Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sigma's lame 4/3rds prime lenses

Reply
Thread Tools

Sigma's lame 4/3rds prime lenses

 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> Slow lenses are a major problem in this regard as even an
> overcast day can kill chances to obtain decent shots, if you are
> trying to shoot a 200 ISO with a zoom that never gets any faster than
> f5.6-6.3.

[]

People can get decent shots even with a P&S on overcast days! With the
4/3 you have the advantage of a larger sensor, so overcast days should be
less of a problem. No need to stick with ISO 200. May lenses these days
have image stabilisation, so no longer are you restricted to the short
exposures of the 1/F.L. seconds rule.

Methinks you aren't taking full advantage of your equipment.

(I accept that low light indoors is a different order of magnitude
problem, but not just "an overcast day".)

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>[]
>> Slow lenses are a major problem in this regard as even an
>> overcast day can kill chances to obtain decent shots, if you are
>> trying to shoot a 200 ISO with a zoom that never gets any faster than
>> f5.6-6.3.

>[]
>
>People can get decent shots even with a P&S on overcast days! With the
>4/3 you have the advantage of a larger sensor, so overcast days should be
>less of a problem. No need to stick with ISO 200. May lenses these days
>have image stabilisation, so no longer are you restricted to the short
>exposures of the 1/F.L. seconds rule.
>
>Methinks you aren't taking full advantage of your equipment.
>
>(I accept that low light indoors is a different order of magnitude
>problem, but not just "an overcast day".)



That's a sound analysis, David. The latest Panasonic 16 MP sensors in
the G3 and GX1 bodies reliably produce low noise images at up to ISO
1600, so there is no need to stop shooting on overcast days. So slow
lenses are no longer an issue as far as noise is concerned.

The latest contrast detect AF system is fast and accurate even in low
light. Unlike most phase detect systems, it is not dependent on
having a lens aperture of f/5.6 or faster. So once again, there isn't
a problem with slow lenses.

I realise that Rich, like so many m43 enthusiasts, demands very fast
lenses whether he needs them or not. The only remaining requirement
for fast glass on m43 bodies is control over depth of field. I'm
tempted to suggest that every m43 outfit should include a fast, high
quality portrait lens, and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is ideal.

It is also inexpensive, offering probably the best value of any native
m43 lens. Win/win.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pete Stavrakoglou
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
It's still fast enough for most people's needs.

"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Jan 10, 8:16 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > f2.8 primes? Is this Russia, 1974?? Unless they're $100 a piece.

>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo

>
> What is so lame about an f2.8 prime?


It's too slow, unless it's a macro or a cheap 100mm. Remember when
Olympus had f2.0 version of nearly all their OM wide primes, at a
price.


 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
On Jan 11, 2:44*am, "David J Taylor" <david-
(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> []> Slow lenses are a major problem in this regard as even an
> > overcast day can kill chances to obtain decent shots, if you are
> > trying to shoot a 200 ISO with a zoom that never gets any faster than
> > f5.6-6.3.

>
> []
>
> People can get decent shots even with a P&S on overcast days! *With the
> 4/3 you have the advantage of a larger sensor, so overcast days should be
> less of a problem. *No need to stick with ISO 200. *May lenses these days
> have image stabilisation, so no longer are you restricted to the short
> exposures of the 1/F.L. seconds rule.
>
> Methinks you aren't taking full advantage of your equipment.
>
> (I accept that low light indoors is a different order of magnitude
> problem, but not just "an overcast day".)
>
> David


I probably just have lower tolerance for noise. 4/3rds at 400-800ISO
in shadows is noisy, so keeping (ideally) at 200 ISO is important.
Also things like birds and animals tend to be shadowed, even on bright
days (if you shoot in a forested area) so effectively, you are
shooting in dusk-like conditions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
On Jan 11, 2:59*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >[]
> >> Slow lenses are a major problem in this regard as even an
> >> overcast day can kill chances to obtain decent shots, if you are
> >> trying to shoot a 200 ISO with a zoom that never gets any faster than
> >> f5.6-6.3.

> >[]

>
> >People can get decent shots even with a P&S on overcast days! *With the
> >4/3 you have the advantage of a larger sensor, so overcast days should be
> >less of a problem. *No need to stick with ISO 200. *May lenses thesedays
> >have image stabilisation, so no longer are you restricted to the short
> >exposures of the 1/F.L. seconds rule.

>
> >Methinks you aren't taking full advantage of your equipment.

>
> >(I accept that low light indoors is a different order of magnitude
> >problem, but not just "an overcast day".)

>
> That's a sound analysis, David. *The latest Panasonic 16 MP sensors in
> the G3 and GX1 bodies reliably produce low noise images at up to ISO
> 1600, so there is no need to stop shooting on overcast days. * So slow
> lenses are no longer an issue as far as noise is concerned.
>


Well, this is the GH2 at 1600 ISO (raw conversion, no NR applied) and
while the noise is nice-looking, it is still visible. Click
"Original" to see it full sized.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133628881/large
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Jan 11, 2:59*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> The latest Panasonic 16 MP sensors in
>> the G3 and GX1 bodies reliably produce low noise images at up to ISO
>> 1600, so there is no need to stop shooting on overcast days. * So slow
>> lenses are no longer an issue as far as noise is concerned.
>>

>
>Well, this is the GH2 at 1600 ISO (raw conversion, no NR applied) and
>while the noise is nice-looking, it is still visible. Click
>"Original" to see it full sized.
>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133628881/large



You obviously missed the bit where I specifically stated "The latest
Panasonic 16 MP sensors in the G3 and GX1 bodies reliably produce low
noise images at up to ISO 1600, so there is no need to stop shooting
on overcast days."

Note that I did not include the GH2 in that list. Thank you for
providing a sample image which illustrates why.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Jan 10, 8:16*am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> > f2.8 primes? *Is this Russia, 1974?? *Unless they're $100 a piece.

>>
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/SigmaDigitalNeo

>>
>> What is so lame about an f2.8 prime?

>
> It's too slow, unless it's a macro or a cheap 100mm. Remember when
> Olympus had f2.0 version of nearly all their OM wide primes, at a
> price.


In 1970, the normal choices for 50mm and 35mm lenses were f/2 and
f/1.4. Now, 40 years later, they're trying to pass off primes in that
range that are a full stop slower?
--
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 J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> I probably just have lower tolerance for noise. 4/3rds at 400-800ISO
> in shadows is noisy, so keeping (ideally) at 200 ISO is important.
> Also things like birds and animals tend to be shadowed, even on bright
> days (if you shoot in a forested area) so effectively, you are
> shooting in dusk-like conditions.


Try viewing images at "normal viewing distance" rather than pixel peeping.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> Well, this is the GH2 at 1600 ISO (raw conversion, no NR applied) and
> while the noise is nice-looking, it is still visible. Click
> "Original" to see it full sized.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133628881/large


Yes, you can see the noise at 1:1 display, but that's a 47-inch wide image
on my display. What's it like at 12 x 9 inches?

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-11-2012
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>In 1970, the normal choices for 50mm and 35mm lenses were f/2 and
>f/1.4. Now, 40 years later, they're trying to pass off primes in that
>range that are a full stop slower?



If you bring the 1970 prices up to today's value by allowing for
inflation, I think you will find that many of today's lenses are much
cheaper than those 1970s f/2 and f/1.4 lenses were.

 
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
Prime numbers: addative property modulo p, where p is prime Jeremy Fischer Perl Misc 0 01-16-2005 05:53 PM
Re: Mozilla (Firefox 1.0 PR) DOES NOT SORT BOOKMARKS (& Lame Sound Effects)!!! Chaos Master Firefox 0 09-29-2004 03:43 AM
Re: Mozilla (Firefox 1.0 PR) DOES NOT SORT BOOKMARKS (& Lame SoundEffects)!!! --BRIAN-- Firefox 1 09-29-2004 03:43 AM
Re: Mozilla (Firefox 1.0 PR) DOES NOT SORT BOOKMARKS (& Lame Sound Effects)!!! RAV Firefox 0 09-28-2004 09:46 PM
Re: [Survey] -Prime Lenses in the kit -results Orville Wright Digital Photography 65 06-29-2004 01:38 PM



Advertisments