Jan Vondrak

Joined on Oct 31, 2011

Comments

Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1607 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dellis12: Time-honored argument...I started in film, shot 2 1/4, 645 along with 35mm as a pro. Switched to digital, went from APS-C to full frame. Got rid of my 5DIIs and 6 L-series lenses several months ago in favor of an OMD-EM1, knowing full well the "limitations" of the sensor and DOF. The reason was simple. I shoot mostly street and pointing a 4-lb black box either freaked out my subjects or enraged them. It's a different era. I've shot some of my best images ever with the Oly. The kit w/4 lenses is about 10 lbs, not 40. And given that I print no larger than 13x19, no image loss whatsoever. Point is that tools are just that. You've got to find a set that either inspires you to better work or makes it easier. Preferably both. Unless you're a pro shooting billboards, all of it is fantastic.

@PeaceKeeper, I believe what nerd2 meant was lenses equivalent in terms of DOF/brightness, while taking the sensor size into account. That's what you should compare, if you want to preserve the same performance.

In that sense, a 25 mm f/1.4 lens for Micro4/3 is _not_ equivalent to full frame 50 mm f/1.4. It is equivalent to 50 mm f/2.8 on full frame, which would be a much simpler and lighter lens. Etc.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2015 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

Martin.au: Love the equivalence moron's logic.

The 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 and should therefore cost the same.

Ok, lets continue with that logic. (I'm only guessing prices here, but that won't be an issue for a little logical fun)

A m4/3 lens 150mm f2.8 is $1500
Is equivalent to a FF300 f 5.6, worth $500
Therefore, the price of the m4/3 lens should be $500.

Correct?

However, the lens is still a 150mm f2.8, with similar design, glass cost, etc to a FF 150mm f2.8. Therefore, the FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500

What you clowns are saying is that the lens design, etc doesn't matter and that the camera that the lens is mounted on should determine the price.

A 150mm f2.8 lens is a 150mm f2.8 lens and should cost around the same, regardless of format. It just has different results depending on which camera it's mounted on.

Alright, Mjankor. I will also agree that this 'equivalence' doesn't have much to do with lens prices. It's purely about light gathering and DOF. Pricing is another issue outside of the realm of physics.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 03:18 UTC
In reply to:

Martin.au: Love the equivalence moron's logic.

The 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 and should therefore cost the same.

Ok, lets continue with that logic. (I'm only guessing prices here, but that won't be an issue for a little logical fun)

A m4/3 lens 150mm f2.8 is $1500
Is equivalent to a FF300 f 5.6, worth $500
Therefore, the price of the m4/3 lens should be $500.

Correct?

However, the lens is still a 150mm f2.8, with similar design, glass cost, etc to a FF 150mm f2.8. Therefore, the FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500

What you clowns are saying is that the lens design, etc doesn't matter and that the camera that the lens is mounted on should determine the price.

A 150mm f2.8 lens is a 150mm f2.8 lens and should cost around the same, regardless of format. It just has different results depending on which camera it's mounted on.

Yes, indeed there is no 4.5-108mm f/2.8 lens for FF. Even a 28-108 mm f/2.8 lens for FF would be very expensive. And why? Bingo! Now you can go back and think again what the point of my argument was.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 06:49 UTC
In reply to:

Martin.au: Love the equivalence moron's logic.

The 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 and should therefore cost the same.

Ok, lets continue with that logic. (I'm only guessing prices here, but that won't be an issue for a little logical fun)

A m4/3 lens 150mm f2.8 is $1500
Is equivalent to a FF300 f 5.6, worth $500
Therefore, the price of the m4/3 lens should be $500.

Correct?

However, the lens is still a 150mm f2.8, with similar design, glass cost, etc to a FF 150mm f2.8. Therefore, the FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500

What you clowns are saying is that the lens design, etc doesn't matter and that the camera that the lens is mounted on should determine the price.

A 150mm f2.8 lens is a 150mm f2.8 lens and should cost around the same, regardless of format. It just has different results depending on which camera it's mounted on.

Mjankor, if you believe that what matters is only the focal length and aperture, let me remind you that there is a $600 camera from Panasonic, the DMC-FZ200, which has a 4.5-108 mm f/2.8 lens. According to your logic, there should be a similar full frame lens for $600. If you can get me such a lens, hell even 28-108 mm, I'll be happy to take it.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 06:20 UTC
In reply to:

Martin.au: Love the equivalence moron's logic.

The 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 and should therefore cost the same.

Ok, lets continue with that logic. (I'm only guessing prices here, but that won't be an issue for a little logical fun)

A m4/3 lens 150mm f2.8 is $1500
Is equivalent to a FF300 f 5.6, worth $500
Therefore, the price of the m4/3 lens should be $500.

Correct?

However, the lens is still a 150mm f2.8, with similar design, glass cost, etc to a FF 150mm f2.8. Therefore, the FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500

What you clowns are saying is that the lens design, etc doesn't matter and that the camera that the lens is mounted on should determine the price.

