Anti-full frame article

In article <uu8sj.110$tW.57@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
Paul Furman <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:

> Um, no not moot. That's the number one reason for full frame IMO.

If you can afford the camera and the good glass by all means buy it.
We will applaud because if enough people with money spend it on the
expensive stuff eventually the makers will build stuff us common folk
can afford that is 95% percent of what you paid top dollar for.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article 

In article
<236d8c09-80e3-43ca-8933-12205e62091f.RemoveThis@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3127.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 10:04 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote:
> > "RichA" <rander3....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Canon's 200mm f2.0 will cost between $5000-$6000. Pathetic.
> >
> > What's pathetic is people who don't understand that the f stop determines
> > the flux _per unit area_ at the sensor and that the 4/3 camera's pixels,
> > being only 1/4 the area of a FF camera's pixels, only collect 1/4 of the
> > light. So to match the IQ (and DOF) that Canon's 200mm f/2.8 lens delivers,
> > Olympus must have an f/1.4 100mmm lens.
> >
> > But they don't.
> >
> > And they certainly don't have the f/0.9 100mm lens they need to match the
> > 200/1.8.
> >
> > And they also don't have the f/0.7 25mm lens they need to match the Canon
> > 50/1.4. Or the 50/1.0 they need to match the 100/2.0.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
>
> Why are you stuck on all those ancient, old film lenses?

Because they are fast and sharp? just a guess.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article 

On Feb 12, 7:57 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi... DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know what you are talking about.
>
> That's obvious.
>
> Here's the clue you need: the 4/3 sensor's pixels are 1/4 the size of FF's
> pixles for the same pixel count.
>
> So they collect 1/4 of the light.
>
> So at ISO 100, a 4/3 camera's images have the same noise characteristics as
> FF has at ISO 400.

No, it has the same noise characteristics as a 4/3rds camera with much
smaller pixels. The 1DsMkIII is no noise control champion. We should
probably stick to 35mm sensor sizes that have
noticeably larger pixels, like the 5D and the Nikon D3.

> So a FF camera at f/4.0 and ISO 400 provides the same image quality and
> shutter speed as a 4/3 camera at f/2.0.

And is a nightmare to use if you need any kind of telephoto reach. So
much so that clown companies like Sigma feel compelled to release
unmountable behemoths like that 200-500mm thing (did you see that
massively undergunned Manfrotto head they had it mounted on?!) they
just did.

So if your goal are images HALF the size (but with good noise
characteristics) then have at it because you're pixel count is going
to suffer with the same lens focal length as that on a 4/3rds.
But, what I would like to see are 1DsMkIII images because their pixel
size is much closer to 4/3rds than the 5D or D3.

> > If your goal with a zoom is
> > reach, the 1.5 and FF will always lose, given similar lenses.
>
> But the difference is nowhere near as large as you think. A 400/4.0 for FF
> ought to be longer and heavier (but the same outer diameter) as, and
> probably more expensive than, a 200/2.0 for 4/3. But for some reason,
> Olympus overbuilds their better lenses, so the equivalent lens on 4/3 is
> more expensive and heavier than the FF equivalent for most of the high-end
> lenses.

Honestly, I don't consider their stuff overbuilt. Compare their
50-200mm against Nikon's or Canon's 70-200mm, weight is less. Also,
why are you trying to confuse people about how lenses are built? A
400mm lens at f4 requires the identical clear aperture as a 200mm lens
at f2.0., 100mm. If you DO have a 400mm f4 lens that is the same
length as the 200mm f2.0, IMO, it's not going to be a very good lens
at all because they'd have had to use highly curved elements to
achieve that kind of focal ratio in a small package and this is NEVER
the best way to achieve a high quality optic as lens tolerance
requirement skyrocket in production. Not very good unless they spend
a huge amount of money and I think Canon's 200mm f2.0 proves that.
But then the consumer is going to spend that as well. Talk about
"overbuilt!"

Also, what isn't mentioned are obvious economies of scale. Canon will
sell 20x the number of pro lenses (if not far more) than Olympus and
that has to mean cheaper production costs.

