You know, I thought Nikon owners didn't think about the cost of the jump to FF. Sony owners are worse

In article , RichA wrote:

When Nikon released the D600, I knew it would cause problems. Not
because of its problems with oil splattering, etc., but with the
people who bought it. A 24mp FF camera. How to cobble crappy old
Nikon lenses from the dim past on it. Why? Because the people who
scraped together enough to buy the body, couldn't afford the FX
lenses NEEDED to maximize the potential of such a sensor.

Nonsense.

But the Sonyites are even worse. Talking about attaching cruddy old
lenses, primes and zooms from the 1980s.

Indeed one of the very strengths of the A7. Its short flange distance means you
can mount pretty much any awesome lens ever made on it.

Even the current Sony lens offerings are nothing to write home
about. Unless you buy into their Zeiss line, you are pretty much
stuck stopping down their lenses to f/8.0 in order to at least glean
a little of what the A7R/II sensor is capable of.

Why the "unless"? They are fine lenses. And the 55mm/1.8 is a top quality lens,
one of the finer normal lenses currently made.

If sensors created a "class system" in cameras (cast your mind back
to the introduction of the Nikon D3x and its 24mp sensor and its
price!) then maybe that was a good idea? I can just see it; Nikon
will release a D5400 with a FF sensor for $1000.00. Sounds good?

No they won't.

Wait till they stick some cheap 28-70mm kit lens on it.

No need for me to "wait" for wonky ideas to come true.

My only thoughts are that I hope they have the sense to buy one
decent lens, Zeiss's 24-70mm maybe rather than buying a half dozen
junky lenses because they are cheap. But the worst part is the
destruction of the gains offered by FF, namely resolution and light
gathering. My Olympus 12-40 zoom is almost full resolution at
f/2.8, wide open.

Only, it's not a f/2.8 lens, since it's a Micro 4/3's lens. The crop factor
applies to the aperture as well. This is one of the biggest lies in the camera
industry right now. They say it's a 12-40mm/f2.8 lens, equivalent to a 24-80mm
lens. But the truth is that it's a 12-40/f5.6, but f5.6 doesn't look "pro" enough
for the marketing guys, so they call it a 2.8, so they apply the crop factor only
to the focal length, but keep the misleading aperture size from the 35
equivalent.

You get a cheap lens on a FF it may not reach maximum resolution
until f/8.0. If you use crappy lenses, FF falls behind on
resolution and especially light-gathering, if your goal is to
combine the two. You've effectively killed its advantages. Because
of the new Sony A7RII release, Ebay will be awash in cheap, used
A7R's. That's a 36mp camera with NO IBIS. Imagine that, couple
with poor lenses!

More nonsense. While there certainly exists morons that buys expensive cameras
and cheap lenses, anyone that is even a bit familiar with cameras knows that you
spend money on the lenses, not the camera, and if they aren't, they will find
that out soon enough.

--
Sandman

On 13/06/2015 12:53 a.m., Sandman wrote:
In article , RichA wrote:

When Nikon released the D600, I knew it would cause problems. Not
because of its problems with oil splattering, etc., but with the
people who bought it. A 24mp FF camera. How to cobble crappy old
Nikon lenses from the dim past on it. Why? Because the people who
scraped together enough to buy the body, couldn't afford the FX
lenses NEEDED to maximize the potential of such a sensor.

Nonsense.

But the Sonyites are even worse. Talking about attaching cruddy old
lenses, primes and zooms from the 1980s.

Indeed one of the very strengths of the A7. Its short flange distance means you
can mount pretty much any awesome lens ever made on it.

Even the current Sony lens offerings are nothing to write home
about. Unless you buy into their Zeiss line, you are pretty much
stuck stopping down their lenses to f/8.0 in order to at least glean
a little of what the A7R/II sensor is capable of.

Why the "unless"? They are fine lenses. And the 55mm/1.8 is a top quality lens,
one of the finer normal lenses currently made.

