f/2.8 not enough?

mesmerized

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
432
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
 

HappyFish

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
982
Real Name
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
 

phl0wtography

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
227
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...
 

robbie36

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,579
Location
Bangkok
Real Name
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.
 

RichardB

Snapshooter
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
495
Location
Maryland, US
Real Name
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."
 

ido

New to Mu-43
Joined
Apr 5, 2014
Messages
4
"Olympus 12-40mm f2.8: We believe that f2.8 is too slow for mirrorless cameras in general, but this is the lens that was designed for this camera. It also received an Editor’s Choice rating from us."

Source: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/09/30/review-olympus-omd-em1-micro-four-thirds-slightly-nsfw/#.Uz-1L_l_tp4

Sorry, it's not Photoblogger, it's Phoblographer.
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.
 

ido

New to Mu-43
Joined
Apr 5, 2014
Messages
4
Relative to a DSLR sensor, a Micro Four Thirds sensor is small.
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.
 

darosk

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
706
Location
Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
Real Name
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.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Relative to a DSLR sensor, a Micro Four Thirds sensor is small.
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.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
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.
Every time I see a reference to that site I think of Faux Blogger or Faux Photographer. :)
 

MrKal_El

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
661
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)...
 

Zee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
575
Location
Surry Hills, Aus/ Baguio & Manila, Philippines
...

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.
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...
 

Rasmus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
780
Location
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.
 

DoofClenas

Who needs a Mirror!
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
1,278
Location
Traverse City, MI
Real Name
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.
 
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