Every argument we ever tried to make about m43 - now DPR is a genius

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,934
Location
Boston
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
This luxury wasn't available with DSLRs because the optical viewfinders would be unusably dim with F/8 lenses but thanks to mirrorless, it's feasible.
I remember the excitement 10 years ago +\- when DSLRs started to boast of AF points working well at f/5.6. Losing AF with only an OVF would make it very hard to focus. Even with a manual focusing screen installed on my 6D, I found it pretty hard to manual focus.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,934
Location
Boston
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #22
While it’s great to get smaller lenses now for FF and the bodies are smaller, I don’t think we will ever see a FF kit as small as the EPM2/GM5/GX850 with a P20. Maybe cell phones have replaced those forever, but some of us enjoyed them. (And even my iPhone-11 pro doesn’t take pics to match a DP2 or GX850. Still too much water color effect on the phone pics)
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,422
Location
New England
The Sony A7 III (24MP) pixel size is half that of the A7S and it performs as good in low light - both are full-frame
And they should not come with new technology bla bla bla - the premise was always and again in this fake video full frame is better...
Man, you really are a broken record. :coco:
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,037
Location
Los Angeles, USA
As someone who currently shoots with Sony FF, Nikon DSLRs and Nikon 1 J5 (1" sensor) different formats have different advantages. I think when the price points of higher end M43 gear converge with mid-range FF gear, there's going to be some overlap. The amazing things with M43 is that you can mount some of these high end Olympus Pro and Pan-Leica glass to something as small as an E-PM2 or GM5. For me, it was more price efficient to buy fire sale Nikon 1 gear and use the FT1 adapter when I wanted additional reach using my Nikon F-mount lenses, while keeping a small set of native Nikon 1 lenses when I want to go compact.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,103
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Canon the creators of the full-frame is better narrative first needs to get their house in order... They have:-
- No clear strategy - is it DSLR or are they, at last, going full mirrorless?
- What is their product line up - call it out like OMD, GH series, Pen, A7 series, XT series
- What is the RiP, R, R5, R7, R8 - when will which come and what will it have?
- It's no strategy to throw everything you have in a product, 8K, 6K RAW, plus plus..., and hope something hits the mark
- You will never repeat the 300D low price genius plan again - the market is too different (only Canon will sell a FF at less than the A7 2nd-hand)
- The M series APC cameras is a joke
- The new R series lenses are huge and unpractical - again packed with gimmicks

No really they excellent at marketing, but if they will only focus that energy on next-gen products...

Something you never expect - even when the financials indicate the opposite - Nikon has a much clearer mirrorless product path and positioning, don't be surprised if Nikon is the one that will go ahead into the future and not Canon...

The end of the economic catastrophe the virus fear mongers are pushing is the big unknown... (have they learned nothing?)
Not sure where you get your info...

Canon has the muscle to make both DSLRs and mirrorless. They dominate professional shooting even with Sony encroachment. Pros still buy DSLRs because they are tested, robust, workhorses with a huge array of support. Only Canon has that pro revenue stream.

R isn’t the greatest, but the RP is a loss leader and sells in volume, a key Canon strategy even in a market decline. That is their 300D, and is rumoured to have a 2021 upgrade at the same price point. Canon are vertically integrated and can do both this and the R8. 8k cinema is likely Netflix ready. They are definitely not throwing noodles at a wall.

The RF lenses are all excellent. They have a clear progression and finished the trinity already. They will expand their L glass—the most successful lens line in history, even over Leica—and work on lower end DO and STM. The RF line has a wedding photographer’s dream kit, the 70-200/2.8 is compact and well-received, and anyone proposing f/11 600 and 800 telephotos has done serious market research.

The M-series APS-C is the largest selling mirrorless product line. It is clearly positioned below any FF models pricewise, unlike Olympus which is losing considerably much more $$ than Canon or Nikon trying to price smaller sensor bodies at FF tiers. Canon isn’t trying to make the smaller sensor the profitable business driver, unlike Olympus, because they don’t have to. If smaller sensors are unprofitable, all Canon will do is use the M-series as entry-level, “not a smartphone” products. They get the brand out there. There won’t be 3 lenses new a year, but that’s not the point.

