Anti-full frame article

"Paul Furman" wrote in message ...
RichA wrote:

http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secret...FrameWars.html


"How about diffraction? Doesn't that count. Yes, and avoidance of it is a worthwhile goal, but the diffraction limits between
your full-frame 12.8MP camera and an APS-C frame 10MP camera is only about 0.7 f-stop. You paid WHAT for 2/3 of a stop of
diffraction threshold and 3MP?"

That's real gain though :-) No way to cheat around it.

Actually, the difference is about 1&1/3 stops - twice what the article's author claims. The author seems to believe that the
diffraction limit is related to the pixel size. It isn't - it's related to the overall sensor size.

FF also has a major advantage when it comes to using shallow DoF - cameras with smaller sensors need proportionately larger aperture
ratios (ie smaller f-numbers) to keep DoF down to the same extent.

Cheers
--
cmyk

RichA wrote:
Sorry, the images won't reproduce here of course.
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secret...FrameWars.html

Wholly Grail?

Wholly stupid.

Movies never really got off the 35mm standard,

like the 70mm standard ...

[ca. 1000 lines wanna-be rant removed]

Let's just say, small is beautiful, and keep to the 3x5mm
sensors, OK? BTW: your keyboard is plastic.

-Wolfgang

On Feb 12, 1:45 am, frederick wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:19 pm, frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secret...FrameWars.html
Wholly Grail?
Agreed it's interesting reading. I'll take a stab at it...
"the full frame-ness of the camera is nice, but is it worth a 275%+
premium?"
Yeah well the benefit is is diminishing, that's for sure, nothing new to
that idea. People should understand that before buying.
"How about diffraction? Doesn't that count. Yes, and avoidance of it is
a worthwhile goal, but the diffraction limits between your full-frame
12.8MP camera and an APS-C frame 10MP camera is only about 0.7 f-stop.
You paid WHAT for 2/3 of a stop of diffraction threshold and 3MP?"
That's real gain though :-) No way to cheat around it.
Except that's a wrong assumption.
While the amount of diffraction (assuming the same final print size etc)
may be more with a smaller sensor with lens at the same f-stop, if
lenses with the same FOV are used at an f-stop giving the same depth of
field, then there's no difference, as DOF and diffraction scale.
Larger sensor allows reduced DOF. Assuming same pixel count vs a
smaller sensor, it doesn't allow greater DOF or resolution.
It would become really significant when cameras have such high pixel
counts that they are diffraction limited at normal working apertures.
Pentax (K20d) Sony (A350) and Olympus (E3) are already there, Olympus
makes up for it somewhat by making some very fast glass. But the price
of those makes the whole system unattractive IMO.

You have to think of the lenses in terms of the equivalent focal
lengths they offer.
Well, the (as an example) the Olympus 150mm f2.0 is around $2300.

That's equivalent to a 300mm f4 on 35mm.
A Canon 300mm f4l IS is $1100.

Olympus prices seriously suck.

What do you suppose Canon's upcoming 200mm f2.0 will cost?

Don't know, but probably less than an equivalent Zuiko 100mm f1.4, if
they could make one.


Canon's 200mm f2.0 will cost between $5000-$6000. Pathetic.

"RichA" wrote:

Inside the first Full Frame camera, the Ur-Leica, a 24 x 36mm
frame made amazingly large 100 x 150mm prints (4 x 6 inches), and a
whole series of industries were born.

While arguably the Ur-Leica could make 100x150mm prints, it
would have been a custom job to do so. Until the minilab
era, 4x6" prints were uncommon, as most photographic paper
was sold to match large format sizes like 5x7 and 8x10". It
was far more common to print 35mm film using half a 5x7 sheet,
resulting in a 3.5x5" print.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

"RichA" wrote:

Canon's 200mm f2.0 will cost between $5000-$6000. Pathetic.

What's pathetic is people who don't understand that the f stop determines
the flux _per unit area_ at the sensor and that the 4/3 camera's pixels,
being only 1/4 the area of a FF camera's pixels, only collect 1/4 of the
light. So to match the IQ (and DOF) that Canon's 200mm f/2.8 lens delivers,
Olympus must have an f/1.4 100mmm lens.