If sensors created a "class system" in cameras (cast your mind back
to the introduction of the Nikon D3x and its 24mp sensor and its
price!) then maybe that was a good idea? I can just see it; Nikon
will release a D5400 with a FF sensor for $1000.00. Sounds good?

No they won't.

Wait till they stick some cheap 28-70mm kit lens on it.

No need for me to "wait" for wonky ideas to come true.

My only thoughts are that I hope they have the sense to buy one
decent lens, Zeiss's 24-70mm maybe rather than buying a half dozen
junky lenses because they are cheap. But the worst part is the
destruction of the gains offered by FF, namely resolution and light
gathering. My Olympus 12-40 zoom is almost full resolution at
f/2.8, wide open.

Only, it's not a f/2.8 lens, since it's a Micro 4/3's lens. The crop factor
applies to the aperture as well. This is one of the biggest lies in the camera
industry right now. They say it's a 12-40mm/f2.8 lens, equivalent to a 24-80mm
lens. But the truth is that it's a 12-40/f5.6, but f5.6 doesn't look "pro" enough
for the marketing guys, so they call it a 2.8, so they apply the crop factor only
to the focal length, but keep the misleading aperture size from the 35
equivalent.

You have that wrong. It is an f2.8 lens, but as the sensor area is 1/4
the size, it only collects 1/4 as much light as the same lens would if
it covered full-frame. It's "equivalent to" a 24-80 f5.6 on full-frame.


You get a cheap lens on a FF it may not reach maximum resolution
until f/8.0. If you use crappy lenses, FF falls behind on
resolution and especially light-gathering, if your goal is to
combine the two.
Utter Bull**** unless you go scavenging lenses thrown in dumpsters.
You've effectively killed its advantages. Because
of the new Sony A7RII release, Ebay will be awash in cheap, used
A7R's. That's a 36mp camera with NO IBIS. Imagine that, couple
with poor lenses!

More nonsense. While there certainly exists morons that buys expensive cameras
and cheap lenses, anyone that is even a bit familiar with cameras knows that you
spend money on the lenses, not the camera, and if they aren't, they will find
that out soon enough.

Nothing wrong with "cheap"lenses. The cheap Nikkor 50 1.8 G works
perfectly on my D800E. It's "equivalent to" a 25mm f0.9 on 4/3 format.
If there was anything even close to being as good for 4/3 format, then
it definitely won't cost $200 - and will be sold under some delusional
expectation that all that wasted money on a lens wouldn't have been
better spent on a larger format body.
I've also got a 50mm f1.8 "D" lens here - cost about $100 - and although
that needs stopping down more than the "G", by f2.8 it's pretty good -
equivalent to a 25mm f1.4 on 4/3.
Other cheap lenses which seem to be "good enough for" 36mp (and
presumably more) FX, 18-35 G, 85mm f1.8 G, basically any macro lens, old
80-200 D, 300mm f4 D, etc etc.

On 6/12/2015 4:50 PM, Me wrote:
On 13/06/2015 12:53 a.m., Sandman wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

When Nikon released the D600, I knew it would cause problems. Not
because of its problems with oil splattering, etc., but with the
people who bought it. A 24mp FF camera. How to cobble crappy old
Nikon lenses from the dim past on it. Why? Because the people who
scraped together enough to buy the body, couldn't afford the FX
lenses NEEDED to maximize the potential of such a sensor.

Nonsense.

But the Sonyites are even worse. Talking about attaching cruddy old
lenses, primes and zooms from the 1980s.

Indeed one of the very strengths of the A7. Its short flange distance
means you
can mount pretty much any awesome lens ever made on it.

Even the current Sony lens offerings are nothing to write home
about. Unless you buy into their Zeiss line, you are pretty much
stuck stopping down their lenses to f/8.0 in order to at least glean
a little of what the A7R/II sensor is capable of.

Why the "unless"? They are fine lenses. And the 55mm/1.8 is a top
quality lens,
one of the finer normal lenses currently made.

