If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
"Bruce" wrote in message ... 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. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
"David J. Littleboy" writes:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message ... "David J. Littleboy" writes: "Bruce" wrote in message ... 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? There's no 35mm photographer who has ever though those things. But the m43 folks have you bamboozled into arguing them. ROFL. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message ... "David J. Littleboy" writes: "Bruce" wrote in message ... 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: "David J. Littleboy" writes: "Bruce" wrote in message ... 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
"David J. Littleboy" writes:
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message ... "David J. Littleboy" writes: "Bruce" wrote in message ... 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Bruce writes: David Dyer-Bennet wrote: "David J. Littleboy" writes: "Bruce" wrote in message ... 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
"Bruce" wrote in message ... 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: 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. As you probably know, you can do that with dSLRs; both Canon and Nikon make tilt/shift lenses (FWIW, the new Canon 24TSE is an amazing lens, but the old Canon and new Nikon 24mm ones aren't). It's not a panacea; the plane of focus is still a plane, it's just not parallel to the film plane. The hardest part of it (other than the price of the lenses, sigh) is learning to spell and pronoince "Scheimpflug", though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle 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. FWIW, for a given pixel count, the maximum DoF* achievable by any digital camera is the same regardless of the size of the sensor. There's no landscape DoF advantage to smaller format cameras. (That max DoF occurs at a wider f stop in smaller sensor cameras, but the number of photons reaching each pixel per unit time will be the same as the larger format dcam with the smaller f stop.) *: The DoF at the smallest f stop such that you find diffraction unacceptable at the next smaller f stop. For people who like to shoot at wider f stops, the fact that most fast lenses are funky at or near wide open, means that you are quite unhappy using them at or near wide open on smaller format cameras, since the image is enlarged more when viewed at the same size. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds
"David J. Littleboy" wrote: As you probably know, you can do that with dSLRs; both Canon and Nikon make tilt/shift lenses (FWIW, the new Canon 24TSE is an amazing lens, but the old Canon and new Nikon 24mm ones aren't). It's not a panacea; the plane of focus is still a plane, it's just not parallel to the film plane. The hardest part of it (other than the price of the lenses, sigh) is learning to spell and pronoince "Scheimpflug", though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle Note that the above is an example of Muphry's Law, which has its own wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What makes the "Rule of Thirds" work? | TheDave© | 35mm Photo Equipment | 126 | December 5th 08 04:33 PM |
What makes the "Rule of Thirds" work? | Anonymous | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | December 6th 06 02:29 PM |
Error on "Rule of thirds" pbase page | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | December 4th 05 10:05 PM |