Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Should 4/3 lenses be half the size of full frame lenses?

Reply
Thread Tools

Should 4/3 lenses be half the size of full frame lenses?

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2011
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Only if the pint glass has perpendicular sides, and I've never seen
>> one like that.

>
>You haven't been to Cologne, then.
>
> http://www.naturarena.de/img/Bilder/..._neu_kopie.jpg
> http://www.yopi.de/image/prod_pics/5237/e/5237527.jpg
> http://bilder.afterbuy.de/images/749..._Stange_03.jpg
>
>-Wolfgang


Actually, I have been to Cologne. Stayed in the Ibis Hotel near the
train station in 1987. Smallest, barest, hotel room I've ever stayed
in.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2011
On Jun 22, 2:14*pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> > I work at 100% a lot while retouching. *Or 200%.
> >> OK, but then you are not looking at the photos, but at tiny details
> >> you need larger to properly edit them. *And if it wasn't for the
> >> 12 MPix, you'd need 141% and 283%.

> > For both dust on the sensor, and actual image details,
> > they'll be twice as big (in pixels; same size in physical
> > on-sensor image dimensions) on the 6MP sensor,

>
> Huh? *
> - A dust speck of the same size will cover 2x more pixels on the 12 MPix
> * sensor.


It'll cover the same physical size, and when I display the image
on my screen at any given physical size, will be equally big.

All of which is a side issue, as I think we've agreed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
Bruce wrote:
>
> > "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> "bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message:
> >>
> >> 4/3 camera has a sensor that is about half the length and height of
> >> a full frame sensor (1/4 the area).
> >>
> >> Does that mean a 4/3 camera lense would be half the diameter of an
> >> equivalent full frame lense?

> >
> > .. and half the length, and one eighth of the weight! Doesn't seem to
> > be so in practice, though. You also use the word "equivalent". To be
> > equivalent in light gathering power an f/2.8 full-frame lens would need
> > to be replaced by an f/1.4 half-frame lens. Somewhat more costly to
> > make, if possible at all.

>
> You're showing your (profound) ignorance again, David.


And, >you're< proving (for the millionth time) that you're a liar,
"Bruce."

I mean...you >did< claim to have kill-filed David Taylor, right?

> The light gathering power of an f/2.8 Four Thirds lens is identical
> to an f/2.8 APS-C lens, an f/2.8 full frame lens and an f/2.8 medium
> format lens, regardless of focal length.
>
> The clue is in the term "f/".
>
> Perhaps you should stick to enjoying your consumer grade DSLR and
> your consumer grade lenses, and stop dispensing consumer grade
> "advice".


Yeah, maybe David should make the trek from Scotlamd to England,
and visit your cozy camera shop. Then, you could use your "hard
sell" tactics on him, and unload lots of "professional" gear.

Oh, hold on...does Fisher-Price even make DSLR equipment?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
David J Taylor wrote:
>
> > "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message:


<edited for brevity>

> > Still, flatly telling people that f/1.4 on a micro 4/3rds lens is
> > equivalent to f/2.8 on a full-frame lens is just plain wrong.

>
> Which is why I asked the OP to clarify what they meant by "equivalent".
> For the same number of photons on the sensor, what I say is correct.
>
> I haven't done the depth of field sums - that was likely Roger Clarkson.
>
> Cheers,
> David



You'd meant Roger N. Clark, I'm sure.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
dj_nme wrote:
>
> > On 15/06/2011 1:02 PM, nospam wrote:
> >> In article<4df7f5d7$0$13391$(E-Mail Removed) m.au>, dj_nme
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem with your idea is that to get the same DoF and shutter speed
> >> on a smaller format, the ISO must be lowered.
> >> This is not always possible, EG: how do you lower the ISO if the setting
> >> is already at the lowest when using the same aperture and shutter
> >> setting as the FF camera?
> >> Big problem, isn't it?

> >
> > nope. you raise the iso of the larger format.

