Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Now a New 4/3 Lens Roadmap

Riley

By Riley
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted

FF does ultrawide as well as the lens manufacturer wants the ultrawide to do. I can't believe we still hear that myth you just typed.

 

Blooming? Where did you get that one from? I have seen some of the worst blooming on cheaper 4/3rds lenses.

 

time and again i hear these predictions about the death of 4/3, never one of them has been right. This year more than ever.

 

Seems to me that since FF wont do ultra-wide well, with its edge softness and blooming

and 1.3 crop does significantly better, 1.3 is about the sweet spot

so for what its worth, on your analogy, APS C should have its cheque cancelled too

but while that isnt going to happen either, dont let the truth to it get in the way of a bs argument

 

while your busy ogling those charts for lens specs Simon

and leaving aside that cheap F4 rubbish is far from expensive F2.8 fast

the mtf specification doesnt transfer from system to system

your ideas on 300x2x and 600x1x are nothing short of weird

the person that choses to suggest that Olympus glass isnt up to it is on his ownsome

what you seem not to understand is the Olympus lenses outresolve the sensor

so even if I put some Nikon glass on my 4/3, which i could do, it wouldnt make a scrap of difference

well aside from distorting like a coke bottle anyways

 

the chip density is the limitation, and experience proves that noise limitations aside

chip density still has some way to go, this would be why D2 does such a remarkable job

I would put the D2 up against the D40 any day of the week and twice on Sundays

yet its sensor is a fraction the size of 4/3

 

and so we come to the de-featured D40

The lack of internal motor which prohibits you to buy most affordable 3rd party lenses from Tokina, Sigma and Tamron,

and some other annoyances, make the D40 far from the camera of choice.

 

The lack of an internal motor means that you can only use more expensive AF S lenses, that is unless manual focus has just become better too. And if you plan on shooting RAW instead of JPEG, you will have to pay 150$ extra for Nikon's RAW software. Who ever thinks D40 is an improvement in digital photography has a strange idea about cameras

Link to post
Share on other sites
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted

There's a two stop difference between 4/3rds and FF. So, a Canon 600 f4 is equivalent to a DZ 300 f2, which doesn't exist of course. I wonder how large and expensive one would be though.

 

 

The D40x with a lowly 18-55 will easily beat the mystical "E-3" with anything in the roadmap in terms of resolution.

 

And, Olympus is still trying to fool people with the 300mm@4/3 being equivalent to 600@35mm thing ... think again:

 

If you shoot the same subject from the same distance with a Zuiko 300/2.8 and a EF 600/4L, you can't get the same resolution on the same subject, therefore you can't use the cropped image as the equivalent to the real 35mm FF image.

 

Plus, you're paying more for a 300/2.8 than you should for a 600/4L IS.

 

4/3 is Olympus's shortsighted venture into digital imaging mainly due to their incompetence in semiconductor engineering. It would only make sense when they can't source a big-enough sensor at a reasonable cost.

 

Time has changed. And bigger sensors can be had for a really cheap price now. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
sdai

sdai

Posted
Posted
been there done that

 

cheers

So while I'm biting a hotdog before I head to the next meeting, I took a quick look at Panasonic's promotion material for the 25/1.4 and now they're advertising it as a 50/1.4 equivalent in 35mm terms. I certianly can't argue with respect to the same FOV but let's pull out a DoF calculator:

 

On a E-1, the DOF of the 25/1.4 will actually be:

 

Depth of field Total 2.07 ft

In front of subject 0.93 ft (45%)

Behind subject 1.14 ft (55%)

 

While a standard 50/1.4 on a 5D should give you:

 

Total 1.02 ft

Front 0.48 ft (47%)

Behind 0.54 ft (53%)

 

What does that mean? you can stop down the 50/1.4 on a 5D all the way to f/2.8 to match the 25/1.4 on a E-1. So it's only the equivalent of a 50/2.8 in 35mm terms with the same FOV and DoF.

 

A 50/2.8 on the 5D is like this:

 

Total: 2.06 ft

Front 0.92 ft (45%)

Behind 1.13 ft (55%)

 

Well, I know a 50 at f/2.8 is surely going to leave a 50 at f/1.4 in dusts and you can't get the shallow DOF which is the reason why people buy f/1.4 lenses. :)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

Guest stnami

Posted
Posted
. But now I'm going to call for a timeout and grab something to eat ..
... ran out of constructive things to say Simon?
Link to post
Share on other sites
sdai

sdai

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, a Canon 600 f4 is equivalent to a DZ 300 f2, which doesn't exist of course. I wonder how large and expensive one would be though.

