gavinlg
Veteran
Hell yeah - I'm considering another m4/3 cam now. Can't wait to see (for the 10 millionth time) some super wide primes. Something like a 12mm f1.8, 14mm 1.4 and 17mm 1.2 would get my money.
Makten
-
I know!Makten you're always so popular!(Twok on fm)
Good, because I'm not the one using false assumptions here.
Let me suggest that you think about this over the weekend: Why is an ISO 100 image from an MFT camera noisier than an ISO 100 image from an FF camera?
Last edited:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Agreed. I wonder about a m4/3 rangefinder sometime down the road. Does anyone know whether lenses such as this could work on a rangefinder?
P
Paul T
Guest
I know!
Good, because I'm not the one using false assumptions here.
What relevance does this have, to this lens?
You are talking about another issue, namely sensor size. It's an old issue, one which people have made their decisions; they've either bought into this system, or another one. But to use this issue to slag off a new lens simply isn't relevant. The lens acts a 50/.95 on this system. To people who like this system, it's an exciting development.
If you don't like micro 4/3, consider it too noisy or has inferior DR, you won't like this lens. But telling us so doesn't contribute usefully to the debate on this lens.
igi
Well-known
It's still a long 8months till April Fools
(argh! While browsing this thread, I read that discussion about apertures and light-gathering again... it burns!!! stop and give it up already! F 0.95 is F0.95!!!)
(argh! While browsing this thread, I read that discussion about apertures and light-gathering again... it burns!!! stop and give it up already! F 0.95 is F0.95!!!)
Makten
-
Quite some, if people actually believe that it gathers as much light as a 50/0.95 on FF. Hopefully, most people don't.
I have nothing against MFT and I applaude this initiative from Cosina.
Just don't make it to something it's not.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Quite some, if people actually believe that it gathers as much light as a 50/0.95 on FF. Hopefully, most people don't.
I have nothing against MFT and I applaude this initiative from Cosina.
Perhaps we can put this to bed now? I (and others I assume) understand your point.
gavinlg
Veteran
Good, because I'm not the one using false assumptions here.
e-pl1 at iso100:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EPL1/FULLRES/EPL1INBI0100.HTM
5d mkii at iso 100
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/FULLRES/E5D2INBI00100.HTM
Wow, so much noisier
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
For what it's worth, I have used the Nokton 1.5/50 on both, a micro 4/3rd and a 35mm film camera in similar situations. From a practical standpoint, there was no detectable difference in terms of exposure.
What I also find a bit odd is, if I hold a lens under a lamp and project the image on a piece of paper, the amount of light the paper recieves does not depend on the size of the paper.
We are getting way off topic here. Maybe these interesting technical discussions could continue in a separate thread?
What I also find a bit odd is, if I hold a lens under a lamp and project the image on a piece of paper, the amount of light the paper recieves does not depend on the size of the paper.
We are getting way off topic here. Maybe these interesting technical discussions could continue in a separate thread?
P
Paul T
Guest
Argh!
THis argument comes from two definitions. The new lens will direct as much light, per square millimetret, as as 50mm/.95; but the 50/.95 will deliver light, at that same intensity, onto a physically larger area.
IN your analogy, with the piece of paper, the intensity of the light remains the same, but the total amount of light captured will of course be larger, with a larger sheet of paper. But that fact is irrelevant, bar that with sensors, to have more photons captured (with a larger sensor) is likely to produce less noise.
This has been extrapolated into saying the 25/.95 is somehow worse/ . It's completely irrelevant, an argument about semantics.
gavinlg
Veteran
What he's saying is that because the sensor is smaller in a 4/3 cam, you need to have twice the lens speed to match a full frame sensor, so you can drop the ISO 2 stops for equal image quality. For instance - iso 100, f.95, 1/30th on 4/3, iso 400, f1.9, 1/30th on 5d will be equal because the larger sensor's noise characteristics at iso 400 are equal to the 4/3s cams noise characteristics at iso 100.
In theory this is correct if both sensors are exactly the same in every way except for their size, but in practice up to about ISO 800 both cams are fairly comparable under the right conditions.
Dont forget things like IS on the olympus bodies throws another spanner in the 'in actual use' works. An e-pl1 with a 25mm f.95 lens, with image stabilisation (up to 3 stops in shutter speed) will be a formidable low light machine.
Last edited:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Yep, I think we've got it. Paul and Gavin are on the money. Bigger sensors are bigger but not necessarily better.
gho
Well-known
Ah, ok, thank you for the clarification.
Z
zeezea
Guest
I think you`ve illuminated (no pun intended) the issue quite well here
Paul ( at least for me ). I hope this can ease some of the fireworks and
put the discussion back on track for this interesting new product.
P.S.
Perhaps Stephen and the Mods might consider creating a
"Hairsplitters Sub-Forum"
Regards,
Al
The Mods prefer pool party at my house for dealing with threads like these.
Z
zeezea
Guest
Ha Ha. Actually that might be the best solution for all of us.
Unfortunately, I`m afraid there are some who could not resist
the urge to tutor you on the proper Ph level of your pool water. :bang:
Regards,
Al
blw
Well-known
Here's a vote from the peanut gallery in favor of a pool party, with Yes playing on the hi-fi, but please...for the love of red wine...leave the Capri Sun out man!
As for the lens, it is an interesting development; but I'm in the group that would still like to see a new body eventually- preferably with some form of viewfinder.
That said, I might look into the screen-focussing capabilities of the existing M4/3 cameras with more interest- based on what I've read in this thread.
As for the lens, it is an interesting development; but I'm in the group that would still like to see a new body eventually- preferably with some form of viewfinder.
That said, I might look into the screen-focussing capabilities of the existing M4/3 cameras with more interest- based on what I've read in this thread.
pingle
Member
Hmmm...
This is awesome: if I take a picture outside today with my M4-2 and HP5+, at f/16 I'll need a shutter speed of about 1/400s. But if I load the 8X10 up with the same HP5+ (but about 60 times larger "sensor"), Makten's Law requires me to shoot at about 1/64000s to get "equal results". Anyone got any NDs?
PS: I never said anything about NDs.
Makten
-
Yeah, it's very much noisier. Especially when you consider the pixel count.e-pl1 at iso100:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EPL1/FULLRES/EPL1INBI0100.HTM
5d mkii at iso 100
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/FULLRES/E5D2INBI00100.HTM
Wow, so much noisier
Edit: Have anyone found a picture of the lens, attached to a MFT camera? Would be interesting to see.
Last edited: