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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Nov 17, 2011.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/cam3q4j
    or:
    http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-from-unknown-source-upcoming-x-zoom-lenses-with-f2-8-constant-aperture/
     
    Bruce, Nov 17, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 17, 8:47 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    > http://preview.tinyurl.com/cam3q4j
    > or:http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-from-unknown-source-upcoming-x-zoom-lense....


    Be good if the 35-100mm comes in at about 1/2 the price of the 4/3rds
    Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 ($2700?).
     
    RichA, Nov 17, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 17, 2011
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Nov 17, 8:47 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>
    >> http://preview.tinyurl.com/cam3q4j
    >> or:http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-from-unknown-source-upcoming-x-zoom-lense...

    >
    >Be good if the 35-100mm comes in at about 1/2 the price of the 4/3rds
    >Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 ($2700?).



    There is every reason to believe that the Pana 35-100mm will cost a
    lot less than that lens. The availability of a wide selection of
    lenses at various price points, including some truly excellent glass,
    is the foundation for the future success of Micro Four Thirds.

    Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
    example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.
     
    Bruce, Nov 17, 2011
    #4
  5. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 17, 10:51 am, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > 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.


    That nonsense again.
    1. Not all sensors have the same number of pixels so to say 4/3rds =
    1/4 of FF only applies to the surface area and not the resolution.
    The angle of view is all that is proportional.
    2. Noise control in cameras is vastly divergent, so speed equivalents
    mean absolutely nothing in this context unless you've tested the
    specific sensors. A Nikon 70-200 at f5.6 on a Nikon D3s I'd wager is
    = 35-100mm at f2.0 on the best m4/3rds sensor, from what I've seen.
     
    RichA, Nov 17, 2011
    #5
  6. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 17, 11:29 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Nov 17, 8:47 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> 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.

    >
    > >>http://preview.tinyurl.com/cam3q4j
    > >> or:http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-from-unknown-source-upcoming-x-zoom-lense...

    >
    > >Be good if the 35-100mm comes in at about 1/2 the price of the 4/3rds
    > >Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 ($2700?).

    >
    > There is every reason to believe that the Pana 35-100mm will cost a
    > lot less than that lens.  The availability of a wide selection of
    > lenses at various price points, including some truly excellent glass,
    > is the foundation for the future success of Micro Four Thirds.
    >
    > Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
    > example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.


    Compare to what, a Nikon 50mm f1.8? No. And please don't say it's
    the same on m4/3rds as a 100mm f2.8 is on a Nikon or something along
    those lines, because now we have 3 Nikon interchangeable lens sensors
    sizes. The cost to produce a 45-50mm f1.8 Nikon is going to be in the
    same ballpark as for Olympus, Pentax, etc, provided the lens is
    constructed with roughly the same materials and attention to quality.
    Nikon's 50mm f1.8 is about $220. The Olympus 45mm f1.8 is $400.
    Nikon's new 50mm f1.4 is $440.00. Olympus's 4/3rds 50mm f2.0 macro
    lens, clearly a top flight lens is only $485.00.
     
    RichA, Nov 17, 2011
    #6
  7. David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 17, 2011
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >Bruce <> 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. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Nov 17, 2011
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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.
     
    Bruce, Nov 17, 2011
    #9
  10. "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >
    >> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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.


    It's correct in both respects, as Bruce comments.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 18, 2011
    #10
  11. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 17, 8:11 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    >
    > >> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>> 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.
     
    RichA, Nov 18, 2011
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Nov 17, 8:11 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> 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.
     
    Bruce, Nov 18, 2011
    #12
  13. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>Bruce <> 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://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 18, 2011
    #13
  14. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 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, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 18, 2011
    #14
  15. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>
    >>> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 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, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 18, 2011
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >Bruce <> writes:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>Bruce <> 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.
     
    Bruce, Nov 18, 2011
    #16
  17. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >Bruce <> writes:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>>> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> 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.
     
    Bruce, Nov 18, 2011
    #17
  18. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>Bruce <> writes:
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>>Bruce <> 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, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 18, 2011
    #18
  19. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>Bruce <> writes:
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>>"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >>>>> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> 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, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 18, 2011
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Trevor, Nov 18, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bruce
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,623
    John Turco
    Sep 25, 2010
  2. RichA

    Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

    RichA, Feb 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    223
    RichA
    Feb 8, 2013
  3. Paul Ciszek

    Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

    Paul Ciszek, Feb 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    199
    Paul Ciszek
    Feb 9, 2013
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    197
    Paul Ciszek
    Feb 9, 2013
  5. Wally

    Re: Micro Four Thirds - What to buy?

    Wally, Feb 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    244
    PeterN
    Mar 2, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page