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

[Darmok N Jalad]

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.

The 40-150 2.8 is listed at 1.67lbs.

 

[ac12]

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.

Correction: The Olympus 40-150/2.8 is 760g = 27oz = 1.7 pounds

As I said before f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of sensor of film format.

Saying the Sony 70-200/2.8 does not have a m4/3 equivalent is getting into the sensor comparison issue, not the lens.
And it is 3.3 pounds, without the tripod mount, almost 2x heavier than the 40-150/2.8.

For me, THAT weight is a major negative, and the primary reason that I use the Nikon 70-200/4 rather than the 2x heavier 70-200/2.8.​

 

[elwappo99]

Correction: The Olympus 40-150/2.8 is 760g = 27oz = 1.7 pounds

As I said before f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of sensor of film format.

Saying the Sony 70-200/2.8 does not have a m4/3 equivalent is getting into the sensor comparison issue, not the lens.
And it is 3.3 pounds, without the tripod mount, almost 2x heavier than the 40-150/2.8.

For me, THAT weight is a major negative, and the primary reason that I use the Nikon 70-200/4 rather than the 2x heavier 70-200/2.8.​

I see now another site that breaks it up into weight w/ or w/o the tripod collar. So if you wanted to remove the tripod collar it's 1.7lbs, and the Sony 70-200mm @ 1.9lbs is also without the collar. Either way, I don't see a 'massive' difference in weight, as is claimed.

I don't think I follow your argument on aperature. To compare apples to apples you need to take into account the sensor size. This applies to depth of field, and also the sensitivity of the sensor.

 

[ac12]

I see now another site that breaks it up into weight w/ or w/o the tripod collar. So if you wanted to remove the tripod collar it's 1.7lbs, and the Sony 70-200mm @ 1.9lbs is also without the collar. Either way, I don't see a 'massive' difference in weight, as is claimed.

I don't think I follow your argument on aperature. To compare apples to apples you need to take into account the sensor size. This applies to depth of field, and also the sensitivity of the sensor.

What is your ruler?
It is clear that we are using and arguing with different rulers.

You are comparing the weight of the Olympus 40-150/2.8 to the Sony 70-200/4, not the almost 2x heavier 70-200/2.8.

If you take the sensor into consideration, you are comparing the lens AND the sensor/camera, not just the lens.
In which case, the FF focal length equivalent to the 40-150/2.8 would be an 80-300 lens, not a 70-200.

How big and heavy would a FF 80-300/2.8 or even 80-300/4 lens be?​

The best focal length equivalent to the FF 70-200 is the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 which at 360g is 0.8 pounds. Which is less than half the weight of the 70-200/4.

DoF is of no consideration to me, as I compare lenses. In fact I usually want MORE DoF, not less. So the DoF equivalence argument is not relevant, at all.

 

[elwappo99]

What is your ruler?
It is clear that we are using and arguing with different rulers.

You are comparing the weight of the Olympus 40-150/2.8 to the Sony 70-200/4, not the almost 2x heavier 70-200/2.8.

If you take the sensor into consideration, you are comparing the lens AND the sensor/camera, not just the lens.
In which case, the FF focal length equivalent to the 40-150/2.8 would be an 80-300 lens, not a 70-200.

How big and heavy would a FF 80-300/2.8 or even 80-300/4 lens be?​

When accounting for the lens length, aperature, and sensor size a 40-150mm f2.8 on m4/3 is not equivalent in aperature to a 70-200mm f2.8 ff sensor. You will have a 2 stop difference between the two. An equivalent light gathering of the f2.8 on mft would be a f5.6 on FF.

 

[RichardC]

Good grief, not again.

 

[ac12]

When accounting for the lens length, aperature, and sensor size a 40-150mm f2.8 on m4/3 is not equivalent in aperature to a 70-200mm f2.8 ff sensor. You will have a 2 stop difference between the two. An equivalent light gathering of the f2.8 on mft would be a f5.6 on FF.

Yes, the 40-150/2.8 is NOT equivalent to a 70-200, it is equivalent to an 80-300.
And by your equivalence an 80-300/5.6 constant aperture pro level zoom.

That is the end of this bantering.

 

[wimg]

When accounting for the lens length, aperature, and sensor size a 40-150mm f2.8 on m4/3 is not equivalent in aperature to a 70-200mm f2.8 ff sensor. You will have a 2 stop difference between the two. An equivalent light gathering of the f2.8 on mft would be a f5.6 on FF.

No, actually, as that is only about DoF, not about light gathering per area unit. Light gathering is about sensor area and sensel size or site size in the first place. What I get into at other forums argument wise is that there is a big difference between FF equivalent, and actual lens apertures. Aperture is aperture, whatever the lens or system supported by that lens. For different formats it only means that the imaging circle is smaller. However, the light intensity, or amount of light per area unit, whatever you use, stil is the same. The lens just covers a bigger or smaller image circle based on the format it was designed for.