>
> Yes it is.
>
> I am asking you how a smaller format could lower it's ISO when you have
> opened up the aperture to match the exposure value of a FF camera set at
> the same ISO.
> If you don't know how, then just say so.
>
> I know how to get around the problem (assuming that the smaller format
> lens can open wide enough to match DoF): use ND filters to cut the
> amount of light and prevent over-exposure (keeping the same exposure
> value as on the FF camera).
> Without the ND filters, you smaller format can't do that and you are SOL
> (so out of luck).



Hey, "dj_nme" -- why does every one of your sentences, always begin on a
new line?

(On the other hand, "nospam" never uses uppercase letters.)

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
dj_nme wrote:
>
> > On 15/06/2011 6:32 PM, David J Taylor wrote:
> >> "dj_nme" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:4df86489$0$3032$(E-Mail Removed) ...

> > []
> >> So this is all just sort of long, drawn-out 4/3 camera bash?

> >
> > It's a discussion of what is the "equivalent" lens for 4/3 compared to
> > full-frame, the question I asked in the first place. If you want
> > equivalent exposure times for a given light level, then look for the
> > same f/number. If you want equivalence in other areas such as the same
> > depth-of-focus or the same image quality for a given light level, you
> > need double the aperture, half the f/number.

>
> I know all this, I have been participating in the discussion here.
> Perhaps my reply to "nospam" should have been worded to make it clear
> that I was after his solution (by writing "I am asking how would you
> [nospam] make..."), rather than making it so open sounding.
> I know how to get around the problem: ND filters.
> It ain't rocket surgery.


<edited for brevity>

Nor brain science.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
nospam wrote:
>
> > In article <4df862ec$0$2442$(E-Mail Removed)>, dj_nme
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > I am asking you how a smaller format could lower it's ISO when you have
> > opened up the aperture to match the exposure value of a FF camera set at
> > the same ISO.
> > If you don't know how, then just say so.

>
> if you can't lower the iso on the 4/3rds you raise it on the full
> frame. it doesn't matter which (or even a little on both), as long as
> there's a 2 stop difference. it's really quite simple.



"Don't Raise the Bridge, Lower the River" (196 is a Jerry Lewis movie
comedy.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
"John Turco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>> > "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message:

>
> <edited for brevity>
>
>> > Still, flatly telling people that f/1.4 on a micro 4/3rds lens is
>> > equivalent to f/2.8 on a full-frame lens is just plain wrong.

>>
>> Which is why I asked the OP to clarify what they meant by "equivalent".
>> For the same number of photons on the sensor, what I say is correct.
>>
>> I haven't done the depth of field sums - that was likely Roger
>> Clarkson.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David

>
>
> You'd meant Roger N. Clark, I'm sure.
>
> --
> Cordially,
> John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>


Yes, of course!

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/

Somehow the "clark" and "vision" became combined to form the new
"Clarkson"

Oops!

Thanks, John.
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2:14*pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> > I work at 100% a lot while retouching. *Or 200%.
>> >> OK, but then you are not looking at the photos, but at tiny details
>> >> you need larger to properly edit them. *And if it wasn't for the
>> >> 12 MPix, you'd need 141% and 283%.
>> > For both dust on the sensor, and actual image details,
>> > they'll be twice as big (in pixels; same size in physical
>> > on-sensor image dimensions) on the 6MP sensor,


Did you mean "12MP sensor" here? That would explain everything ...

>> Huh? *
>> - A dust speck of the same size will cover 2x more pixels on the 12 MPix
>> * sensor.


> It'll cover the same physical size, and when I display the image
> on my screen at any given physical size, will be equally big.


Agreed.

> All of which is a side issue, as I think we've agreed.


We do. Just trying to understand where what you meant and what
I understood diverged from each other ... or if I am just plain
wrong on a point in my mental model of sensors and enlargements.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
comparing the first half of a string to the second half joe chesak Ruby 7 09-23-2010 03:34 AM
ie7 displaying only half of page (cuts page in half)... trint ASP .Net 4 09-11-2007 10:56 AM
Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses measekite Digital Photography 15 09-13-2006 03:36 PM
regexp that matches half then conditionally excludes the other half Mike Ballard Perl Misc 6 11-15-2005 03:26 PM



Advertisments