A 150mm f2.8 lens is a 150mm f2.8 lens and should cost around the same, regardless of format. It just has different results depending on which camera it's mounted on.

You'd better think before calling others morons. A fullframe 150 mm lens is not the same as a micro4/3 150 mm lens, which only needs to cover a sensor of half the size. Much easier to design.

150 mm f/2.8 on micro4/3 is indeed equivalent to 300 mm f/5.6 on fullframe, and that's both in terms of DOF and light gathering. It's the most useful way to think about comparisons across different sensor formats.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 01:26 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: Everybody seems to think that RX100 has obsoleted all P&S. Having used the RX100, it's f4.9 at the long end aren't great for subject separation nor is the slippery, grip-less body great ergonomically. For this reason, compacts like the XZ-2, LX7 and X10 are not obsolete at all.

I always loved my XZ-1 when I had it and some of my favorite images came from this camera. Whether or not buying a small m43 or APS-C camera is better may be determined by needs. Many DSLR users aren't interested in investing in yet another ILC, but just want a compact camera with raw, and great IQ. The XZ-2, LX7, RX100, x10, or GRD IV are such cameras.

Hey mosc,
You're doing a good job but people just don't want to listen. I agree completely: If you want to specify focal lengths normalized to full frame, then do it with f-numbers too. That's what matters, for DOF as well as light gathering. In fact ISO could be also normalized (divided by sensor area), and then it would be apples-to-apples independent of sensor size.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 04:10 UTC
In reply to:

tom1027: You can tell by the comments on this camera there are lots of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.. So many complaints about the sensor size and comparisons to the RX100. If this camera had a larger sensor, they could not have this lens. Sure the RX100 has a big sensor, but at what cost? F/4.9 at 100mm? I'd take the LX7's or XZ-2's sensor and lens combination any day over the RX100. Unless your pixel peeping or printing poster size pics, you're not gonna notice a difference from that big sensor.
For those who get hard over big sensors, why wouldn't something like the GF5? The sensor's twice as big as the RX100 and the cam isn't much bigger with the power zoom lens...
Bottom line is, it just doesn't make that much sense to put a huge sensor in a camera this small. They will definitely sell lots of them, because so many fools think all that matters is a bigger sensor, but I wouldn't want one until they figure out how to build a better lens for it.

True, I mentioned it just because you were talking about 4x higher ISO. I checked the sensor areas and the ratio is actually 2.8. So by laws of physics you would expect ISO 280 on the RX100 to be similar to ISO 100 on the XZ-1. Unfortunately Olympus sensors have performed worse than you would expect based on their size, so it might be actually a factor of 4 in practice.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2012 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

tom1027: You can tell by the comments on this camera there are lots of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.. So many complaints about the sensor size and comparisons to the RX100. If this camera had a larger sensor, they could not have this lens. Sure the RX100 has a big sensor, but at what cost? F/4.9 at 100mm? I'd take the LX7's or XZ-2's sensor and lens combination any day over the RX100. Unless your pixel peeping or printing poster size pics, you're not gonna notice a difference from that big sensor.
For those who get hard over big sensors, why wouldn't something like the GF5? The sensor's twice as big as the RX100 and the cam isn't much bigger with the power zoom lens...
Bottom line is, it just doesn't make that much sense to put a huge sensor in a camera this small. They will definitely sell lots of them, because so many fools think all that matters is a bigger sensor, but I wouldn't want one until they figure out how to build a better lens for it.

Well, this discussion is directly to the point discussed above - probably more so than the codename of a camera.

mosc is right that aperture is not the only relevant parameter. However, the sensor area of the RX100 is less than 4x that of the XZ-2. So theoretically the XZ-2 should perform better at the long end. That of course depends on what sensor technology Olympus actually uses for the XZ-2, and how much they managed to improve over the XZ-1, because the XZ-1 was quite underwhelming in this regard.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2012 at 17:05 UTC
On article Mirrorless Roundup 2011 (426 comments in total)
In reply to:

OleThorsen: So basically Mr. Butler tells the family father who's a photography beginner: "We at dpreview firmly believe it's perfectly OK that your only solution to capture your playing children is to shout: Stand still children - father want to take a picture of you!", instead of learning to use Shutter Priority.

This sites IQ has gone downhill since Askey left the business.

And I'm even more confused. Where are OleThorsen's apostrophes incorrect? :-)

They are actually correct (unlike the majority of forum posts these days).

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 04:11 UTC
On article Mirrorless Roundup 2011 (426 comments in total)
In reply to:

ItsAllABadJoke: I'm wondering why lens ratios were not posted for the mirrorless cameras. The reason I like the micro four-thirds is the 1:2 lens ratio. 1/2 the size, 1/2 the light needed, etc.

Who cares about the camera size, when the lens is what is usually filling up the camera bag?

Am I missing something here?

4x the light needed, in fact.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 04:03 UTC
Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10