Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds

Reply
Thread Tools

Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
On Nov 17, 8:11*pm, "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>
> >> "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> >>> 43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
> >>> Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.

>
> >>> There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
> >>> 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). *I have had much the same
> >>> information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
> >>> possibly the same source.

>
> >> Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF,
> >> in
> >> terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts,
> >> of
> >> course).

>
> >> Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

>
> > Nonsense. *We've been over this over and over again. *Your positionis
> > technically accurate but photographically absurd.

>
> Huh? You think f/5.6 is fast enough for low light? You think f/5.6 is wide
> enough for shallow DoF portraits?



According to one online calculator, using a lens at 55mm f5.6 on a
m4/3rd camera at 48" produces a DOF of 3.00" That's pretty shallow.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 8:11*pm, "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Huh? You think f/5.6 is fast enough for low light? You think f/5.6 is wide
>> enough for shallow DoF portraits?

>
>According to one online calculator, using a lens at 55mm f5.6 on a
>m4/3rd camera at 48" produces a DOF of 3.00" That's pretty shallow.



I would love to see the results of a portrait shoot with a 55mm lens
on a Micro Four Thirds camera at a focusing distance of 48 inches.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
>>> example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.

>>
>>Ctein agrees in his review on The Online Photographer yesterday
>><http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-45mm.html>

>
> Ctein is infatuated with Olympus.


He's very pleased with that camera and that lens, certainly. Wait for
(I think it's next week) when he reviews the 12mm f/2, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
>>>> Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.
>>>>
>>>> There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
>>>> 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
>>>> information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
>>>> possibly the same source.
>>>
>>> Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF, in
>>> terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts, of
>>> course).
>>>
>>> Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

>>
>>Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
>>technically accurate but photographically absurd.

>
>
> Why absurd? It's a valid point of view, in both cases - DOF and light
> gathered per pixel. It is uncannily accurate when it comes to
> explaining the broad differences in performance between systems with
> differing sensor sizes.


Mostly people don't want to exactly duplicate what they have somewhere
else. And mostly people want more depth of field, not less.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
>>>> Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.
>>>>
>>>> There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
>>>> 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
>>>> information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
>>>> possibly the same source.
>>>
>>> Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF,
>>> in
>>> terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts,
>>> of
>>> course).
>>>
>>> Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

>>
>> Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
>> technically accurate but photographically absurd.

>
> Huh? You think f/5.6 is fast enough for low light? You think f/5.6 is wide
> enough for shallow DoF portraits?


Can be, at ISO 6400. I had to use it last Saturday, because my 400mm is
f/5.6 and I was shooting roller derby. Light wasn't THAT low, but was
low compared to the shutter speed needed.

f/2.8 was very workable at ISO 3200 (which is a speed I'm comfortable
using on my D700 without worrying much).

The Nikon 70-200 on my m43 wasn't a tempting solution, no; ISO 3200 is
not workable on the EPL-2.

On the other hand, at ISO 200 on both, the results are very comparable,
and the lens gives a much narrower angle of view.

> There's no 35mm photographer who has ever though those things.
>
> But the m43 folks have you bamboozled into arguing them. ROFL.


Has nothing to do with m43, goes back to crop-sensor DSLRs like the Fuji
S2 and Nikon D200 for me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
>>>> example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.
>>>
>>>Ctein agrees in his review on The Online Photographer yesterday
>>><http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-45mm.html>

>>
>> Ctein is infatuated with Olympus.

>
>He's very pleased with that camera and that lens, certainly. Wait for
>(I think it's next week) when he reviews the 12mm f/2, though.



I don't doubt that Ctein can be very entertaining, but I have a slight
problem with a 'serious' photographer who gets so excited about a
camera whose sensor has such a crippled dynamic range.

A DxOMark comparison reveals that the latest Olympus E-P3 has 10.1
stops of dynamic range. The Canon PowerShot G12 beats that by more
than a full stop yet has a *tiny* sensor. The Panasonic DMC-LX5
manages 0.7 stops more than the E-P3. The Nikon D7000's Sony-made
APS-C sensor beats the Olympus by almost four stops!

I quite like my new Panasonic G3 and, over time, I will equip it with
some very good glass and no doubt have a lot of fun. But it will
always be hobbled by the lack of DR which seems to hobble all Micro
Four Thirds sensors, so I cannot get too excited about it.

What I like about the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is the price. It is a good
quality lens at a reasonable price. But I cannot get excited about
the Olympus 12mm f/2. Optically, it is good, in the same class as the
90mm, but the price seems disproportionately high.

Couple the high price of Olympus bodies and (most) lenses with the
poor dynamic range, which is a very severe constraint, and I really
cannot understand Ctein's enthusiasm.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> 43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
>>>>> Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
>>>>> 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
>>>>> information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
>>>>> possibly the same source.
>>>>
>>>> Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF, in
>>>> terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts, of
>>>> course).
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
>>>technically accurate but photographically absurd.

>>
>>
>> Why absurd? It's a valid point of view, in both cases - DOF and light
>> gathered per pixel. It is uncannily accurate when it comes to
>> explaining the broad differences in performance between systems with
>> differing sensor sizes.

>
>Mostly people don't want to exactly duplicate what they have somewhere
>else.