 

Actually, Nikon has built a 300/2 AI-S and it's not that big and expensive even by today's standards. But again, as I've said, you can't get the same results between the two for the same subject from the same distance. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted
So while I'm biting a hotdog before I head to the next meeting, I took a quick look at Panasonic's promotion material for the 25/1.4 and now they're advertising it as a 50/1.4 equivalent in 35mm terms. I certianly can't argue with respect to the same FOV but let's pull out a DoF calculator:

 

On a E-1, the DOF of the 25/1.4 will actually be:

 

Depth of field Total 2.07 ft

In front of subject 0.93 ft (45%)

Behind subject 1.14 ft (55%)

 

While a standard 50/1.4 on a 5D should give you:

 

Total 1.02 ft

Front 0.48 ft (47%)

Behind 0.54 ft (53%)

 

What does that mean? you can stop down the 50/1.4 on a 5D all the way to f/2.8 to match the 25/1.4 on a E-1. So it's only the equivalent of a 50/2.8 in 35mm terms with the same FOV and DoF.

 

A 50/2.8 on the 5D is like this:

 

Total: 2.06 ft

Front 0.92 ft (45%)

Behind 1.13 ft (55%)

 

Well, I know a 50 at f/2.8 is surely going to leave a 50 at f/1.4 in dusts and you can't get the shallow DOF which is the reason why people buy f/1.4 lenses. :)

 

 

Exactly. My FD 50 1.4 is sharp as a razor too at f 2.8. You think the 25 1.4 will be at 1.4?

Link to post
Share on other sites
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted
Actually, Nikon has built a 300/2 AI-S and it's not that big and expensive even by today's standards. But again, as I've said, you can't get the same results between the two for the same subject from the same distance. :)

 

But would a Nikon 300 f2 resolve in the smallish 4/rd-ish center of the frame the equivalent of 10 or 12 megapixels?

 

A DZ 300 f2 would need to have significantly better resolution, hence correction, and would be significantly bigger due to needing more elements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

Guest stnami

Posted
Posted

I used Olies very successfully for ages but gave up on them as there was no action with the high end and prime wides. Low light was a problem, sure 2008 a new camera but it is the beginning of 2007.What I enjoyed was the very wide DOF, a pain with FF. The lenses are great and fantastic colour rendition

 

Oly have a lot to offer, they made a fair bit of green stuff for me, thus never needed a credit card

Link to post
Share on other sites
FastFashnReloaded

FastFashnReloaded

Posted
Posted
The D40x with a lowly 18-55 will easily beat the mystical "E-3" with anything in the roadmap in terms of resolution.

 

Blah blah blah

 

And, Olympus is still trying to fool people with the 300mm@4/3 being equivalent to 600@35mm thing ... think again:

 

Blah blah blah

 

Time has changed. And bigger sensors can be had for a really cheap price now. blah

 

You sound like a Neocon. In other words, inexplicably threatened and whiny.

 

I went from Contax to Oly. Would I have done that if the Nikons and Canons I tried felt like anything but, well, computers on a stick? I used a D200 at a wedding before I settled on my E-500. The D-200 (and similar systems) just don't feel right to me. :p

 

I'm VERY much looking forward to getting an M8 (or equivalent) once the bugs are out of it. I miss my Contax Gs...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Riley

Riley

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I used Olies very successfully for ages but gave up on them as there was no action with the high end and prime wides. Low light was a problem, sure 2008 a new camera but it is the beginning of 2007.What I enjoyed was the very wide DOF, a pain with FF. The lenses are great and fantastic colour rendition

 

Oly have a lot to offer, they made a fair bit of green stuff for me, thus never needed a credit card

 

I think its this winter for us in the southern hemisphere Imants, June/July

Link to post
Share on other sites
Riley

Riley

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Pana/leica's first sample from the 25mm f1.4. The sample pic looks very nice to me and I'll be picking one up.

 

http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/l1/img/sample_images/P1030189.JPG

 

Cheers

 

HarjTT

 

hi Harj

 

yes it even looks good doesnt it, reminiscent of LC-1

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...