> This is most blatant in the Olympus 35-100/2.0 vs. the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS.
>
> The 70-200/4.0 is is cheaper, lighter, focuses closer, uses a smaller
> filter, and is shorter than the 35-100/2.0.

You mean that off-the-shelf 1980s $200.00 80-200mm telezoom Canon
painted white and stuck a $900.00 sticker on? You think that will
compare to Olympus's 35-100mm? Ha!! Nearly all of Olympus's lenses
from kit to top pro can be used wide open and still deliver excellent
results. You can't say that about any other camera line's lenses.

> The price of the Olympus lenses means that by the time you've built a
> system, you'd have been better off with a 5D.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I'll never contend that Canon's sensors are anything but good, and the
5D was a watershed in DSLRs, but it still has the same shortcomings of
any FF (or should I say, 35mm film sensor sized digital?).
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article 

On Feb 12, 8:08 pm, frederick <l... DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:
> RichA wrote:

> > I don't know what you are talking about. If your goal with a zoom is
> > reach, the 1.5 and FF will always lose, given similar lenses. The E-3
> > will put 10 megapixels on the scene, the Nikon 1.5 crop about 6, a 12
> > meg FF, about 4 with these lenses. The long end of the Olympus is
> > functioning at 400mm, the Nikon at 300mm with the 1.5 crop and 200mm
> > with the FF.
>
> >
> With reach comes fast shutter speeds and/or increased ISO.
> A 300mm f4 on ff is almost identical to a 200mm f2.8 on APS-c in all
> practical characteristics, and has the same DOF at f4 as the 200mm at
> f2.8 on APS-c. The fast glass is *needed* for 4/3 - the system isn't as
> good as ff or aps-c without it.

True, so it's a good think Olympus lenses perform superbly wide open,
even the cheap ones.

> Yeah - I get the point about pixel density, but that's a situation that
> doesn't apply once high pixel density larger sensors (ie 1dsIII & cam
> with new sony sensor) become available. At the moment, if you can
> afford a 1dsIII, you can probably afford the long fast glass anyway.

But can you mount it and carry it easily? Olympus's "600mm
equivalent" is oddly similar to a FF's 300mm f2.8 in size and Canon
and Nikon 600mm are, well, large.

> >> I've never seen one. Not in a store, never in use.
>
> > Olympus as a pro camera is definitely not mainstream, but if you can
> > afford the lenses, they likely outperform anything else out there.
>
> Do they?
> I'd like to see some proof of that. For resolution, I doubt it, as they
> are hobbled by the high pixel density sensor that doesn't cut it with
> the big(ger) boys.

Ok, but resolution, DR and noise are not inextricably linked, just
partially linked.

> > Didn't the 35-100mm f2.0 win "Zoom of the Year" from some German
> > magazine based on it's optical quality?
>
> >
> It's the germanic sense of humour - they find things like that funny.
> Ask wolfie about it.
> The gave the A class Mercedes awards too.

I don't know. Run a few other lenses at 60lpmm and see what the MTF
looks like wide open. I doubt any except a very few will keep up to
Olympus's top pro lenses.
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article 

"____" <internetphobic.TakeThisOut@deletedmail.com> wrote in message
news:internetphobic-AD0946.19383712022008@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <47b165f7$0$277$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
> "Toby" <kymarto.TakeThisOut@hol.com> wrote:
>
>> I think one look at side-by-side images produced by two ~12Mp cameras,
>> the
>> Nikon D300 and the D3, especially as regards noise and shadow detail,
>> pretty
>> much gives the lie to this rant, at least insofar as present technology
>> is
>> concerned.
>>
>> Toby
>
> You should learn to read before posting.

You should learn to give references to what you refer when posting.

Toby
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article 

"RichA" <rander3127 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know what you are talking about.

That's obvious.

Here's the clue you need: the 4/3 sensor's pixels are 1/4 the size of FF's
pixles for the same pixel count.

So they collect 1/4 of the light.

So at ISO 100, a 4/3 camera's images have the same noise characteristics as
FF has at ISO 400.