If sensors created a "class system" in cameras (cast your mind back
to the introduction of the Nikon D3x and its 24mp sensor and its
price!) then maybe that was a good idea? I can just see it; Nikon
will release a D5400 with a FF sensor for $1000.00. Sounds good?

No they won't.

Wait till they stick some cheap 28-70mm kit lens on it.

No need for me to "wait" for wonky ideas to come true.

My only thoughts are that I hope they have the sense to buy one
decent lens, Zeiss's 24-70mm maybe rather than buying a half dozen
junky lenses because they are cheap. But the worst part is the
destruction of the gains offered by FF, namely resolution and light
gathering. My Olympus 12-40 zoom is almost full resolution at
f/2.8, wide open.

Only, it's not a f/2.8 lens, since it's a Micro 4/3's lens. The crop
factor
applies to the aperture as well. This is one of the biggest lies in
the camera
industry right now. They say it's a 12-40mm/f2.8 lens, equivalent to a
24-80mm
lens. But the truth is that it's a 12-40/f5.6, but f5.6 doesn't look
"pro" enough
for the marketing guys, so they call it a 2.8, so they apply the crop
factor only
to the focal length, but keep the misleading aperture size from the 35
equivalent.

You have that wrong. It is an f2.8 lens, but as the sensor area is 1/4
the size, it only collects 1/4 as much light as the same lens would if
it covered full-frame. It's "equivalent to" a 24-80 f5.6 on full-frame.


You get a cheap lens on a FF it may not reach maximum resolution
until f/8.0. If you use crappy lenses, FF falls behind on
resolution and especially light-gathering, if your goal is to
combine the two.
Utter Bull**** unless you go scavenging lenses thrown in dumpsters.
You've effectively killed its advantages. Because
of the new Sony A7RII release, Ebay will be awash in cheap, used
A7R's. That's a 36mp camera with NO IBIS. Imagine that, couple
with poor lenses!

More nonsense. While there certainly exists morons that buys expensive
cameras
and cheap lenses, anyone that is even a bit familiar with cameras
knows that you
spend money on the lenses, not the camera, and if they aren't, they
will find
that out soon enough.

Nothing wrong with "cheap"lenses. The cheap Nikkor 50 1.8 G works
perfectly on my D800E. It's "equivalent to" a 25mm f0.9 on 4/3 format.
If there was anything even close to being as good for 4/3 format, then
it definitely won't cost $200 - and will be sold under some delusional
expectation that all that wasted money on a lens wouldn't have been
better spent on a larger format body.
I've also got a 50mm f1.8 "D" lens here - cost about $100 - and although
that needs stopping down more than the "G", by f2.8 it's pretty good -
equivalent to a 25mm f1.4 on 4/3.
Other cheap lenses which seem to be "good enough for" 36mp (and
presumably more) FX, 18-35 G, 85mm f1.8 G, basically any macro lens, old
80-200 D, 300mm f4 D, etc etc.


I think I may have learned something here. what will the equivalent of
my DX 10.5mm be on a 4/3 camera?



--
PeterN

On 13/06/2015 01:19, PeterN wrote:
[]
I think I may have learned something here. what will the equivalent of
my DX 10.5mm be on a 4/3 camera?

In actual focal length terms, your DX 10.5 mm would be (approximately)
16.8 mm on full-frames, and 8.4 mm on 4/3.

I say approximately because (1) I used a factor of 1.6 which is typical
for DX, but DX has varied from about 1.5 upwards and (b) 4/3 typically
has an aspect ratio of 4:3 versus the 3:2 aspect ratio of DX and FF.

One review states that: "The Olympus 9mm f8 Fisheye Body Cap Lens has a
diagonal angle of view of 140°." This is the US $90 lens I mentioned,
and have used very successfully.

From:
http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...dy_cap_review/

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
RichA wrote:

The whole idea of "equivalence" applies ONLY to angle of view.

wrong.