That's true. Otherwise I would not have bought a Panasonic G3. But
that doesn't mean that all comparisons are invalid.

David Taylor has made exactly the same point as David Littleboy in the
past. On hearing it, my first reaction was the same as yours. But if
you think about it, their argument is quite compelling. It certainly
explains why smaller sensors have proportionately greater problems
with noise.


>And mostly people want more depth of field, not less.



I agree. Working in retail has taught me that, for most people, the
more DOF they have, the better.

I have lost count of how many people have complained about out of
focus shots having changed from a p+s or superzoom digicam to Micro
Four Thirds or APS-C. If someone has never valued the control over
depth of field that larger formats give them, they certainly aren't
going to welcome it when their snapshots are out of focus!

But for those of us who do value control over depth of field, it is
important to know just how much control you give up by changing to a
smaller format. Or, to put it another way, just how much wider (in
terms of f/ number) your lenses need to be on Four Thirds compared to
full frame to get the same level of control.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>> Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
>>>>> example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.
>>>>
>>>>Ctein agrees in his review on The Online Photographer yesterday
>>>><http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-45mm.html>
>>>
>>> Ctein is infatuated with Olympus.

>>
>>He's very pleased with that camera and that lens, certainly. Wait for
>>(I think it's next week) when he reviews the 12mm f/2, though.

>
>
> I don't doubt that Ctein can be very entertaining, but I have a slight
> problem with a 'serious' photographer who gets so excited about a
> camera whose sensor has such a crippled dynamic range.


Serious photographers get judged by their photographs, not what
equipment they use.

> A DxOMark comparison reveals that the latest Olympus E-P3 has 10.1
> stops of dynamic range. The Canon PowerShot G12 beats that by more
> than a full stop yet has a *tiny* sensor. The Panasonic DMC-LX5
> manages 0.7 stops more than the E-P3. The Nikon D7000's Sony-made
> APS-C sensor beats the Olympus by almost four stops!


So what you're saying is that people couldn't ever make decent
photographs on film, is that it?

> I quite like my new Panasonic G3 and, over time, I will equip it with
> some very good glass and no doubt have a lot of fun. But it will
> always be hobbled by the lack of DR which seems to hobble all Micro
> Four Thirds sensors, so I cannot get too excited about it.


And there's always HDR in various flavors, for the rare case where DR is
actually a problem.

> What I like about the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is the price. It is a good
> quality lens at a reasonable price. But I cannot get excited about
> the Olympus 12mm f/2. Optically, it is good, in the same class as the
> 90mm, but the price seems disproportionately high.


It's a bit high-priced certainly. For what I use that camera for I
won't be buying it. Might need the 45 though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>> "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> 43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
>>>>>> Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
>>>>>> 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
>>>>>> information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
>>>>>> possibly the same source.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF, in
>>>>> terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts, of
>>>>> course).
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
>>>>technically accurate but photographically absurd.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why absurd? It's a valid point of view, in both cases - DOF and light
>>> gathered per pixel. It is uncannily accurate when it comes to
>>> explaining the broad differences in performance between systems with
>>> differing sensor sizes.

>>
>>Mostly people don't want to exactly duplicate what they have somewhere
>>else.

>
>
> That's true. Otherwise I would not have bought a Panasonic G3. But
> that doesn't mean that all comparisons are invalid.
>
> David Taylor has made exactly the same point as David Littleboy in the
> past. On hearing it, my first reaction was the same as yours. But if
> you think about it, their argument is quite compelling. It certainly
> explains why smaller sensors have proportionately greater problems
> with noise.


That was never a mystery. Physical pixel size affects noise a lot.

>>And mostly people want more depth of field, not less.

>
> I agree. Working in retail has taught me that, for most people, the
> more DOF they have, the better.
>
> I have lost count of how many people have complained about out of
> focus shots having changed from a p+s or superzoom digicam to Micro
> Four Thirds or APS-C. If someone has never valued the control over
> depth of field that larger formats give them, they certainly aren't
> going to welcome it when their snapshots are out of focus!


For that matter, the thing that view cameras were famous for was being
able to manage the depth of field to get everything in focus.

> But for those of us who do value control over depth of field, it is
> important to know just how much control you give up by changing to a
> smaller format. Or, to put it another way, just how much wider (in
> terms of f/ number) your lenses need to be on Four Thirds compared to
> full frame to get the same level of control.


If I can't get enough depth to include all my subjects, then I don't
have control of my DoF! And I hate that.

In most practical situations, I can't throw the background out of focus
ENOUGH to get rid of distractions, even at f/1.4, so I've mostly stopped
looking for that to solve my problems.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2011

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I would love to see the results of a portrait shoot with a 55mm lens
> on a Micro Four Thirds camera at a focusing distance of 48 inches.


Why, are you a fan of nose hairs?



Trevor.


 
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
Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy? Wally Digital Photography 7 03-02-2013 02:15 AM
Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy? Paul Ciszek Digital Photography 3 02-09-2013 10:44 PM
Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 1 02-09-2013 10:42 PM
Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy? RichA Digital Photography 0 02-08-2013 02:12 AM
New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not Four Thirds! Bruce Digital Photography 31 09-25-2010 05:38 AM



Advertisments