Jeff S Posted February 23, 2017 Share #21 Posted February 23, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) However it is still apples vs oranges. Elmarit on M43 is equivalent to f/5.6 on FF (2 stops down)M. Where do you get that idea? It has the same equivalent field of view as the M-E on FF, and is a stop faster....f2.8 vs f4. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here Discussing Leica lenses on Micro 4/3rds. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jmahto Posted February 23, 2017 Share #22 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) My calculation is different: GX 8 485 gr, M240 680 gr. . SX 15 115 gr SX 24 500 gr. SX 25 200 gr SX 50 asph chrome 455 gr Vario Elmar 985 gr Vario-Elmar 1750 gr + 1.4 APO ext. 385 gr. That is 1735 grams vs 3770 grs. Plus the 4/3rds fits into a Billingham for Leica bag and the 240 set needs a Hadley Pro Presstop. Nor did I calculate the weight difference of the batteries, the sensor cleaning gear needed for the M etc. And I have 800 mm at the long end instead of 400 mm, do not need a shoulder stock, etc. Yes I can see that. The difference depends on your lens combo content. This is the same old debate on how much performance do you need. Do you really need 50lux on FF or SX25 on M43 is good enough. Even on M one can choose Elmarits instead of Luxes. There are more than one ways to optimize for performance/weight.... as long as we are talking about normal range (28-90). The moment we throw in longer focal lengths in the mix then no FF will survive in performance/weight analysis. Not even SL Edited February 23, 2017 by jmahto 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 23, 2017 Share #23 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Where do you get that idea? It has the same equivalent field of view as the M-E on FF, and is a stop faster....f2.8 vs f4. Jeff I heard it on internet. Seriously... you are right about FOV. It is the same. However, the out of focus blur (not bokeh, trying to be accurate here) is equivalent for f/2.8 in M43 and f/5.6 in FF. One chooses bigger sensor for shallow DOF. In order to get the same DOF the f stop differences between M43 and FF is 2 stops. On a similar note, APS-C and FF difference is one stop. I had posted on similar topic (between APS-C and FF) here. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268145-dof-for-same-fov-in-ff-vs-aps-c/ Edited February 23, 2017 by jmahto Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 23, 2017 Share #24 Posted February 23, 2017 But the more apples to apples comparison with the 90 M-E would be the Panasonic/Leica 45 Macro Elmarit f2.8, which weighs only 225g. Jeff No the more apples to apples comparison would be the M 28 Elmarit ASPH which weighs weighs 180g (it still has a bit better depth of field range than the PannyLeica 15 f/1.7) and the M 90 summarit, which weighs 346g (and has just as much depth of field range and the Panny Leica 42.5 Nocticron). So together the Panny Leica lenses weigh 540g and the Leica M lenses weigh 526g. The M lenses actually weigh less. Now the Panny camera would weigh less, but if you compare to the M262 the difference is only 99g and many people myself included would feel the OVF rangefinder is worth the extra weight. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 23, 2017 Share #25 Posted February 23, 2017 No the more apples to apples comparison would be the M 28 Elmarit ASPH which weighs weighs 180g (it still has a bit better depth of field range than the PannyLeica 15 f/1.7) and the M 90 summarit, which weighs 346g (and has just as much depth of field range and the Panny Leica 42.5 Nocticron). So together the Panny Leica lenses weigh 540g and the Leica M lenses weigh 526g. The M lenses actually weigh less. Now the Panny camera would weigh less, but if you compare to the M262 the difference is only 99g and many people myself included would feel the OVF rangefinder is worth the extra weight. I assumed he already owned the M lenses he cited....didn't want to change them to oranges. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 23, 2017 Share #26 Posted February 23, 2017 I assumed he already owned the M lenses he cited....didn't want to change them to oranges. Jeff If we think of the 28 cron ASPH as an apple, however, there is no M4/3rds apple to compare it to. One of the advantages of the M system in comparison to the M4/3rds system is that it has a fairly large number of lenses for which there is no comparable lens in the M4/3rds world and the 28 cron ASPH is certainly one of those. Strictly speaking even the 28 Elmarit ASPH doesn't have a comparable lens--the 15 f/1.7 would need to be an f/1.4 to really be comparable. By comparable here I mean able to gather the same amount of light. An f/1.4 M/4/3rds lens lets in light that is 4 times brighter than a f/2.8 FF 35mm lens, but it only shines this light on an area 1/4 the size, so an f/1.4 M4/3rds lens gathers the same amount of light (i.e., captures the same number of photons) as an f/2.8 FF 35mm lens. So, IMO, for lenses to be comparable across different sensor sizes they have to be able to capture the same amount of light and have roughly the same angle of view. With that standard there are just many (in fact the vast majority) of Leica M lenses that have no comparable M4/3rds lens. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 23, 2017 Share #27 Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) If we think of the 28 cron ASPH as an apple, however, there is no M4/3rds apple to compare it to. One of the advantages of the M system in comparison to the M4/3rds system is that it has a fairly large number of lenses for which there is no comparable lens in the M4/3rds world and the 28 cron ASPH is certainly one of those. Strictly speaking even the 28 Elmarit ASPH doesn't have a comparable lens--the 15 f/1.7 would need to be an f/1.4 to really be comparable. By comparable here I mean able to gather the same amount of light. An f/1.4 M/4/3rds lens lets in light that is 4 times brighter than a f/2.8 FF 35mm lens, but it only shines this light on an area 1/4 the size, so an f/1.4 M4/3rds lens gathers the same amount of light (i.e., captures the same number of photons) as an f/2.8 FF 35mm lens. So, IMO, for lenses to be comparable across different sensor sizes they have to be able to capture the same amount of light and have roughly the same angle of view. With that standard there are just many (in fact the vast majority) of Leica M lenses that have no comparable M4/3rds lens. +1 For the explanation of light gathering. This translates to noise and ISO advantage of FF by two stops over M43 for similar sensor technology. There is also a two stop difference for out of focus blur that I mentioned in my comments above (#289). Edited February 23, 2017 by jmahto Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 23, 2017 Share #28 Posted February 23, 2017 If we think of the 28 cron ASPH as an apple, however, there is no M4/3rds apple to compare it to. One of the advantages of the M system in comparison to the M4/3rds system is that it has a fairly large number of lenses for which there is no comparable lens in the M4/3rds world and the 28 cron ASPH is certainly one of those. Strictly speaking even the 28 Elmarit ASPH doesn't have a comparable lens--the 15 f/1.7 would need to be an f/1.4 to really be comparable. By comparable here I mean able to gather the same amount of light. An f/1.4 M/4/3rds lens lets in light that is 4 times brighter than a f/2.8 FF 35mm lens, but it only shines this light on an area 1/4 the size, so an f/1.4 M4/3rds lens gathers the same amount of light (i.e., captures the same number of photons) as an f/2.8 FF 35mm lens. So, IMO, for lenses to be comparable across different sensor sizes they have to be able to capture the same amount of light and have roughly the same angle of view. With that standard there are just many (in fact the vast majority) of Leica M lenses that have no comparable M4/3rds lens. If that works for you, great. I can think of many other relevant characteristics of lenses, and fruit. And I didn't write apples to apples anyway....I wrote MORE apples to apples. I have no interest in further peeling the fruit. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 23, 2017 Share #29 Posted February 23, 2017 I looked up published weights (from B&H) and I don't see any weight advantage for my backpacking usage (28mm and 90mm). (GX-8) 487g + (summilux 15)115g + (Nocticron 42.5) 425g = 1027g $900 + $500 + $1300= $2300 battery life 330shots (M240) 680g + (28Cron)270g + (90macro elmar) 230g = 1180g $$$$$$ (of course) battery life 900 shots (this matters when you are away for couple of nights) If I am starting out afresh then it may make sense to go M43 route, but for me it doesn't make sense to switch. Outside backpacking usage, I also use M240 as general purpose camera with 50lux at home and few15mm usage (I always like those). For occasional tele lens usage I can live with MF lens on Nex-6. I am surprised by these kind of comments. The M4/3s system is good and I have used it but it is not comparable to any FF system, and most APS-C systems, inmost aspects of quality. Not to mention its an AF based system with zooms which is nothing to do with a the RF MF based prime system You might as well compare a ford transit van to a Porsche, but whats the point I mean fine going for it but why even bother comparing to Leica M ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share #30 Posted February 23, 2017 I am surprised by these kind of comments. The M4/3s system is good and I have used it but it is not comparable to any FF system, and most APS-C systems, inmost aspects of quality. Not to mention its an AF based system with zooms which is nothing to do with a the RF MF based prime system You might as well compare a ford transit van to a Porsche, but whats the point I mean fine going for it but why even bother comparing to Leica M ... What zooms? I only have the Vario-Elmar, but then it replaces the R zoom. You missed my point, the the newer sensors have been vastly improved, close to the last-gen APS-C, and that the Panaleica primes are a class on their own, not to be compared to the mid-range MFT lenses. To me it is not about chasing the last pixel on an A0 print, but about being versatile enough to get the shot. Let's be realistic here. On this scale a full-frame sensor cannot hold the torch to a medium format digital back. There are always tradeoffs. The question is which compromise works best. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 23, 2017 Share #31 Posted February 23, 2017 [...] I mean fine going for it but why even bother comparing to Leica M ... Indeed, unless M4/3 photogs use M lenses but how many of them are doing that? As much as i may like my little Pana LX100 i don't quite see the point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 23, 2017 Share #32 Posted February 23, 2017 What zooms? I only have the Vario-Elmar, but then it replaces the R zoom. You missed my point, the the newer sensors have been vastly improved, close to the last-gen APS-C, and that the Panaleica primes are a class on their own, not to be compared to the mid-range MFT lenses. To me it is not about chasing the last pixel on an A0 print, but about being versatile enough to get the shot. Let's be realistic here. On this scale a full-frame sensor cannot hold the torch to a medium format digital back. There are always tradeoffs. The question is which compromise works best. I said that M4/3s is a zoom and AF system, Leica AF isn't You talk about improvement in M4/3s sensors but those same improvements are visible in APS-C. I don't believe the latest M4/3s sensors are nearly as good as the latest Fuji or Sony APS-C sensors It's also not pixel peeping, it's visible noise and restricted dynamic range and many other subtle effects Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share #33 Posted February 23, 2017 Noise is fine up to 800 ISO, DR 12.6 stops. More than enough for the intended use. (see DXO). The point is, if the X-1 sensor was more than good enough to keep up, the present Panasonic (and Olympus) MFT sensors are at least on the same level, regardless where APS-C went. My 4/3rds Summiluxes are not zooms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share #34 Posted February 23, 2017 I heard it on internet. Seriously... you are right about FOV. It is the same. However, the out of focus blur (not bokeh, trying to be accurate here) is equivalent for f/2.8 in M43 and f/5.6 in FF. One chooses bigger sensor for shallow DOF. In order to get the same DOF the f stop differences between M43 and FF is 2 stops. On a similar note, APS-C and FF difference is one stop. I had posted on similar topic (between APS-C and FF) here. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268145-dof-for-same-fov-in-ff-vs-aps-c/ But then, looking at this OOF test, the Summilux 15 does not do too badly... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/269711-discussing-leica-lenses-on-micro-43rds/?do=findComment&comment=3219811'>More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted February 23, 2017 Share #35 Posted February 23, 2017 But then, looking at this OOF test, the Summilux 15 does not do too badly... bokeh.jpg Nice shot. In the right situation (close subject and distant background) it can be quite nice. People often forget that how close you can get to the subject and especially the background for the shot are typically much more important than the depth of field capabilities of the lens. That said, i do like having those capabilities. The Panny Leica trio of 15, 25, and 42.5 are very nice lenses. The longitudinal CA on the 15 (you can see it in the fringing around the window in your shot) and 25 could be better, but the 42.5 is really excellent. All three have very nice bokeh when you can create it as in this shot. What I would miss most if I shot m4/3rds would be good wide angle (wider than the 15), I find the options there all pretty meh, but I think it can work very nicely for many people. It seems it will for you. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share #36 Posted February 23, 2017 Yes to the CA, but then that is just me being lazy, it is easy enough to remove in postprocessing. Anyhow, the M240, or other M, will still be around for the Summilux 24 and Super-Elmar 18. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 23, 2017 Share #37 Posted February 23, 2017 Nice shot. In the right situation (close subject and distant background) it can be quite nice. People often forget that how close you can get to the subject and especially the background for the shot are typically much more important than the depth of field capabilities of the lens. That said, i do like having those capabilities. The Panny Leica trio of 15, 25, and 42.5 are very nice lenses. The longitudinal CA on the 15 (you can see it in the fringing around the window in your shot) and 25 could be better, but the 42.5 is really excellent. All three have very nice bokeh when you can create it as in this shot. What I would miss most if I shot m4/3rds would be good wide angle (wider than the 15), I find the options there all pretty meh, but I think it can work very nicely for many people. It seems it will for you. +1 you saved me from typing. Even iPhone can do a good job with subject close by. Look at this. Wider choice is also a factor. I don't use 15mm often on FF but when I do, I love the results (sounds like Dos Equis man). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share #38 Posted February 23, 2017 15=30 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 23, 2017 Share #39 Posted February 23, 2017 15FF = 7.5M43 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share #40 Posted February 23, 2017 Indeed, at wideangle FF reigns However, I have just been playing around and the ability to shoot a Leica 800 mm lens handheld @ 1/30th of a second (no motion blur!!) with flawless tracking focus is a revelation. That is what I bought the system for. The shorter lenses are a bonus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.