In article , Me wrote:

Sandman:
Only, it's not a f/2.8 lens, since it's a Micro 4/3's lens. The
crop factor applies to the aperture as well. This is one of the
biggest lies in the camera industry right now. They say it's a
12-40mm/f2.8 lens, equivalent to a 24-80mm lens. But the truth is
that it's a 12-40/f5.6, but f5.6 doesn't look "pro" enough for the
marketing guys, so they call it a 2.8, so they apply the crop
factor only to the focal length, but keep the misleading aperture
size from the 35 equivalent.

You have that wrong. It is an f2.8 lens, but as the sensor area is
1/4 the size, it only collects 1/4 as much light as the same lens
would if it covered full-frame. It's "equivalent to" a 24-80 f5.6
on full-frame.

Yes, that was my point - when lens manufacturers advertise their lenses, they
apply the crop factor to the focal length and say what the 35mm equivalent is,
but they don't do it to the aperture. I realize I may have been a bit unclear
with my comparison above.

They should advertise it as a 12-40/f2.8 (24-70/f5.6 equivalent)

RichA:
You've effectively killed its advantages. Because of the new
Sony A7RII release, Ebay will be awash in cheap, used A7R's.
That's a 36mp camera with NO IBIS. Imagine that, couple with
poor lenses!

Sandman:
More nonsense. While there certainly exists morons that buys
expensive cameras and cheap lenses, anyone that is even a bit
familiar with cameras knows that you spend money on the lenses,
not the camera, and if they aren't, they will find that out soon
enough.

Nothing wrong with "cheap"lenses. The cheap Nikkor 50 1.8 G works
perfectly on my D800E.

Of course, and having a few cheap lenses with smaller apertures is pretty handy
at times.

It's "equivalent to" a 25mm f0.9 on 4/3 format. If there was
anything even close to being as good for 4/3 format, then it
definitely won't cost $200 - and will be sold under some delusional
expectation that all that wasted money on a lens wouldn't have been
better spent on a larger format body. I've also got a 50mm f1.8 "D"
lens here - cost about $100 - and although that needs stopping down
more than the "G", by f2.8 it's pretty good - equivalent to a 25mm
f1.4 on 4/3. Other cheap lenses which seem to be "good enough for"
36mp (and presumably more) FX, 18-35 G, 85mm f1.8 G, basically any
macro lens, old 80-200 D, 300mm f4 D, etc etc.

Also a lot of premium glass you can find on ebay for a couple of hundred, like
the 135mm/f2.0 DC

--
Sandman

On 13/06/2015 6:26 p.m., RichA wrote:
The whole idea of "equivalence" applies ONLY to angle of view. A 15mm lens provides the same angle of view on a 4/3rds sensor as a 30mm lens does on a FF sensor.
Uh huh

f/2.8 IS f/2.8 no matter what it is in front of, that's physics.
Uh huh
If I illuminate 10 pixels on a FF camera with an f/2.8 lens and I
illuminate 10 pixels on a m4/3rds camera with an f/2.8 lens, the pixel
response to LIGHT stays the same for both cameras, given equal pixel size.
Uh huh - so given 24mp FX - you've gone and gotten ya'self a 6mp 4/3
camera - about 10 years behind the game.
The electrical output from the pixels is the SAME and the resultant
image is the SAME. That a FF camera produces less noise at a given ISO
than a smaller sensored camera is SOLELY down to pixel size.

Uh huh - but your 4/3 camera has 1/4 the pixel size at the same pixel count.
It produces two stops /more/ noise (shot noise). Full well capacity is
1/4 that of the sensel 4x the size (all other things being equal).

There seem to be a few things you don't get - the full frame sensor
collects 4x as much light from the lens at f2.8 than the 4/3 sensor.
For "equivalence" to f2.8 on FX the 4/3 lens would need to be f 1.4.
The closest zoom lens for half-frame formats is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8.
It's only equivalent to about a 28-50 f 2.8 on FX.
There /nothing/ equivalent for 4/3.

