Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
#11
Quote:I started thinking again for something more compact for easy travel option. Unless the trip is photography specific the D800 set up is too much. I was thinking about omd-m10 14-42 ii R (given sell off prices) or Fuji xe-2, or xt10 19-55. I have to have built in flash.
 

The X-T10 is great but the lenses remain comparatively big.

The Pana GM may be interesting if size really matters - I quite liked the GM1.
#12
If you bought a D800 for the main advantage of FF (possible shallower DOF), is a M10 going to make you happy, with its small sensor and a small aperture standard zoom?

#13
Wow! The resolution figures of  EF-M 22mm for aperture F4  (almost 3400 lines in the center) are sensational, almost unbelievable.  We have seen (only) 3000 LW/PH with excellent Fujinon XF 23mm f1.4.  Seems to be the best fast "35mm lens" for APS-C out there?  Have we seen better ?

#14
Quote:The X-T10 is great but the lenses remain comparatively big.

The Pana GM may be interesting if size really matters - I quite liked the GM1.
GM1 is very nice litle camera, and I really like the Q Menu of Panasonic. I used to have P&S from Pana before and I realy liked Q option. The main reason I am looking in to Fuji is 18-55 lens as am not planning to invest in one more system. Body + decent lens will be enough. I recently went on family vacation and I felt tha something like this is needed. The mobile phones as good they are stilll have limited abilities and full frame camera is not very practical. Not too long ago I rented the famos Sony RX100, but ended up disapointed, too small and and too complicated for its size.

I will defently look in to Pana option over Oly... given the recent new models rollout, some sweet pricing might tip the scales.

You didn't say anythign about x-e2?
#15
Quote:Wow! The resolution figures of  EF-M 22mm for aperture F4  (almost 3400 lines in the center) are sensational, almost unbelievable.  We have seen (only) 3000 LW/PH with excellent Fujinon XF 23mm f1.4.  Seems to be the best fast "35mm lens" for APS-C out there?  Have we seen better ?
They were tested on different cameras. The figures are sensor dependent. 

Look at the maximum number in the graph's vertical axis to see a defined "maximum" achievable for the sensor used. Sometimes the measured MTF's pass that maximum, I think that has to do with the sharpening in the workflow.

 

When comparing lenses tested with different cameras, look at the bar heights instead of the numbers, for a general idea on how the lenses compare.
#16
Quote:If you bought a D800 for the main advantage of FF (possible shallower DOF), is a M10 going to make you happy, with its small sensor and a small aperture standard zoom?
It will better than mobile phone... and to be honest I haven't felt the need to play with DOF as much while taking family pictures, the oposite actually, I need the dept so the backgroudnd is visible.
#17
Quote:They were tested on different cameras. The figures are sensor dependent. 

Look at the maximum number in the graph's vertical axis to see a defined "maximum" achievable for the sensor used. Sometimes the measured MTF's pass that maximum, I think that has to do with the sharpening in the workflow.

 

When comparing lenses tested with different cameras, look at the bar heights instead of the numbers, for a general idea on how the lenses compare.
 

We should really get rid off these stupid LW/PH numbers.
#18
Quote:We should really get rid off these stupid LW/PH numbers.
 

With all due respect, I think it would help a lot to have the meaning of the resolution numbers better documented throughout the site. 

 

But maybe the numbers could simply be represented as a fraction (or %) of sensor resolution?   Instead of an absolute value (which is confusing people) they are a relative value tied to the sensor.  For the EFM 22, the center value at f/2 would be tabulated as "3194/3450" instead of just "3194".  (or "92.6%" of sensor resolution)  This more clearly states the system relationship and reinforces the sensor's role.

 

I don't the like the Good/Very Good/Excellent system that was tried before.
#19
At the end of the day, the excellent/very good/... approach is (almost) nothing else but the percentage figures ...

The charts are divided into 5 segments. The top segment is excellent, the 2nd one from the top is very good, etc. so this can be directly translated to a percentage range. Thus it's merely a matter of granularity and a coarser granularity is simply more appropriate.

 

I have strong doubts that you can visually distinguish a difference of -say- roughly 200 LW/PH or 'half a mark' in real life images. Without a sturdy tripod (& RAW processing) you'll also not be able to recreate lab quality anyway. This doesn't mean that the findings are irrelevant - all lenses are affected by real life impacts to a very similar degree so a better lens in the lab will remains a better lens in the field. However, fact is that the 4 digit LW/PH or 3 digit percentage values aren't helpful regarding "the point".

 

That being said I can fully understand that it somehow "feels" easier to imagine that a sensor has say 4000px (vertically) and the lens can deliver 3325px in the center ... although I have doubts that you can imagine how say 1500px would really look like in your images. But now we got the risk of invalid cross comparisons.

 

So at the end of the day there's simply no win-win in sight.  :lol:

#20
I prefer the absolute numbers myself. At the end of the day if a user (us viewers) can't understand that the value is a system result just tape a dunce sticker on them. I do releazie it it might cut down on the number of silly comments and inquiries so perhaps there is some benefit there to the site maintainer (you) so take this comment as my 2ct.

-

Why I like the values is that it represents a frame of reference for system peak performance and while 2000 vs 2100 might be effectively the same there is a difference between 500 and 5000 and that is useful information afterall we are buying more then a lens - we are buying a system.

Quote:We should really get rid off these stupid LW/PH numbers.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)