Even in a declining market, all 3 big brands (and Fuji) continue a robust development and release stream. They will hit price pressures on the mid- to low-end, but some of their “halo” products are doing their job. Canon appears to have a slow and steady approach to the mirrorless transition and by focusing on their pro market, even diminished, they look best-placed.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
824
Location
Tanagra (not really)
Real Name
Randy
Honest question, what would the FF equivalent of the 40-150 2.8 be, how much would it cost, and how much would it weigh?

I've even looked at something like Fuji (though I can't get on board with the body design), and there's a lens in the same ballpark, at least for focal length and price (I'm not great at the conversion equivalencies), but that lens is 2x as heavy, and I have no idea how it compares in terms of results. I'm by no means a weakling, but once a camera + lens gets over the 3lb mark, I start to notice. It's one reason I sent back the PL100-400 (the stiff zoom on my copy being the other). Most long lenses outside of M43 are already past that 3lb mark, and then you still have to bolt a 1lb+ body on to it.

I think the pro glass can really pull M43 out of its wheelhouse. Yes, it completes the lineup for those that want it, and you can get great results from all of it. However, once you're there, the argument to just go FF becomes much stronger if you stay under 300mm. If you go "all pro," the M43 advantages of value, weight, and compactness diminish considerably. M43 is great for the tiny lenses, the smallish long lenses, and the fantastic IBIS.

I've actually started rethinking how I use the form factor, or at least gone somewhat back to what drew me here in the first place. I'm sticking with the "pro" long end, but I'm going toward some primes I can pocket for the short end. I've found that I use my 40-150 all the time, so much so that I'd rather go out without the shorter tele-lenses I owned because I don't want to carry them in a bag and they won't fit in a pocket. 2-3 primes and a TC can fit in cargo pockets rather easily. Why not throw a second battery in there too? :)
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,422
Location
New England
Honest question, what would the FF equivalent of the 40-150 2.8 be, how much would it cost, and how much would it weigh?
It really depends on what "equivalence" you are talking about.

For Field of View (FoV) that one is easy and this lens gives you the same FoV as a 80-300mm would on a FF camera.

For aperture, when talking about basic exposure then f2.8 is f2.8 no matter what system you use the lens on. So in FF you would have an 80-300mm f2.8.

But where people sometimes talk about "aperture equivalence" they are talking about how small of a Depth of Field (DoF) you can get with a particular lens and system. In general the simple (if not entirely accurate) answer is if you want at least as narrow a DoF on FF as you get from your m43 gear, you can get it on a FF lens that is two stops slower. Meaning on FF, f5.6 will get you to the same narrowest DoF as you get with the m43 f2.8 lens.

People often over simplify and state a certain sensor size will give you a certain DoF, but this isn't truly accurate. The sensor itself has nothing to do with the DoF directly. DoF is basically a combination of focal length, aperture, and subject distance from your camera. Why people say the sensor changes DoF is because what really happens is the sensor used changes you FoV, so in order to get the same framing (magnification) of your subject in the photo, when you switch between systems, you now have to either change your focal length and/or change your distance between subject and camera. THAT is what actually changes the DoF, not simply changing the sensor behind a lens.

OK so back to your question, if you are simply interested in exposure and not having super small DoF, then the equivalent is 80-300/2.8.
If you instead are concerned with getting small DoF for say portrait work or other artistic needs, 80-300/5.6 will match your m43 lens.

As to size and weight an easy way to check is see if you can find something close to those two lenses from manufacturers and that will give you a decent idea of size and weight. But one estimate you can make is with the diameter of the front of the lens.The "entrance pupil" is when you look into the front of your lens it is the apparent diameter of the aperture (which may be different than the physical diameter). That "entrance pupil" diameter is your focal length divided by your f-stop. For longer focal lengths the "entrance pupil" will be fairly close to the actual diameter of your front element. So this means for the 80-300 you use the 300 number and for the f2.8 it will have a front element of 107+ mm (BIG!) while the f5.6 will be around 54+ mm. As you can quick gauge there will be a notable size difference between those two lenses.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
824
Location
Tanagra (not really)
Real Name
Randy
It really depends on what "equivalence" you are talking about.

For Field of View (FoV) that one is easy and this lens gives you the same FoV as a 80-300mm would on a FF camera.