So a FF camera at f/4.0 and ISO 400 provides the same image quality and
shutter speed as a 4/3 camera at f/2.0.

> If your goal with a zoom is
> reach, the 1.5 and FF will always lose, given similar lenses.

But the difference is nowhere near as large as you think. A 400/4.0 for FF
ought to be longer and heavier (but the same outer diameter) as, and
probably more expensive than, a 200/2.0 for 4/3. But for some reason,
Olympus overbuilds their better lenses, so the equivalent lens on 4/3 is
more expensive and heavier than the FF equivalent for most of the high-end
lenses.

This is most blatant in the Olympus 35-100/2.0 vs. the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS.

The 70-200/4.0 is is cheaper, lighter, focuses closer, uses a smaller
filter, and is shorter than the 35-100/2.0.

The price of the Olympus lenses means that by the time you've built a
system, you'd have been better off with a 5D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article 

"____" <internetphobic DeleteThis @deletedmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3127 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 10:04 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi... DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:
>> > "RichA" <rander3... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Canon's 200mm f2.0 will cost between $5000-$6000. Pathetic.
>> >
>> > What's pathetic is people who don't understand that the f stop
>> > determines
>> > the flux _per unit area_ at the sensor and that the 4/3 camera's
>> > pixels,
>> > being only 1/4 the area of a FF camera's pixels, only collect 1/4 of
>> > the
>> > light. So to match the IQ (and DOF) that Canon's 200mm f/2.8 lens
>> > delivers,
>> > Olympus must have an f/1.4 100mmm lens.
>> >
>> > But they don't.
>> >
>> > And they certainly don't have the f/0.9 100mm lens they need to match
>> > the
>> > 200/1.8.
>> >
>> > And they also don't have the f/0.7 25mm lens they need to match the
>> > Canon
>> > 50/1.4. Or the 50/1.0 they need to match the 100/2.0.
>>
>> Why are you stuck on all those ancient, old film lenses?
>
> Because they are fast and sharp? just a guess.

And affordable.

And that they actually exist is a plus, too.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article 

RichA wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:08 pm, frederick <l... DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>
>>> I don't know what you are talking about. If your goal with a zoom is
>>> reach, the 1.5 and FF will always lose, given similar lenses. The E-3
>>> will put 10 megapixels on the scene, the Nikon 1.5 crop about 6, a 12
>>> meg FF, about 4 with these lenses. The long end of the Olympus is
>>> functioning at 400mm, the Nikon at 300mm with the 1.5 crop and 200mm
>>> with the FF.
>> >
>> With reach comes fast shutter speeds and/or increased ISO.
>> A 300mm f4 on ff is almost identical to a 200mm f2.8 on APS-c in all
>> practical characteristics, and has the same DOF at f4 as the 200mm at
>> f2.8 on APS-c. The fast glass is *needed* for 4/3 - the system isn't as
>> good as ff or aps-c without it.
>
> True, so it's a good think Olympus lenses perform superbly wide open,
> even the cheap ones.
>
Despite what you say about Canon, so does the 70-200 f4l, and the non-IS
version costs bugger all!

>
>> Yeah - I get the point about pixel density, but that's a situation that
>> doesn't apply once high pixel density larger sensors (ie 1dsIII & cam
>> with new sony sensor) become available. At the moment, if you can
>> afford a 1dsIII, you can probably afford the long fast glass anyway.
>
> But can you mount it and carry it easily? Olympus's "600mm
> equivalent" is oddly similar to a FF's 300mm f2.8 in size and Canon
> and Nikon 600mm are, well, large.
>
But it isn't as fast taking noise performance, focal length equivalent
etc in to account. I'm not picking a fight here. There are some real
advantages to smaller format in cost/performance. Also it might be cool
to have f2.8 @ 300mm on full frame, but the DOF is so shallow that it is
extremely limiting to ever use it. Of course these days people post
web-sized images of this shallow DOF for a wow factor. Print the image
at a reasonable size, and it might look like total crud.
>
>>>> I've never seen one. Not in a store, never in use.
>>> Olympus as a pro camera is definitely not mainstream, but if you can
>>> afford the lenses, they likely outperform anything else out there.
>> Do they?
>> I'd like to see some proof of that. For resolution, I doubt it, as they
>> are hobbled by the high pixel density sensor that doesn't cut it with
>> the big(ger) boys.
>
> Ok, but resolution, DR and noise are not inextricably linked, just
> partially linked.
>
>>> Didn't the 35-100mm f2.0 win "Zoom of the Year" from some German
>>> magazine based on it's optical quality?
>> >
>> It's the germanic sense of humour - they find things like that funny.
>> Ask wolfie about it.
>> The gave the A class Mercedes awards too.
>
> I don't know. Run a few other lenses at 60lpmm and see what the MTF
> looks like wide open. I doubt any except a very few will keep up to
> Olympus's top pro lenses.

