[Brightcolours]

I am getting tired of these discussions, to be very honest, and it is one of the reasons why I have stayed away here for quite some time. looks like nothing has changed.

 

You don't seem t understand, or do not want to understand, what anybody else is saying, and you come with arguments that have no realtion to the actual discussion in the first place, other than pushign your own opinions, whether they are right or wrong.

 

Of course a 100 iso film of one brand is not the same as a 400 iso film from another brand, of course all photographers agree that the way to make one image look different from another, apart from composition and lighting, is DoF and FL. That is not the point.

 

And that MFT is a bad deal is your opinion, and you do not want to accept that others have a different opinon.

 

Funnily enough, if you really work it out, you get the following:

- MFT is smaller and lighter, whatever body or lens you choose, equivalent or not

- MFT is 4 x smaller wrt sensor size than FF, and therefore has 4 x the noise (that, BTW, is exactly the same issue as we always had with film)

- crop factor of MFT wrt FF is 2, therefore FL equivalents must be multiplied with 2 oto compare with FF

- crop factor of MFT is 2, therefore MFT has twice the DoF of FF for equivalent FLs

- F-stops are indepent of sensor or medium size, they are an indication of relative light levels (outside vs the camera obscura side of a photographic device); that they depend on FLs is neither here nor there, that is just a know fact.

- isos are isos, it is a defined standard

- different sizes and brands of sensors are not created the same, another moot point, we know that, and take that into account with our photography

- whether a lens and or camera system is a bad deal, is to be decided by the buyer, there si no need to bash whatever decision someone makes based on someone else's preferences

- MFT lenses have to be much sharper than FF lenses in order to get good results when images are enlarged to the same size as, e.g, those taken with a FF sensor

- MFT lenses, in order to be sharper, must have much stricter tolerances than FF lenses, and are therefore much harder to build

- MFT lenses are made in smaller series than FF (or APS-C) lenses because the market is smaller

- Since MFT lenses are harder to make than FF lenses, and because they are made in smaller numbers, they tend to be reltively expensive

 

Now, let's look at actual pricing. Currently, the Olympus 12-40 F/2.8 (which is a true F/2.8 lens, even if it has a DoF similar ot a FF F/5.6 lens), sells for 1000 euros over here, approximately. It is a truly excellent ens. Now let's compare that with a Canon 24-70 F/2.8, which is the FL-equivalence of it, more or less. That costs twice as much, 2000 euros. The Olympus weighs 382 grams, the Canon 805 grams, and is more than twice as big. teh same can be said about many other equivalently good lenses.

The only difference is the system, with MFT resulting in 4x  longer exposures to get the same noise, and resulting in twice the DoF for equivalent lenses, all compared to FF. Other than that, no difference, except that MFT is way smaller, lighter and cheaper than FF, generally a factor of 2 or more. And that is the point.

 

Now, because of all the adapters possible, one can use almost any lens from any manufacturer on an MFT body. However, that si not recommended witha glass-less adapter, because no lenses fro larger systems, sensor wise, are up to the task. The added benefit with adapters that do use glass, like the metabones ones, is that they also give one much larger f-stops. So, if I want to do any shallow DoF photography withan MFT camera, and do not mecessarily mind carrying heavy glass, I will use my Canon FF glass for that reason, or even my Canon FF camera with Canon FF glass. Other than that, my MFT glass is very sharp, and does all the things I need it to do.

 

A last few remarks: I have always been very nice here on Photozone, and I do want to stay nice, I find there generally is no need to be mean with people at all; the moderators can take care of those who are not so nice.

I do want to say one thing, however: to me you come over as one of the most arrogant people I have ever met on any forum. Only your opinion seems to be true, only your opinion seems to be valid, and you always need to have the last word. I am also sure I am not the only one who thinks that way. Think about that.

 

As to "That you do not understand "that way of thinking" says a lot about you, not so much about me..." I think it is about time you should start wondering why it is that so many people disagree with you, or feel insulted by you, and for Klaus and the team running Photozone, why so many people leave this place, and only visit for the articles and lens tests.

 

BTW, I will not reply to this topic any further, I have said what I wanted to say, in part, in a way, on behalf of those who do indeed feel slighted, not listened to, or insulted.

 

if you have anything to add to this, you can always contact me via PM if need be.

 

Regards, Wim

Yeha, I remember you left after a discussion about where you said CA was about blue/yellow light becaus eyou said you learend that from way back when, and me pointing out that CA can be magenta/green. red/blue-green or blue/yellow (or even combinations of those, through a focal length range).

 

I always react on point, also in this discussion. Nice that you want to make out that I don't. You seem to not be able to stand when someone points out you are wrong.  B)

 

Glad you agree that all photographers (in reality: not all) understand that it is all about DOF and FOV. 

 

Your misconception is about me thinking MFT is a bad deal. Let me clarify. To me, MFT and this lens in particular is a bad deal. You pay a lot for more weight and size in optics, where MFT should be about less weight and size (and possibly, price). The only fundamental issues I have with MFT is the 3x4 aspect ratio, and the EVF. Otherwise, I have no fundamental issue with MTF.

 

-MFT is only lighter and smaller when you look at MFT bodies. Usually not when you look at equivalent lenses.

-MFT does NOT have 4 times the noise. With equivalent settings, noise is pretty equal. You seem to be hell bound not to want to understand equivalent settings, though.

-you do not get f-stops.

-You do not get how ISO is defined in the digital age. read up on it, it is interesting in enlightening reading material.

-MFT lenses are not sharper at all, they just have smaller openings which make they seem sharper to those that do not get the idea of equivalent f-stops.

-The Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 is just a f5.6 full frame equivalent lens, no matter how you look at it. Whether it is DOF, aperture size, or amount of light it lets through. Canon does not make a 24-80mm f5.6 FF lens, however. I do have a Canon 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 II, though. It weight 220 grams. It is optically rubbish though, but it is also about 30 years old and much, much cheaper.

-Not sure why you bring up how many lenses you can adapt to MFT. I thought we were talking about a lens, and how it is a bit heavy and expensive, nullifying the benefits of MFT in regards to this specific lens. One can adapt many, many lenses to EOS M or Sony E mount too. Also totally not on topic.

-It is fine for someone to like their MFT gear or a specific lens. Just as it is fine for me to point out that this specific lens is just a 24mm f2.8 equivalent lens, and as such, a big heavy, a tad big, and no bargain at all.

-About me being arrogant, you have a pompous way of writing vey eloquently, but being wrong in what you write. That is ok, just an observation. Just like that time when you wrote about CA being about blue light. And when I point out you are wrong, you find me arrogant. That is ok. And, Like you, I am Dutch. :blink:  Our direct way of saying things may come across are arrogant, but often it is just "direct".

-And you call what I write "my opinion". But it is not my opinion, it is just fact.

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/article...alence.pdf

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Usually, when I write about something, I know what I am talking about.  Think about that.

Kind regards, Brightcolours.