For aperture, when talking about basic exposure then f2.8 is f2.8 no matter what system you use the lens on. So in FF you would have an 80-300mm f2.8.

But where people sometimes talk about "aperture equivalence" they are talking about how small of a Depth of Field (DoF) you can get with a particular lens and system. In general the simple (if not entirely accurate) answer is if you want at least as narrow a DoF on FF as you get from your m43 gear, you can get it on a FF lens that is two stops slower. Meaning on FF, f5.6 will get you to the same narrowest DoF as you get with the m43 f2.8 lens.

People often over simplify and state a certain sensor size will give you a certain DoF, but this isn't truly accurate. The sensor itself has nothing to do with the DoF directly. DoF is basically a combination of focal length, aperture, and subject distance from your camera. Why people say the sensor changes DoF is because what really happens is the sensor used changes you FoV, so in order to get the same framing (magnification) of your subject in the photo, when you switch between systems, you now have to either change your focal length and/or change your distance between subject and camera. THAT is what actually changes the DoF, not simply changing the sensor behind a lens.

OK so back to your question, if you are simply interested in exposure and not having super small DoF, then the equivalent is 80-300/2.8.
If you instead are concerned with getting small DoF for say portrait work or other artistic needs, 80-300/5.6 will match your m43 lens.

As to size and weight an easy way to check is see if you can find something close to those two lenses from manufacturers and that will give you a decent idea of size and weight. But one estimate you can make is with the diameter of the front of the lens.The "entrance pupil" is when you look into the front of your lens it is the apparent diameter of the aperture (which may be different than the physical diameter). That "entrance pupil" diameter is your focal length divided by your f-stop. For longer focal lengths the "entrance pupil" will be fairly close to the actual diameter of your front element. So this means for the 80-300 you use the 300 number and for the f2.8 it will have a front element of 107+ mm (BIG!) while the f5.6 will be around 54+ mm. As you can quick gauge there will be a notable size difference between those two lenses.
Thanks for this. I knew the crop factor was relatively easy, but the aperture part seems like it gets argued both ways. I think the 2.8 to 5.6 conversion is what I’m talking about. That does seem to put the 3lb mark as an accurate gauge based on what I could see.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,806
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Honest question, what would the FF equivalent of the 40-150 2.8 be, how much would it cost, and how much would it weigh?

. . .

I think the pro glass can really pull M43 out of its wheelhouse. Yes, it completes the lineup for those that want it, and you can get great results from all of it. However, once you're there, the argument to just go FF becomes much stronger if you stay under 300mm. If you go "all pro," the M43 advantages of value, weight, and compactness diminish considerably. M43 is great for the tiny lenses, the smallish long lenses, and the fantastic IBIS.

I've actually started rethinking how I use the form factor, or at least gone somewhat back to what drew me here in the first place. I'm sticking with the "pro" long end, but I'm going toward some primes I can pocket for the short end. I've found that I use my 40-150 all the time, so much so that I'd rather go out without the shorter tele-lenses I owned because I don't want to carry them in a bag and they won't fit in a pocket. 2-3 primes and a TC can fit in cargo pockets rather easily. Why not throw a second battery in there too? :)
m4/3 40-150/2.8 = FF 80-300/2.8 (for exposure)

If you give FF a 1 stop sensor IQ advantage then you would only need an 80-300/4.
If it is a 2 stop advantage, than 80-300/5.6​
Larger in diameter and longer (due to longer FL on the long end), the combination = heavier.

But would anyone make a fixed aperture long zoom today?
All the 70-300 zooms that I looked at are variable aperture lenses.
At the long end, I think everyone has shifted to variable aperture zooms, presumably to reduce cost.

So while they could make a f/5.6 pro zoom, would they?
The market had to pound hard to get the f/4 pro zooms for both Nikon F and Canon ES. The f/4 zoom took sales $$$$$ from the high margin f/2.8 zooms.
I do not see a 70-200/4 on the Z nor RF roadmaps. And Sony still does not have one.​
I think they are going to hold off as long as they can, to get as much revenue out of the 70-200/2.8, before they "have to" bring out the 70-200/4.​
I think a f/5.6 pro zoom would take even more sales from the high margin f/2.8 zooms.
So while it is technically possible, I think from a revenue PoV, the manufacturers will continue to resist the smaller aperture pro lenses.