But they don't.

And they certainly don't have the f/0.9 100mm lens they need to match the
200/1.8.

And they also don't have the f/0.7 25mm lens they need to match the Canon
50/1.4. Or the 50/1.0 they need to match the 100/2.0.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Feb 12, 10:04 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"RichA" wrote:
Canon's 200mm f2.0 will cost between $5000-$6000. Pathetic.

What's pathetic is people who don't understand that the f stop determines
the flux _per unit area_ at the sensor and that the 4/3 camera's pixels,
being only 1/4 the area of a FF camera's pixels, only collect 1/4 of the
light. So to match the IQ (and DOF) that Canon's 200mm f/2.8 lens delivers,
Olympus must have an f/1.4 100mmm lens.

But they don't.

And they certainly don't have the f/0.9 100mm lens they need to match the
200/1.8.

And they also don't have the f/0.7 25mm lens they need to match the Canon
50/1.4. Or the 50/1.0 they need to match the 100/2.0.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Why are you stuck on all those ancient, old film lenses?

frederick wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:19 pm, frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secret...FrameWars.html
Wholly Grail?
Agreed it's interesting reading. I'll take a stab at it...
"the full frame-ness of the camera is nice, but is it worth a 275%+
premium?"
Yeah well the benefit is is diminishing, that's for sure, nothing
new to
that idea. People should understand that before buying.
"How about diffraction? Doesn't that count. Yes, and avoidance of it is
a worthwhile goal, but the diffraction limits between your full-frame
12.8MP camera and an APS-C frame 10MP camera is only about 0.7 f-stop.
You paid WHAT for 2/3 of a stop of diffraction threshold and 3MP?"
That's real gain though :-) No way to cheat around it.
Except that's a wrong assumption.
While the amount of diffraction (assuming the same final print size etc)
may be more with a smaller sensor with lens at the same f-stop, if
lenses with the same FOV are used at an f-stop giving the same depth of
field, then there's no difference, as DOF and diffraction scale.
Larger sensor allows reduced DOF. Assuming same pixel count vs a
smaller sensor, it doesn't allow greater DOF or resolution.
It would become really significant when cameras have such high pixel
counts that they are diffraction limited at normal working apertures.
Pentax (K20d) Sony (A350) and Olympus (E3) are already there, Olympus
makes up for it somewhat by making some very fast glass. But the price
of those makes the whole system unattractive IMO.

You have to think of the lenses in terms of the equivalent focal
lengths they offer.
Well, the (as an example) the Olympus 150mm f2.0 is around $2300.

That's equivalent to a 300mm f4 on 35mm.

300mm f/2.8 (I think???)


A Canon 300mm f4l IS is $1100.

Olympus prices seriously suck.

What do you suppose Canon's upcoming 200mm f2.0 will cost?

The Nikon version of that is around $4,000

Don't know, but probably less than an equivalent Zuiko 100mm f1.4, if
they could make one.

Not going to happen.

Olympus's 7-14mm is around $1600 and is an f4.0 lens while Nikon's
14-24mm f2.8 is $1500.00.

So the full frame version wins.

Olympus new 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 is $1200,
Nikon's 70-200mm f2.8 is $1700.00.

Full frame loses here.

Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 is $5400.00
while Nikon's 200-400mm f4 is $5500.00

Close to a match but Oly wins here.

Also, all Olympus pro and top pro lenses are weatherproof, unlike the
competition's.

Does anyone use these high end Oly lenses? I'd like to see the results,
there should be some very nice results in full sun, I just have not
heard of anyone actually going that route.

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
RichA wrote:

Canon's 200mm f2.0 will cost between $5000-$6000. Pathetic.

I disagree! This is a good thing and a great strategy, since Canon is
scratching their collective asses wondering why Nikon shooters would pay
more for a Nikkor. Canon has yet to grasp the concept that quality costs
more.

Ah! Now I know why Nikon shooters pay outrageous prices and
claim quality! They have not yet learned that while quality
does costs, cost as such does not infer quality (except in the
rationalisation of those who bought crap for more than a quality
lens would have cost.)

I think in other circles it's called "the Leica syndrome" ---
with the exception that these lenses and cameras are solid and
very $$$$ and overpriced, instead of, well, aeh, substellar and
yet $$$ and still overpriced.

-Wolfgang

--
Always remember, kids: You get what you pay for, or less.
This means paying more can get you less than paying less.

Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:19 pm, frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secret...FrameWars.html
Wholly Grail?
Agreed it's interesting reading. I'll take a stab at it...
"the full frame-ness of the camera is nice, but is it worth a 275%+
premium?"
Yeah well the benefit is is diminishing, that's for sure, nothing
new to
that idea. People should understand that before buying.
"How about diffraction? Doesn't that count. Yes, and avoidance of
it is
a worthwhile goal, but the diffraction limits between your full-frame
12.8MP camera and an APS-C frame 10MP camera is only about 0.7 f-stop.
You paid WHAT for 2/3 of a stop of diffraction threshold and 3MP?"
That's real gain though :-) No way to cheat around it.
Except that's a wrong assumption.
While the amount of diffraction (assuming the same final print size
etc)
may be more with a smaller sensor with lens at the same f-stop, if
lenses with the same FOV are used at an f-stop giving the same depth of
field, then there's no difference, as DOF and diffraction scale.
Larger sensor allows reduced DOF. Assuming same pixel count vs a
smaller sensor, it doesn't allow greater DOF or resolution.
It would become really significant when cameras have such high pixel
counts that they are diffraction limited at normal working apertures.
Pentax (K20d) Sony (A350) and Olympus (E3) are already there, Olympus
makes up for it somewhat by making some very fast glass. But the price
of those makes the whole system unattractive IMO.

You have to think of the lenses in terms of the equivalent focal
lengths they offer.
Well, the (as an example) the Olympus 150mm f2.0 is around $2300.

That's equivalent to a 300mm f4 on 35mm.

300mm f/2.8 (I think???)

Closer to f4. There's more than a stop of difference 35mm : 4/3.


A Canon 300mm f4l IS is $1100.

Olympus prices seriously suck.

What do you suppose Canon's upcoming 200mm f2.0 will cost?

The Nikon version of that is around $4,000

Don't know, but probably less than an equivalent Zuiko 100mm f1.4, if
they could make one.

Not going to happen.

Olympus's 7-14mm is around $1600 and is an f4.0 lens while Nikon's
14-24mm f2.8 is $1500.00.

So the full frame version wins.

Olympus new 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 is $1200,
Nikon's 70-200mm f2.8 is $1700.00.

Full frame loses here.

No it doesn't!
You need a 35-100 ~f1.8. Olympus make an f2 lens - so pretty close -
and it's $2200. Unsurprisingly it weighs and is about the same size as
35mm 70-200mm lenses.

Olympus 90-250mm f2.8 is $5400.00
while Nikon's 200-400mm f4 is $5500.00

Close to a match but Oly wins here.

Also, all Olympus pro and top pro lenses are weatherproof, unlike the
competition's.

Does anyone use these high end Oly lenses? I'd like to see the results,
there should be some very nice results in full sun, I just have not
heard of anyone actually going that route.

I've never seen one. Not in a store, never in use.

On Feb 12, 1:48 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
RichA wrote:
Canon's 200mm f2.0 will cost between $5000-$6000. Pathetic.
I disagree! This is a good thing and a great strategy, since Canon is
scratching their collective asses wondering why Nikon shooters would pay
more for a Nikkor. Canon has yet to grasp the concept that quality costs
more.

Ah! Now I know why Nikon shooters pay outrageous prices and
claim quality! They have not yet learned that while quality
does costs, cost as such does not infer quality (except in the
rationalisation of those who bought crap for more than a quality
lens would have cost.)

I think in other circles it's called "the Leica syndrome" ---
with the exception that these lenses and cameras are solid and
very $$$$ and overpriced, instead of, well, aeh, substellar and
yet $$$ and still overpriced.

What is more overpriced, a $1700 zoom that has set a new standard for
excellence (Nikon 12-24mm f2.8) or a 16-35mm f2.8 warmed-over DOG of a
film lens that costs the same?