1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

f/2.8 not enough?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by mesmerized, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Howdy,

    I've just read on Photoblogger that f/2.8 might be not enough for mirrorless systems. I'm wondering what reasons for such a statement might be. Could you drop a line here and explain it to me like I'm a 6-year-old?

    Thanks
     
  2. HappyFish

    HappyFish Mu-43 Top Veteran

    983
    Sep 8, 2012
    Chad
    hard to talk to you like a 6 year old when the statement came from someone who must be 2 years old :) meaning you are the bigger of the two :) so its a compliment :)

    link ?

    no idea maybe the same dumb DOF argument for which it also has pros !
    and as I say most portrait guys don't use there 85 on 1.4 all the time ! some do ? for those maybe they should look at med format if they really want to get into dreamy bokeh and look ? and get away from that tiny FF sensor :)

    I am a FF shooter and M4/3 and use both one is not better ? both have pros cons
     
  3. phl0wtography

    phl0wtography Mu-43 Veteran

    227
    Apr 15, 2011
    Without a source and context, it's quite hard to comment on this statement.
    Not enough for what?
    There are mirrorless systems from 1" to medium format. Which systerm is this statement referring to...
     
  4. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
  5. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    I have seem this statement before... It is based on 2 premises...
    1) M43 cameras show more noise than a FF. So while FF at f2.8 might be good enough (say you have to use iso 3200) it might not be good enough for M43 on the basis that quality isnt great at iso 3200.
    2) There are circumstances that you might need a fast prime to get decent enough photos in low light.

    I dont think either comment is particularly unreasonable. Quite a lot of M43 users have say the 25 1.4 as well as the fast zooms for that reason and larger sensors are generally better in low light.
     
  6. phigmov

    phigmov Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 4, 2010
    Its either trolling or click-bait or both.

    Say something ill-informed or contentious to drive page clicks. Just ignore it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    I see. Thanks. I couldn't figure it out why 2.8 wouldn't be enough.
     
  8. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    One person's cheese is another person's rotten milk.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. RichardB

    RichardB Snapshooter

    441
    Nov 19, 2012
    Maryland, US
    Richard
    Obviously, lens aperture is unrelated to viewfinder technology. If anything, a DSLR's optical viewfinder needs a wider-aperture lens in dim light because a mirrorless camera can amplify the available light.

    I think the blogger was assuming that a mirrorless camera would have a smaller sensor than a DSLR. In that (typical) case, the mirrorless camera generally would need a wider aperture in dim light so that it could use a lower ISO to reduce noise to the big-sensor level. (The general rule assumes similar sensor technology in the different-size sensors; a newer small sensor could have less noise than an older large sensor.)

    Also, a photographer who wants narrow depth of field needs a wider aperture on a smaller sensor.

    The blogger would have been more accurate if he had written "small-sensor" instead of "mirrorless."
     
  10. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Actually, m/43s cameras have somewhat more than a small sensor; mobile phones have a small sensor.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. ido

    ido New to Mu-43

    4
    Apr 5, 2014
    Perhaps they're used to the size of their 24-70mm f2.8. A 12-35mm f2.0 would be closer in size to that lens, but the only camera bodies that can make it a balance setup in MFT are the Panasonic GH3 and GH4.

    Actually, they wrote "too slow for mirrorless cameras in general", which means that even APS-C and FF mirrorless systems are included in this dumb statement.

    F2.8 is plenty fast enough for any zoom lens. Olympus had a couple of f2.0 zooms for the Four Thirds system, but they were big and expensive - not exactly MFT's goal.
     
  12. RichardB

    RichardB Snapshooter

    441
    Nov 19, 2012
    Maryland, US
    Richard
    Relative to a DSLR sensor, a Micro Four Thirds sensor is small.
     
  13. ido

    ido New to Mu-43

    4
    Apr 5, 2014
    Four Thirds cameras had the same sensor size.
    Mirrorless cameras with APS-C and FF sensors (from Sony, Fuji, Samsung, Canon, etc.) have bigger-than-4/3 sensors.
    Mirrorless cameras from Pentax and Nikon have smaller-than-4/3 sensors.
     
  14. darosk

    darosk Mu-43 Top Veteran

    705
    Apr 17, 2013
    Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
    Daros
    It's a stupid, generalizing statement. There are plenty of people who go their whole photographic careers with relatively 'slow' kit lenses and still manage to make excellent photos. One of my favorite lenses on my old kit was the Canon 24-105L - the constant f/4 limited it's usefulness (somewhat) indoors, but other than that it was an excellent all-round lens.

    On another unrelated note, in my personal opinion (which people are free to disagree with) the 'Phoblographer' is a terrible name for a website. It might be one of the worst I've ever come across in my 20 years on the internet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Not really. Compared to medium format, FF is small. Compared to a scanning back (4"x5" usually), medium format is small.

    Oh, and I might add that the latest Nikon D4s (FF) is 16MP, which means that it's in the same print production class as any m4/3 or other format 16MP sensor. It really depends on what you are actually comparing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Every time I see a reference to that site I think of Faux Blogger or Faux Photographer. :)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. MrKal_El

    MrKal_El Mu-43 Top Veteran

    661
    Mar 24, 2011
    Everyone knows I love my Micro Four Thirds...but I can see where he is coming from...

    I thoroughly enjoy shooting with my 12-40mm f/2.8...at this point prob my most used and versatile lens...

    That being said, I would be lying that I not am pushing my personal limits in certain pics (esp indoors) in terms of Bokeh, light and ISO.

    I'm not kidding myself in thinking a 12-40mm f/2 etc would even be affordable for me...but I would love it.

    Shooting with my faster primes is usually closer to what I enjoy visually...but you sometimes can't afford the time, effort or limiting FL vs 12-40mm (or 35-100mm)...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Zee

    Zee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Couldn't agree more. My head keeps turning it in to "Fauxblographer"...

    Re F2.8... Would I like a faster ~12-40? Sure, F2 would be wonderful... Would I like ot carry it around? Based on the 12-40, probably not.

    Besides, this is what fast primes are for...

    Z...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Rasmus

    Rasmus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    656
    Nov 16, 2013
    Stockholm, Sweden.
    As usual, one can't usually get everything at the same time in a lens. The 12-35 and the 12-40 are both small and insanely sharp zooms that do a half-decent job in low light. But if you want the ultimate in low light or shallow DOF it's a prime you want. Also, generally I feel speed is more necessary in longer lenses. With a 25mm it's fairly easy got get a sharp hand-held picture with a shutter speed of 1/2 second or so, especially with todays excellent IS systems. A 300 mm lens is far less forgiving, typically one will need 1/300 or so.

    I love my 12-35 and my 35-100, but I keep a range of fast primes around to get good low light shots. And I have a 500mm f/4 that can become 350/2.8 with the metabones speed booster. And if I could afford the legendary Olympus 250mm f/2 I'd get it without hesitation.
     
  20. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    935
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
    If 2.8 is not enough for you, then don't buy one...personally I carry two lenses with me every where I go. The 12-40 and 75. If can't get the DOF with the 12-40 I put on the 75 and shallow DOF the hell out of my subject. No lens is perfect, but these two in hand combined just might be. It's knowing how to use it and knowing each lenses strength and weaknesses.