Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - Printable Version +- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com) +-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Canon EOS (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon (/showthread.php?tid=4427) |
RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - borisbg - 09-07-2019 Since we were going the subject matter again : Is there a difference of how many lumens per square millimeter hit the sensor of mtf f4 lens ff f4 lens? RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - wim - 09-07-2019 (09-07-2019, 05:43 PM)borisbg Wrote: Since we were going the subject matter again : No. Exactly the same. As mentioned, the difference is the image circle, which with FF is 4x the area compared to MFT. This area size difference is what makes the 2 stop difference in total light captured. HTH, kind regards, Wim (09-07-2019, 11:59 AM)Klaus Wrote: Wim - I use MFT privately. I prefer it over other systems. Yet I do accept the realities and I do not have any issues with them. Hi Klaus. I have been saying exactly the same. However, some will let us believe that the 12-100 F/4 Oly is an F/8 lens, which it isn't. As you know, I also shoot MFT. I basically shoot MFT and FF, depending on what I want to achieve (which includes a decision on how much I want/need to carry ). Personally, I look at an image in the same way you do, and that is in the end all that counts. Kind regards, Wim RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - Klaus - 09-08-2019 The current hype around FF is silly anyway. Fuji G has a superior image quality, for instance. It just shows how much tradition is dictating over reality. And e.g. why do sensors have a rectangle shape? It doesn't make any sense in the year 2019, it's a legacy concept. Or in other words - why not a square sensor combined with a dial for selecting the ratio? Is that so difficult? For landscapes, I'd prefer 16:9, maybe even 2.35:1 whereas for portraits 4:3 would be more appropriate (if I did portraits) - and a square sensor could give you the maximum potential here. With a square sensor, the days of holding your camera in a silly vertical layout would finally over. RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - JJ_SO - 09-08-2019 In film days, we had 120 and 127 rolls. Their rectangular format cameras didn't exactly rule the world... Is our memory of these times dictating the manufacturers fear to risk something? Or is it the further use of pictures (in magazines, books, on movie/tv screens) dictating the form of the sensors? You're right, it can't be that hard, so why isn't it happening. How many buildings with 1:1 ratio like the Kaaba in Mekka do you know? How often do you use the other ratios in the camera menu? And why so rarely? For me it's something new to think of (next to aperture, ISO, AF-mode...) and I would continue to forget to switch that ratio to another? No, not if it's shown properly in the finder as a frame - The Z 7 or the X-T2 don't do show a frame, they black out the "lost" area or they just enlarge the picture and since APS-C has the same ratio, I keep using it and am surprised how noisy the pictures became... Even saying, "for birds I switch to APS-C" can cause a massive shitstorm in a forum. "They behave unpredictably, You need the full sensor (even in the corners where no DSLR-AF cell ever came to...). Birds are predictable in flight, humans are a bit slow to follow them with a lens. Back in the day I could buy a 135 magazine for my Mamiya to shoot in panoramic ratio. I like panoramas, but for the extra cost of that magazine I could buy an develop a lot of 120 rolls and just use a crop. Also, the holder for the negatives then would have been the one with two 6x7 cm glasses which claimed to be Anti-Newton (as coatings claim to be flare-reducing, haha) and collected dust for 4 more surfaces. Same today for printing readily cut photo paper and put it into a standard frame... Individual sizes of output format would be costly RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - wim - 09-08-2019 (09-08-2019, 12:33 AM)Klaus Wrote: The current hype around FF is silly anyway. Fuji G has a superior image quality, for instance. A square shape would indeed be convenient . Having said that, it would require quite a bit of redesign of camera bodies, and would mean we have to crop a lot. Personally, I prefer to not crop at all if I can help it, just frame exactly what I want to see in the frame. BTW, there is a good reason why 24x36 (2:3) became so popular, other than the smaller format compared to MF and LF way back when, namely the fact that humans roughly tend to see the world in 2:3 format when not particularly focusing on anything special. It feels more natural. The 4x5 print papers etc. really came into existence prior to 135 film, catering for LF and MF film/cameras. Kind regards, Wim RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - JJ_SO - 09-08-2019 It would be interesting to learn about the reasons for the various ratios. I think, sometimes it was just availability of manufacturing machinery and a lot of coincidence involved. However, a squarish sensor would indeed demand some redesign of sensors, LCD (!) and EVF first and then it could lead to hardware with not only interchangeable lenses, but also - you mentioned Fuji, Klaus - to better, tiltable EVF. Exchangeable sensors, maybe. Kind of Hasselblad/Rolleiflex style (Zenza Bronica I don't know much about). But this hasn't happened during the past ¼ of a century, Victor Hasselblad is dead and todays brands fight with other troubles... RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - Brightcolours - 09-08-2019 (09-07-2019, 08:55 AM)wim Wrote:(09-07-2019, 06:36 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: ....That may be true when it comes to DoF, aperture wise, but it still is an F/4 lens. As mentioned before, the difference is the image circle size. It still is F/4. I did not "diss that lens" (nice rapper lingo there, dude), I just placed it in the correct perspective. RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - wim - 09-08-2019 (09-08-2019, 05:06 PM)Brightcolours The last 3 lines of the above quote I was referring to. The Canon is not a faster lens. It just has less DoF on a FF sensor that the Oly on an MFT sensor. Kind regards, Wim RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - Klaus - 09-08-2019 Now we are back to zero again ;-) Yes, the Olympus is a faster lens but the Canon is a faster system. The lens alone is irrelevant. RE: Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM coming soon - wim - 09-08-2019 (09-08-2019, 10:59 PM)Klaus Wrote: Now we are back to zero again ;-)Why would it be irrelevant? In that case any lens is irrelevant. My point is that from a design and manufacturing POV it is an F/4 lens. Kind regards, Wim |