I think from a marketing PoV.
They want a clear step landscape (consumer, pro f/2.8), not a sloped landscape (low consumer, mid consumer, high consumer, low pro f/5.6, mid pro f/4, high pro f/2.8).
They want to get people UP to the high margin f/2.8 products, not sit in an "in between" f/5.6 level.

So NO, I do not think the FF manufacturers are going to make f/5.6 pro zoom lenses.

What is planned? I do not know. From what I've found and seen:
Nikon's Z lens roadmap ends in 2020.​
The Canon's RF lens roadmap ended in 2019.​
I have not seen a newer roadmap for either company.
So what is planned for the next 3-5 years? When will we see the f/4 trifecta?
 
Last edited:

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
509
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Not sure where you get your info...

Canon has the muscle to make both DSLRs and mirrorless. They dominate professional shooting even with Sony encroachment. Pros still buy DSLRs because they are tested, robust, workhorses with a huge array of support. Only Canon has that pro revenue stream.

R isn’t the greatest, but the RP is a loss leader and sells in volume, a key Canon strategy even in a market decline. That is their 300D, and is rumoured to have a 2021 upgrade at the same price point. Canon are vertically integrated and can do both this and the R8. 8k cinema is likely Netflix ready. They are definitely not throwing noodles at a wall.

The RF lenses are all excellent. They have a clear progression and finished the trinity already. They will expand their L glass—the most successful lens line in history, even over Leica—and work on lower end DO and STM. The RF line has a wedding photographer’s dream kit, the 70-200/2.8 is compact and well-received, and anyone proposing f/11 600 and 800 telephotos has done serious market research.

The M-series APS-C is the largest selling mirrorless product line. It is clearly positioned below any FF models pricewise, unlike Olympus which is losing considerably much more $$ than Canon or Nikon trying to price smaller sensor bodies at FF tiers. Canon isn’t trying to make the smaller sensor the profitable business driver, unlike Olympus, because they don’t have to. If smaller sensors are unprofitable, all Canon will do is use the M-series as entry-level, “not a smartphone” products. They get the brand out there. There won’t be 3 lenses new a year, but that’s not the point.

Even in a declining market, all 3 big brands (and Fuji) continue a robust development and release stream. They will hit price pressures on the mid- to low-end, but some of their “halo” products are doing their job. Canon appears to have a slow and steady approach to the mirrorless transition and by focusing on their pro market, even diminished, they look best-placed.
Interesting... that data thingly we discussed before - you do have the data?
Great to see such a loyal Canon supporter - I thought its only M43 with such loyal support... fanboyish? :)
 
Last edited:

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,422
Location
New England
Is that your best explanation?
Nope, my best explanation was the one I gave back some weeks (or months) ago where for this same apples & oranges comparison when I explained the technical reason why one was better than the other. You conveniently went dark on the subject after that post for a while. But here it is again and it remains an equally flawed comparison now as it did then.
 
Last edited:

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,422
Location
New England
Thanks for this. I knew the crop factor was relatively easy, but the aperture part seems like it gets argued both ways. I think the 2.8 to 5.6 conversion is what I’m talking about. That does seem to put the 3lb mark as an accurate gauge based on what I could see.
For most of us the "aperture equivalence" thing is not an issue. It is primary a concern for portrait shooters or other shooting where you actually want thin DoF and usually a concern for focal lengths roughly below the 100mm FF mark. Most of us don't need super shallow DoF and almost no one is looking for a razor thin DoF when talking about 200mm or 300mm focal lengths.

As far as noise issue (which I forgot to mention above), but @ac12 talked about above, one advantage of the m43 system is it is usually smaller and cheaper to get a faster lens in our system, so while FF might brag that they can shoot at f4 or f5.6 with higher ISOs and still be no noisier than our m43, we can simply buy that one or two stops faster lenses without a bank loan or a Sherpa . I will take f2.8 real light exposure on my noisier sensor any day over f5.6 on less noisy sensor but that has to be bumped two stops up in ISO.
 

mike3996

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
322
Location
Finland
I will take f2.8 real light exposure on my noisier sensor any day over f5.6 on less noisy sensor but that has to be bumped two stops up in ISO.
Remaining at base ISO is always a pleasure, no matter the sensor size.