On a larger sensor, they don't need it.
Whack a 2x TC on the lens so it covers FF, and see how it looks then.
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article 

On Feb 13, 12:58 am, frederick <l....RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 8:08 pm, frederick <l....RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
> >> RichA wrote:
>
> >>> I don't know what you are talking about. If your goal with a zoom is
> >>> reach, the 1.5 and FF will always lose, given similar lenses. The E-3
> >>> will put 10 megapixels on the scene, the Nikon 1.5 crop about 6, a 12
> >>> meg FF, about 4 with these lenses. The long end of the Olympus is
> >>> functioning at 400mm, the Nikon at 300mm with the 1.5 crop and 200mm
> >>> with the FF.
>
> >> With reach comes fast shutter speeds and/or increased ISO.
> >> A 300mm f4 on ff is almost identical to a 200mm f2.8 on APS-c in all
> >> practical characteristics, and has the same DOF at f4 as the 200mm at
> >> f2.8 on APS-c. The fast glass is *needed* for 4/3 - the system isn't as
> >> good as ff or aps-c without it.
>
> > True, so it's a good think Olympus lenses perform superbly wide open,
> > even the cheap ones.
>
> >
> Despite what you say about Canon, so does the 70-200 f4l, and the non-IS
> version costs bugger all!
>
>
>
> >> Yeah - I get the point about pixel density, but that's a situation that
> >> doesn't apply once high pixel density larger sensors (ie 1dsIII & cam
> >> with new sony sensor) become available. At the moment, if you can
> >> afford a 1dsIII, you can probably afford the long fast glass anyway.
>
> > But can you mount it and carry it easily? Olympus's "600mm
> > equivalent" is oddly similar to a FF's 300mm f2.8 in size and Canon
> > and Nikon 600mm are, well, large.
>
> >
> But it isn't as fast taking noise performance, focal length equivalent
> etc in to account. I'm not picking a fight here. There are some real
> advantages to smaller format in cost/performance. Also it might be cool
> to have f2.8 @ 300mm on full frame, but the DOF is so shallow that it is
> extremely limiting to ever use it.

I think they are best served shooting sports events where the people,
cars, whatever are a decent distance from the lens.

> >>>> I've never seen one. Not in a store, never in use.
> >>> Olympus as a pro camera is definitely not mainstream, but if you can
> >>> afford the lenses, they likely outperform anything else out there.
> >> Do they?
> >> I'd like to see some proof of that. For resolution, I doubt it, as they
> >> are hobbled by the high pixel density sensor that doesn't cut it with
> >> the big(ger) boys.
>
> > Ok, but resolution, DR and noise are not inextricably linked, just
> > partially linked.
>
> >>> Didn't the 35-100mm f2.0 win "Zoom of the Year" from some German
> >>> magazine based on it's optical quality?
>
> >> It's the germanic sense of humour - they find things like that funny.
> >> Ask wolfie about it.
> >> The gave the A class Mercedes awards too.
>
> > I don't know. Run a few other lenses at 60lpmm and see what the MTF
> > looks like wide open. I doubt any except a very few will keep up to
> > Olympus's top pro lenses.
>
> On a larger sensor, they don't need it.
> Whack a 2x TC on the lens so it covers FF, and see how it looks then.

Less sharp?
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-full frame article