The equivalency arguments arise from the fact that the sensor area of an MFT sensor is 4x smaller, or 2 stops, sizewise than a FF sensor is. Therefore a FF sensor collects 4x more light in total than an MFT sensor - purely because of size. Just like 4 solar panels (FF) gather 4x the light than a single solar panel does (MFT), and generate 4x more power than the single panel option, at the same light intensity. Now, at the same image display size, it means that the MFT image has been enlarged 4x (2x linear) and therefore will show more noise - that's logical.

Same with ISO, in principle, all things being equal, it will have a 2-stop disadvantage, in exactly the same way.

As to DoF, that is purely caused by the smaller FLs required to get the same magnifaction for the smaller sensor. If you need a 150 mm lens for MFT, it will have approximately twice the DoF of a 300 mm lens on FF at the same aperture, purely because of the FL being twice as small.

Regarding aperture size, there is an advantage with MFT. Yes, there appears to be a problem with diffraction on mFT compared to FF, due to CoC. However CoC of an MFT sensor based camera is much smaller than that of a FF camera, which mitigates this to a degree, unless image enlargements get too big - there the FF camera is at an advantage. Lens diffraction is a different matter altogether however, as that is purely determined by aperture, and nothing else. Here, IOW, the MFT lens is at an advantage, as for the same DoF you can actually open the aperture of an MFT lens 2 stops compared to an FF lens, which immediately means you have a 2 stop lens diffraction advantage. And lens diffraction is always active, at any aperture, even if soem peopel want you to believe otherwise. It's lens diffraction, f.e., at F/8 on MFT, vs F/16 on FF. F/8 is just fine, F/16 is already in diffraction diffusing sharpness reducing territory.

Having said all that, it is really all quite theoretical. We passed film resolution way back when digital reached 6-8 MP for amateurs, and 12 MP for professionals. DR of film was at best between 6 (colour slides) and 10 (the right B&W negatives) stops. We could still take nice pictures, professional pictures etc. And look where we are now .....

Kind regards, Wim

 

[RS86]

Lens diffraction is a different matter altogether however, as that is purely determined by aperture, and nothing else. Here, IOW, the MFT lens is at an advantage, as for the same DoF you can actually open the aperture of an MFT lens 2 stops compared to an FF lens, which immediately means you have a 2 stop lens diffraction advantage. And lens diffraction is always active, at any aperture, even if soem peopel want you to believe otherwise. It's lens diffraction, f.e., at F/8 on MFT, vs F/16 on FF. F/8 is just fine, F/16 is already in diffraction diffusing sharpness reducing territory.

I have asked this here earlier, but didn't get an answer or didn't understand it. It baffles me how in most places it is said that with M43 diffraction starts earlier and is seen as an issue compared to FF for example.

However when I shoot macro with M43, I use mostly f/13, which is f/26 in FF terms. According to Lenstip the Olympus 60mm Macro resolution is still above the "decency level".

I have compared it to the revered Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro in Lenstip. It goes below "decency level" at f/16. f/22 is the maximum with that lens so I cannot even get the DoF of f/26 with it?

I really don't understand why the diffraction would be such a problem with M43 compared to FF. Do they forget the DoF advantage of the smaller sensor in those claims or what? Or is it just a statement that is misleading eventhough true in scientific terms?

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Sorry to start a...thing.


But, to add some scientific measures, I happen to have both a scale and the 40-150 2.8, so I can put that issue to bed. I was a little surprised, as I used the B&H site for the product weight of 1.67lbs—I assumed that would be with all the trimmings, but you know what assuming gets you.

40-150 2.8 with hood and foot — 2.2lbs
40-150 2.8 with hood — 2.0lbs
40-150 2.8 without hood — 1.6lbs

Full disclosure, I left my UV filter on for this test.

 

[994]

Sorry to start a...thing.


But, to add some scientific measures, I happen to have both a scale and the 40-150 2.8, so I can put that issue to bed. I was a little surprised, as I used the B&H site for the product weight of 1.67lbs—I assumed that would be with all the trimmings, but you know what assuming gets you.

40-150 2.8 with hood and foot — 2.2lbs
40-150 2.8 with hood — 2.0lbs
40-150 2.8 without hood — 1.6lbs

Full disclosure, I left my UV filter on for this test.

So your UV filter weights .53 pounds!!

 

[tkbslc]

I never got the point of the m4/3 lenses that tried to be too fast. An f1.2 lens on m4/3 is bigger, heavier and more expensive than an f1.8 lens on FF. And it gives you less low light and bokeh-licious capabilities. Seems like if you are after that, just get a FF system.

I kind of feel like this is the same in the other direction. Everyone getting all excited for an extra long F11 super prime for canon when they could just get an (even smaller) 100-400 on a Panasonic. And the 100-400 actually comes with some zoom range so it's usable. (You ever try finding your target with an 800mm equiv prime lens!? )

There are some things FF will never have, like a 100g pancake 24-64mm (like the 12-32) or a 4" super telephoto like the 45-200.

 

[PakkyT]

An equivalent light gathering of the f2.8 on mft would be a f5.6 on FF.

No.

And it gives you less low light and bokeh-licious capabilities.

Are you talking about DoF capabilities? Bokeh is not the same thing as DoF.

 

[elwappo99]

Sorry to start a...thing.


But, to add some scientific measures, I happen to have both a scale and the 40-150 2.8, so I can put that issue to bed. I was a little surprised, as I used the B&H site for the product weight of 1.67lbs—I assumed that would be with all the trimmings, but you know what assuming gets you.

40-150 2.8 with hood and foot — 2.2lbs
40-150 2.8 with hood — 2.0lbs
40-150 2.8 without hood — 1.6lbs

Full disclosure, I left my UV filter on for this test.

n=1. To be more scientific I think you should order 5 copies and weigh them all.

I never got the point of the m4/3 lenses that tried to be too fast. An f1.2 lens on m4/3 is bigger, heavier and more expensive than an f1.8 lens on FF. And it gives you less low light and bokeh-licious capabilities. Seems like if you are after that, just get a FF system.

I kind of feel like this is the same in the other direction. Everyone getting all excited for an extra long F11 super prime for canon when they could just get an (even smaller) 100-400 on a Panasonic. And the 100-400 actually comes with some zoom range so it's usable. (You ever try finding your target with an 800mm equiv prime lens!? )

There are some things FF will never have, like a 100g pancake 24-64mm (like the 12-32) or a 4" super telephoto like the 45-200.

Totally agree with this. I started looking at m43 after a 3 years FF break. I did not understand the influx of "fast" primes at the over $1k mark. It seems like it doesn't play to the system's strengths (size, weight, cost).

 

[PakkyT]

I did not understand the influx of "fast" primes at the over $1k mark. It seems like it doesn't play to the system's strengths (size, weight, cost).

But like we have said to all the other people before you who made the same comment, none of these lenses displaced the small and cheap versions already in the lineup. All are still available and you can pick which fit your needs best.

Oly has always been kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. "How come you are not making better professional lenses?" says one group followed by "why are you making all these big professional lenses?" People like to complain about having too many chooses I guess. Anyone who came into m43 from 4/3rds knows that if you wanted a fast prime, you were not getting it from Olympus. Panasonic I think only made a total of 4 lenses for the system, and we had to depend a lot of Sigma to give us ones neither Oly or Panny would make. How times have changed. I will never complain about Oly making too many lenses for us to try if we want.

 

[Holoholo55]

Speaking of slow FF lenses. Consider these.

https://petapixel.com/2020/07/06/he...nons-new-rf-600mm-f-11-and-800mm-f-11-lenses/

I find it a little hard to believe they're serious about this, but seeing is believing. Do your equivalency calculations on these!

 

[Aristophanes]

Speaking of slow FF lenses. Consider these.

https://petapixel.com/2020/07/06/he...nons-new-rf-600mm-f-11-and-800mm-f-11-lenses/

I find it a little hard to believe they're serious about this, but seeing is believing. Do your equivalency calculations on these!

They are about right-pricing the occasional long glass market using a high ISO, stabilized, FF mirrorless camera, in a compact, lightweight package. It will depend on the IQ for the cost.

 

[panamike]

The problem is that DSLRs went gonzo for fast glass. 35mm film SLRs never had anything faster than f4 once you hit 300mm and beyond 500mm f8 was considered fast!

These new "slow" lenses are just a return to optical and financial sanity as far as I'm concerned.

Plus we didn't have the ISOs in film to make the most of the slow lenses

 

[John King]

My new T Model Ford arrives next week ... .

 

[Aristophanes]

I have asked this here earlier, but didn't get an answer or didn't understand it. It baffles me how in most places it is said that with M43 diffraction starts earlier and is seen as an issue compared to FF for example.

However when I shoot macro with M43, I use mostly f/13, which is f/26 in FF terms. According to Lenstip the Olympus 60mm Macro resolution is still above the "decency level".

I have compared it to the revered Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro in Lenstip. It goes below "decency level" at f/16. f/22 is the maximum with that lens so I cannot even get the DoF of f/26 with it?

I really don't understand why the diffraction would be such a problem with M43 compared to FF. Do they forget the DoF advantage of the smaller sensor in those claims or what? Or is it just a statement that is misleading eventhough true in scientific terms?

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

https://www.photopills.com/calculators/diffraction

Note that PhotoPills has a Macro Diffraction Calculator as well.