Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Olympus - 3 new lenses
#31
Quote:Sorry, then you have the wrong lenses.  -_- Of course it depends what you call "optimal results" but sharpness in the middle has to be there from wide open otherwise it's a bottom of a bottle, no lens. For some pictures nothing else than sharpness in the middle is the right thing, so stopping down will mot improve the result if I want nice blurr around.

 

And I doubt very much after looking at some resolution results for µ 4/3 lenses, that it's enough to stop down one f-stop for the same "optimal results". Compare the RAWs, then we'll talk again. I agree with most of your explanations, especially your view about equivalence, but please don't try to make µ 4/3 better than it really is (which is already pretty good)  Wink
 

Whether I have the wrong lenses, JoJu, is a matter of opinion. Personally I think I own many great lenses. A few not so great ones, as in, standard type zooms, but other than that they are all great lenses. As to blur, it depends a lot on how one shoots. I tend to get close, which means that F/1.2 is great for focusing, but not necessarily great to get enough DoF with the blur Wink.

 

I generally shoot with primes, certainly on FF (only 1 zoom lens for FF), and with MFT it depends on what I am carrying it around for, but again it is mostly primes I shoot with, which are all great wide open, even though I have a nice range of good to excellent MFT zooms, which are great even wide open, e.g. Panny 7-14 F/4, Oly 12-40 F/2.8, Panny 35-100 F/2.8. The FF primes tend all to be better stopped down a little, except the 135 F/2, which is as good as it gets from F/2. However, I often need more than F/2. I find myself shooting at F/2.8 and F/4 or even smaller apertures just to get enough DoF. Do note that DoF tables are generally overoptimistic, as the human eye is sharper than the standard used for DoF, namely a CoC of 0.030 mm for FF, while in reality acuteness of the human eye at the viewing distance and resolution for the standard use really requires a CoC of around 0.010 mm. In addition a sensor has a completely different sharpness pattern in the DoF field than film has and slightly smaller apertures make it look more like film.

 

BTW, MFT is better than most people think it is, actually Smile. In addition, I was comparing to my old 350D and 400D, I didn't say anything about FF sensors. I don't know whether you ever shot with MFT or not, and if not, do yourself a favour and give it a try Smile. You might be surprised Smile. I was, and that was with a used Panasonic GF2 when I started with MFT.

 

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#32
Times ago I also bought a Panasonic, I think it was GF5 with 14-42. Liked the touchscreen, disliked some other things but for 200$ new...

 

Whenever I looked lateron at the offerings of Olympus and Panasonic, I found the buttons and the bodies just a tad too fiddly. For my hands, the Fujfeeling is better  ^_^ So, I pass the µ 4/3 systems as there's stil this prejudice in me, the Fuji sensors have better DR and less noise - but please, just let me have this dream. At the end of the day it doesn't matter much if it's APS-C or µ 4/3.

 

DoF tables are another kind of voodoo in my eyes, I strictly don't believe in them  Big Grin especially when they try to convince me, f/2.8 and f/4 with an 85 mm are the same 0.09 m DoF and I think for myself, I would not believe this data if it would be only the half of it... (source: DoF Rechner from neyMedia). 

 

To me, FF is more like getting enough resolution for big prints with a bit of crop reserve. Packing too much MP on a small sensor will deliver no good results, after doing some A3 photobooks and using double pages (80 cm) with some crop and very nice details, I know what a FF is good for. Now, in two weeks I'm off to Portugal and see what the Fuji can do.
#33
Hi JoJu,


I got the GF2 with 14-45 at the time, and got a bunch of other lenses very quickly thereafter Smile.

Personally, I dont mind the small buttons, I used a Pentax ME, ME II, and MX back in my analog days, and the size of those cameras is very similar to the Panny and Olympus form factors.


In principle the Fuji has a 1.8x better noise suppression, so yes, less noise indeed, everything else being equal, but yes, in the end it does not matter much. What matters to me personally is the weight and size advantage Smile.


I got rather sick of DoF calculators on the net, none of them seem to take FL into account - it is a part often omitted from the calculation, as it makes it a tad more complex. I ended up creating my own DoF calculator, in which two DoF versions are calculated, one according to the standard, i.e., 0.030 mm CoC, and one at 0.010 CoC, and the latter I use to give a good indication of what to expect, if I need it that is. Both do take FL into account Smile.


As to using FF for large prints; yes, those do absolutely look nicer. More details, more 3D in look. Having said that, the latest Olympus and Panasonic offerings are really very good.

I'd love to hear how you do with your Fuji, in comparison to FF, so do share please once you're back.


Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
5 Guest(s)