But the fact is that most FF cameras at ISO 800 are as clean as M43 cameras at ISO 200. Where it may break down is when you need to push the file further, may break things apart easier. But this is totally sensor dependent.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,422
Location
New England
Remaining at base ISO is always a pleasure, no matter the sensor size.

But the fact is that most FF cameras at ISO 800 are as clean as M43 cameras at ISO 200. Where it may break down is when you need to push the file further, may break things apart easier. But this is totally sensor dependent.
Yep, but starting off with the faster lens, the great thing is a quality lens lasts you a lot longer than a body. As new bodies come with better noise performance, you still get to take advantage of that fast aperture on an even better sensor. I bought my old Oly 50-200 lens for my E-520 initially. Now I use it on my E-M1. Noise was fairly horrible with the old E-520 so the fast aperture of the 50-200 was greatly appreciated, but now I get to use the same faster aperture on a sensor that is leagues better than the old E-520 one (top ISO was 1600 which was basically unusable, 800 would do if it was the only way to get the shot). Newer sensor can give you the same noise advantage regardless of the type/size as demonstrated here. So always try to go for the better lens when possible.
 

Jay_M

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
549
Location
AZ
Remaining at base ISO is always a pleasure, no matter the sensor size.

But the fact is that most FF cameras at ISO 800 are as clean as M43 cameras at ISO 200. Where it may break down is when you need to push the file further, may break things apart easier. But this is totally sensor dependent.
You have to be careful with Canon, sensor performance isn't always what it should be. Having a 2 stop faster MFT lens would work pretty well against the RP.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

elwappo99

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
28
Location
Los Angeles
m4/3 40-150/2.8 = FF 80-300/2.8 (for exposure)

If you give FF a 1 stop sensor IQ advantage then you would only need an 80-300/4.
If it is a 2 stop advantage, than 80-300/5.6​
Larger in diameter and longer (due to longer FL on the long end), the combination = heavier.

But would anyone make a fixed aperture long zoom today?
All the 70-300 zooms that I looked at are variable aperture lenses.
At the long end, I think everyone has shifted to variable aperture zooms, presumably to reduce cost.

So while they could make a f/5.6 pro zoom, would they?
The market had to pound hard to get the f/4 pro zooms for both Nikon F and Canon ES. The f/4 zoom took sales $$$$$ from the high margin f/2.8 zooms.
I do not see a 70-200/4 on the Z nor RF roadmaps. And Sony still does not have one.​
I think they are going to hold off as long as they can, to get as much revenue out of the 70-200/2.8, before they "have to" bring out the 70-200/4.​
I think a f/5.6 pro zoom would take even more sales from the high margin f/2.8 zooms.
So while it is technically possible, I think from a revenue PoV, the manufacturers will continue to resist the smaller aperture pro lenses.

I think from a marketing PoV.
They want a clear step landscape (consumer, pro f/2.8), not a sloped landscape (low consumer, mid consumer, high consumer, low pro f/5.6, mid pro f/4, high pro f/2.8).
They want to get people UP to the high margin f/2.8 products, not sit in an "in between" f/5.6 level.

So NO, I do not think the FF manufacturers are going to make f/5.6 pro zoom lenses.

What is planned? I do not know. From what I've found and seen:
Nikon's Z lens roadmap ends in 2020.​
The Canon's RF lens roadmap ended in 2019.​
I have not seen a newer roadmap for either company.
So what is planned for the next 3-5 years? When will we see the f/4 trifecta?

It's hard to find the "perfect" equivalent between lens lineups. There's always some small degree of difference, but for the Sony lineup:

Oly 40-150 f2.8 $1500 @ 2lbs
Sony 70-300 f4.5-f5.6 $1300 @ 1.9lbs
Sony 70-200mm f4 $1500 @ 1.9lbs

of course you also have the option of the
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 @ $2600 - Where m4/3 doesn't have an equivalent.
 

exakta

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2015
Messages
705
Honest question, what would the FF equivalent of the 40-150 2.8 be
It would be 80-300/5.6, a focal length/aperture range pretty common in the film days.

Soligor 80-300/5.0

s-l1600.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Soligor 60-300/4.0-5.6

IMG_7788_small.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom