenses produce a clean image with some softness. That is what gives the image "character".



I even adapted a Voitlander L-mount lens onto my Fuji GFX

View attachment cb767ef4f2b94b3bbb1266fc81be7c7a.jpg

"Clinically sharp" is kind of weird critique, if you ask me.

For one thing, relative sharpness is more often a good rather than bad thing, so I'd prefer a lens that makes the sharper option available.

Besides, softness is something I can add in post using Lightroom, for example, in very controlled ways. Or if you're really into the soft look, add some diffusion or other soft filters.

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

--
Jeff

jck_photos’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[Peter 1745]

Hi all,

I arrived here after wanting something lightweight, compact and durable to take with me on multi-day hiking trips. Naturally, I found M43 and Olympus cameras appealing. I don't have my body purchased yet, but am looking at either an E-M5 III or E-M1 II, from what I understand the relevant differences for me are that the E-M5 is a bit lighter and smaller which is nice, but the E-M1 II has larger battery capacity and more robust frame. I should note I really admire the effort Olympus has put into IBIS and 'shooting without a tripod' - that's very appealing to me as tripods are big, heavy and time consuming when on the trail.

How do you intend to carry the camera? The tripod socket of the E-M1ii is strong enough to accept strap and harness attachments e.g. Black rapid systems . However the tripod socket of the E-M5iii is relatively weak and only able to support static use on mono/tripods and isn't suitable for any dynamic loading. Just another factor to weigh during your decision making process.

 

[ikolbyi]

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63376762

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

It's a MFT lens so need to factor in the crop 2x. f0.95 behaves closer to f1.4 on FF. That is still lower than f1.2 on oly lens which behaves closer to f1.8 on FF.

Regarding adding softness to an image in post - yes that is an option but some prefer (including myself) to have the lens achieve this. This is why adapting 35mm film lenses on digital camera bodies are so popular. The issue with that is, the 35mm film lens imperfections are also captured in the image because they were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors.

 

[Jeff]

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63376762

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

It's a MFT lens so need to factor in the crop 2x. f0.95 behaves closer to f1.4 on FF. That is still lower than f1.2 on oly lens which behaves closer to f1.8 on FF.

You're missing my point, which is not about cross-format comparisons.

The point made in the linked thread is that the microlens array and cell design on the sensor limits the performance of any lens to something in the neighborhood of f/1.3 or so. In effect, the microlens array becomes the limiting aperture. That thread and others confirm that observation with measurements of both exposure and apparent depth of field on various lens/sensor combinations.

It might be interesting to do your own measurements. Put a camera on a tripod, look down a rule to measure the depth of field, and change the f/number in steps from f/0.95 to f/2 or so. Will you see what you expect to see? For constant ISO, you change the f/number and shutter speed in offsetting increments, does the raw image maintain the same exposure? Does the depth of field continue to get shallower as you approach f/0.95?

Regarding adding softness to an image in post - yes that is an option but some prefer (including myself) to have the lens achieve this. This is why adapting 35mm film lenses on digital camera bodies are so popular. The issue with that is, the 35mm film lens imperfections are also captured in the image because they were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors.

--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/

 

[ikolbyi]

What I find most compelling about mFT is the mature lens ecosystem, image quality that is quite good in most of the lighting situations I encounter, and the variety of interchangeable bodies and lens to accommodate what I do. Right now my camera line up is the E-P7, E-M1.3, E-EMX, so from nearly pocket size on up, to mix and match to fit the need.

That is a very solid and compelling reason for the MFT system from a buyers perspective, but from a business perspective it limits growth opportunities because the market is now flooded with product. Canon EOL FD to EF forcing everyone to buy into a new system then did it again with the RF. This enabled Canon to create 3 generation of lenses. Nikon copied this only recently with the Z-mount. Sony also performing same when they EOL A to E.

MFT is very mature because they never changed the mount. In 2022+ will we see 'version 2' of the same existing lenses similar to what Canon and Nikon have done with their lenses in the same mount? On the flip side, is their room to improve the Pro-line of lenses that is worth the cost to upgrade? I can see them making their non-Pro line of lenses better but that may eat into their higher-end product offerings.

I wish for all companies to perform well. Competition equals innovation and lower prices for the consumer.

 

[Atho]

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63376762

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

It's a MFT lens so need to factor in the crop 2x. f0.95 behaves closer to f1.4 on FF.

please explain as f numbers are constant

That is still lower than f1.2 on oly lens which behaves closer to f1.8 on FF.

Regarding adding softness to an image in post - yes that is an option but some prefer (including myself) to have the lens achieve this. This is why adapting 35mm film lenses on digital camera bodies are so popular. The issue with that is, the 35mm film lens imperfections are also captured in the image because they were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors.

 

[ahaslett]

For anyone who has experience of product and technology strategy we know we don’t know. Also we suspect that OMD may be thinking about market segments which don’t read DPR.

One potentially interesting market is multiple system users. MFT has a lot of respect amongst FF mirrorless users. Probably not a sustainable market on its own, but a common theme on the FE forum when people are thinking of moving to FF is “don’t sell the MFT kit”, just rationalise it.

For each product development, the MFT OEMs should be asking

- will it attract new users

- will it make sense to a dual system user

- will it stop an MFT user switching to another system

The answer to the last will rarely be YES.

Those are on top of the base question of whether it will fill a need for enough existing MFT users, who are a small part of the ILC market.

I’d see the Panasonic 10-25/1.7 as being a well-chosen product. The 12-45/4, 12-100/4 and tele lenses are also unique. Olympus seem to have had a strange view of their products. Once Sony started to drive mirrorless sensor innovation and opened E mount to third parties, MFT had new competition.

A mini A9 would be very interesting as a Wow camera and the lenses already exist to support it. A lightly used EM1.2 or G9 is very affordable as an entry point into MFT for an existing photographer. After all, it’s lenses that cost the money.

I was out with my EM1.1 and 20/1.7 yesterday, remembering why I dislike big bodies with big batteries, dual card slots etc. Took lots of keepers of the 4 month old grand-daughter, her mother and Santa on Monday with the GM1 and 12-32 with pop up flash.

Yes, the A7R4 goes on dedicated landscape expeditions with fast zooms, tripod and filters. Yes the Samsung S20 takes good pictures up to a point, better than any P&S film camera I ever owned.

Andrew

 

[ahaslett]

What I find most compelling about mFT is the mature lens ecosystem, image quality that is quite good in most of the lighting situations I encounter, and the variety of interchangeable bodies and lens to accommodate what I do. Right now my camera line up is the E-P7, E-M1.3, E-EMX, so from nearly pocket size on up, to mix and match to fit the need.

That is a very solid and compelling reason for the MFT system from a buyers perspective, but from a business perspective it limits growth opportunities because the market is now flooded with product. Canon EOL FD to EF forcing everyone to buy into a new system then did it again with the RF. This enabled Canon to create 3 generation of lenses. Nikon copied this only recently with the Z-mount. Sony also performing same when they EOL A to E.

MFT is very mature because they never changed the mount. In 2022+ will we see 'version 2' of the same existing lenses similar to what Canon and Nikon have done with their lenses in the same mount? On the flip side, is their room to improve the Pro-line of lenses that is worth the cost to upgrade? I can see them making their non-Pro line of lenses better but that may eat into their higher-end product offerings.

I wish for all companies to perform well. Competition equals innovation and lower prices for the consumer.

If you have a solid product proposition, you refine its cost down and take it to new markets. JIP have done that for other products.

Andrew

 

[ikolbyi]

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63376762

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

It's a MFT lens so need to factor in the crop 2x. f0.95 behaves closer to f1.4 on FF.

please explain as f numbers are constant

That is still lower than f1.2 on oly lens which behaves closer to f1.8 on FF.

Regarding adding softness to an image in post - yes that is an option but some prefer (including myself) to have the lens achieve this. This is why adapting 35mm film lenses on digital camera bodies are so popular. The issue with that is, the 35mm film lens imperfections are also captured in the image because they were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors.

for example, a 45mm F/1.8 MFT lens will behave similar to a 90mm f/2.8 on full-frame camera/lens due to the sensor size/lens combination.

Here is quick video that shows side-by-side examples: https://fstoppers.com/education/ful...size-affect-depth-field-388556#comment-thread

in the f2.8 side-by-side comparison, the FF image will have more background blur. If the MFT was shot at f1.8 vs FF f2.8, they would look more similar.

 

[Atho]

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63376762

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

It's a MFT lens so need to factor in the crop 2x. f0.95 behaves closer to f1.4 on FF.

please explain as f numbers are constant

That is still lower than f1.2 on oly lens which behaves closer to f1.8 on FF.

Regarding adding softness to an image in post - yes that is an option but some prefer (including myself) to have the lens achieve this. This is why adapting 35mm film lenses on digital camera bodies are so popular. The issue with that is, the 35mm film lens imperfections are also captured in the image because they were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors.

for example, a 45mm F/1.8 MFT lens will behave similar to a 90mm f/2.8 on full-frame camera/lens due to the sensor size/lens combination.

Here is quick video that shows side-by-side examples: https://fstoppers.com/education/ful...size-affect-depth-field-388556#comment-thread

in the f2.8 side-by-side comparison, the FF image will have more background blur. If the MFT was shot at f1.8 vs FF f2.8, they would look more similar.

This is DoF not f number.

 

[ikolbyi]

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63376762

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

It's a MFT lens so need to factor in the crop 2x. f0.95 behaves closer to f1.4 on FF.

please explain as f numbers are constant

That is still lower than f1.2 on oly lens which behaves closer to f1.8 on FF.

Regarding adding softness to an image in post - yes that is an option but some prefer (including myself) to have the lens achieve this. This is why adapting 35mm film lenses on digital camera bodies are so popular. The issue with that is, the 35mm film lens imperfections are also captured in the image because they were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors.

for example, a 45mm F/1.8 MFT lens will behave similar to a 90mm f/2.8 on full-frame camera/lens due to the sensor size/lens combination.

Here is quick video that shows side-by-side examples: https://fstoppers.com/education/ful...size-affect-depth-field-388556#comment-thread

in the f2.8 side-by-side comparison, the FF image will have more background blur. If the MFT was shot at f1.8 vs FF f2.8, they would look more similar.

This is DoF not f number

f number is 1 of 3 factors that impact DOF.

 

[Jeff]

For anyone who has experience of product and technology strategy we know we don’t know. Also we suspect that OMD may be thinking about market segments which don’t read DPR.

One potentially interesting market is multiple system users. MFT has a lot of respect amongst FF mirrorless users. Probably not a sustainable market on its own, but a common theme on the FE forum when people are thinking of moving to FF is “don’t sell the MFT kit”, just rationalise it.

For each product development, the MFT OEMs should be asking

- will it attract new users

- will it make sense to a dual system user

- will it stop an MFT user switching to another system

The answer to the last will rarely be YES.

Those are on top of the base question of whether it will fill a need for enough existing MFT users, who are a small part of the ILC market.

I’d see the Panasonic 10-25/1.7 as being a well-chosen product. The 12-45/4, 12-100/4 and tele lenses are also unique. Olympus seem to have had a strange view of their products. Once Sony started to drive mirrorless sensor innovation and opened E mount to third parties, MFT had new competition.

A mini A9 would be very interesting as a Wow camera and the lenses already exist to support it. A lightly used EM1.2 or G9 is very affordable as an entry point into MFT for an existing photographer. After all, it’s lenses that cost the money.

I was out with my EM1.1 and 20/1.7 yesterday, remembering why I dislike big bodies with big batteries, dual card slots etc. Took lots of keepers of the 4 month old grand-daughter, her mother and Santa on Monday with the GM1 and 12-32 with pop up flash.

Yes, the A7R4 goes on dedicated landscape expeditions with fast zooms, tripod and filters. Yes the Samsung S20 takes good pictures up to a point, better than any P&S film camera I ever owned.

Andrew

I like your analysis because it highlights the importance of differentiating mFT from the rest of the market. OMS is clearly using the "Breakfree" campaign to build on perceived strengths of the system, and you're pointing out another.

Personally, what I find compelling is the mix-and-match possibilities of mFT, from essentially pocketable to full-blown EM1X + 150-400 superzoom. I just picked up the E-P7 for the same reason you're using the GM1 ... pics of the granddaughter. And what is absolutely marvelous about mFT is that the same 75/1.8 will work on every camera body I own.

Maybe Sony can pull off that trick with the A7, but for now mFT really has a lot to offer as long as one understands it's relative strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Jeff]

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63376762

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

It's a MFT lens so need to factor in the crop 2x. f0.95 behaves closer to f1.4 on FF.

please explain as f numbers are constant

That is still lower than f1.2 on oly lens which behaves closer to f1.8 on FF.

Regarding adding softness to an image in post - yes that is an option but some prefer (including myself) to have the lens achieve this. This is why adapting 35mm film lenses on digital camera bodies are so popular. The issue with that is, the 35mm film lens imperfections are also captured in the image because they were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors.

for example, a 45mm F/1.8 MFT lens will behave similar to a 90mm f/2.8 on full-frame camera/lens due to the sensor size/lens combination.

Here is quick video that shows side-by-side examples: https://fstoppers.com/education/ful...size-affect-depth-field-388556#comment-thread

in the f2.8 side-by-side comparison, the FF image will have more background blur. If the MFT was shot at f1.8 vs FF f2.8, they would look more similar.

Yes, we all understand that. But the point is whether you're getting any advantage to using an f/0.95 versus an f/1.2 or f/1.4 on an mFT camera.

--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/

 

[Atho]

Second, just because the lens reads f/0.95 doesn't mean you're getting f/0.95. Check out this thread

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63376762

In a nutshell, the microlens array on a typical sensor begin to limit somewhere in the range f/2 to f/1.2. Measurements confirm this. There appears to be little benefit to using f/numbers smaller than f/1.2 on Olympus cameras.

It's a MFT lens so need to factor in the crop 2x. f0.95 behaves closer to f1.4 on FF.

please explain as f numbers are constant

That is still lower than f1.2 on oly lens which behaves closer to f1.8 on FF.

Regarding adding softness to an image in post - yes that is an option but some prefer (including myself) to have the lens achieve this. This is why adapting 35mm film lenses on digital camera bodies are so popular. The issue with that is, the 35mm film lens imperfections are also captured in the image because they were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors.

for example, a 45mm F/1.8 MFT lens will behave similar to a 90mm f/2.8 on full-frame camera/lens due to the sensor size/lens combination.

Here is quick video that shows side-by-side examples: https://fstoppers.com/education/ful...size-affect-depth-field-388556#comment-thread

in the f2.8 side-by-side comparison, the FF image will have more background blur. If the MFT was shot at f1.8 vs FF f2.8, they would look more similar.

This is DoF not f number

f number is 1 of 3 factors that impact DOF.

But the f number remains constant