On 14/06/2015 11:36 a.m., RichA wrote:


No, you don't get it. A larger PIXEL will gather more light, it takes more photons to fill it, it will have better image characteristics (ISO) than a small pixel. But the larger area of a specific sensor has NOTHING to do with a sensor's response to light. If a FF sensor works better at high ISO, it's because the pixels are larger, not because of "surface area" of the sensor. Right now, FF sensors perform better than m4/3rds because (sensors being the same kind) a m4/3rd at 16mp = a FF with 64mp if you compare pixel sizes. So far, there are no FF's like that, therefore the pixel size on a FF is bigger resulting in better high ISO performance. However, if we had a modern 12mp APS sensor it would outperform a 36mp FF sensor solely because its pixels would be larger, and again it has nothing to do with sensor surface area. This is why a scientific sensor with 23um pixels but smaller real-estate will easily outperform a larger sensor with 5um pixels in low light. Again, the e
quivalence
argument only works for lens angle of coverage and ISO performance is another, unrelated issue.

You are wrong.
This has been argued for years - smaller pixels do NOT inherently result
in worse high ISO noise performance.
High ISO performance is limited by photon "shot noise" and quantum
efficiency. A full-frame sensor with the same pixel pitch as 4/3 will
have 2 stops less shot noise. Shot noise when viewed at "100% pixel
view" will appear to be the same, but if both are either upsampled or
downsampled to any identical output size, the signal to noise ratio of
the 4/3 sensor image will be two stops worse.
APS-c "crop mode" in FX cameras produces exactly what this predicts -
for any given output size, s/n ratio is (slightly over) one stop lower.
Halve that area again to 4/3 size, and lose another stop.
Equivalence /does/ apply to high ISO performance.

On 15/06/2015 7:49 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 06:27:35 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/06/2015 11:36 a.m., RichA wrote:


No, you don't get it. A larger PIXEL will gather more light, it takes more photons to fill it, it will have better image characteristics (ISO) than a small pixel. But the larger area of a specific sensor has NOTHING to do with a sensor's response to light. If a FF sensor works better at high ISO, it's because the pixels are larger, not because of "surface area" of the sensor. Right now, FF sensors perform better than m4/3rds because (sensors being the same kind) a m4/3rd at 16mp = a FF with 64mp if you compare pixel sizes. So far, there are no FF's like that, therefore the pixel size on a FF is bigger resulting in better high ISO performance. However, if we had a modern 12mp APS sensor it would outperform a 36mp FF sensor solely because its pixels would be larger, and again it has nothing to do with sensor surface area. This is why a scientific sensor with 23um pixels but smaller real-estate will easily outperform a larger sensor with 5um pixels in low light. Again, the
e
quivalence
argument only works for lens angle of coverage and ISO performance is another, unrelated issue.

You are wrong.
This has been argued for years - smaller pixels do NOT inherently result
in worse high ISO noise performance.
High ISO performance is limited by photon "shot noise" and quantum
efficiency. A full-frame sensor with the same pixel pitch as 4/3 will
have 2 stops less shot noise. Shot noise when viewed at "100% pixel
view" will appear to be the same, but if both are either upsampled or
downsampled to any identical output size, the signal to noise ratio of
the 4/3 sensor image will be two stops worse.
APS-c "crop mode" in FX cameras produces exactly what this predicts -
for any given output size, s/n ratio is (slightly over) one stop lower.

I'm just talking about changing the sensor size, not the captured image. If I were to simply insert a small rectangular aperture over the FF sensor, cutting it down to APS size (cropping it in effect) that would have no impact on the sensor's remaining pixels and they would present the same visible appearance, just a narrower view. I now have a smaller sensor, with the same pixel size and the image quality remains the same.
That's what "crop mode" does.

As for uprezing it to match the output size from the larger sensor, that is a different issue which would change the image quality for the worse.

A photo is normally taken for some purpose other than for zooming in to
100% pixel view - whether for print or the web, it's going to be
enlarged or reduced. If there's a difference in s/n ratio, then the
same relative difference will be there when the images are downsized or
upsized, only at some arbitrary point when downsizing, the difference
isn't worth worrying about any more.